|
8 months ago ::
Nov 14, 2012 - 6:41PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Mar 17, 2010
|
It occurs to me that some people design adventures and (potential) encounters under the expectation that the characters in the group will all make a substantial contribution in combat. What if that is not the case? What if a group has a few who can whup ass, but the majority are not so hot at laying down the pain? How would you, how could you adjust for those circumstances?
How would your designs change? How would play change; your running of the game, how the players behave, what you focus on, emphasize?
In Mythus certain Vocations (classes) are dedicated to combat, the Cavalier or Soldier for example. Others, such as the Wise Man/Woman, The theurgist, or the Merchant are not. If D&D were the same way, with combat (dealing damage) and non combat classes how would it affect adventure design? Encounters?
How large would the encounters be? How would they tend to behave? Would they be as eager to fight if they included non-combatants in their ranks?
Would you trust a party composed entirely of fighters, if you had a real choice?
(Stray thoughts, comment as you wish.)
One dagger is a plot point. A thousand daggers is inventory. Thank you for disrailing this thread. 
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 14, 2012 - 8:42PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
I'd make encounters that were about more than just killing the other side.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 14, 2012 - 9:02PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2005
|
Make sure your combats are such that the non-combat-focused characters aren't just sitting on the sidelines watching the fighters clean up. Maybe there's nowhere good for them to hide, and they've gotta be evading the bad guys - this not only gives them something to do, but also encourages the fighters to help protect their friends, not just smack their swords on the biggest enemy. Maybe there are some bad guys on the fringes of the fight that the weaker characters can pick fights with while the fighters go toe-to-toe with the main force. For example, while the big brawl is going on in the center of the courtyard, the lightweights can move around the perimeter of the courtyard, killing some frail sling-weilding enemies.
I like playing characters that are lighter in combat, and I don't need to be able to contribute as much as a beefy fighter. I just need something meaningful to do in combat. Shoot, I'd probably have even more fun trying to make the fighters come to my rescue all the time. But if you don't give your noncombat players anything more than chuck rocks at the bad guys for 1d4 damage, they'll get bored real fast.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 15, 2012 - 2:27AM
#4
|
|
|
There are plenty of games that are not focused on combat. WoD, Call of Cthulhu, the Gumshoe System, etc...
As for D&D:
First of all, if we are talking about 4e, this is not an issue. if anything, the fighter is more of a support unit in the fight when compared to the traditional "skills" character, the rogue. Unless a player goes out of their way to ignore the rules, their powers or common sense, their characters WILL make a valuable contribution to combat, and you shouldn't have to deviate from the regular ways of designing an encounter.
If we are talking 3.x, then everything is possible. 3.x is very much a sink-or-swim system mastery game where you can easily end up with a character that cannot do anything, or you can have pun-pun (Who can kill gods before out he gets out of his diapers..) all in the same party. For an open-ended game like this, you need to have an idea about what the players want from the game and see how this reconciles with your plans.
Also, tell your players to read the skill descriptions more carefully. There is plenty you can do in combats with the skills that nobody ever does.
If you are playing earlier editions, grin and chuckle. Encourage your players to think of solutions that are outside of the standard rules of the game so they avoid having to deal with things in terms of combat if combat is a problem.
Would I trust a party consisting only of fighters?
If the alternative would be Magic-Users, Thieves, Travelling Buskers, Clerics of a different faith, or raging barbarians, then the answer is Most Definitely. The fighter has always been the most universally socially accepted class in the D&D Universe.
Mad Scientist
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 15, 2012 - 6:40AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Jun 14, 2009
|
If I had a group like that, where 3 of the 5, for example, were deliberately designed to be bad at combat, I'd probably recommend that we switch systems. Something like FATE would be better suited to the game that group wanted to play.
And I'd sort of wonder how they found their way to my table....since that's not the style of DMing I particularly enjoy. I like playing in games like that, but I don't really care for DMing them.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 15, 2012 - 7:26AM
#6
|
|
|
I'd make encounters that were about more than just killing the other side.
That in itself is not enough. It is all about how much time each player spends at a certain moment at the game. The longer one player has nothing to interact with, the more likely that player is to be really bored. Not too long ago one of my characters was the only one able to do somehting about the true goal of the encounter while the others were busy fighting. It ended up with me being busy 30 seconds for every 25 minutes of the rest and having absolutely no vested interest in what was going on in the fight which was basically a distraction. It was a rather boring 1.5 hours even though what my character did was fairly important for the overall success of the adventure. Of course, the reverse is true as well. I have had my fair share of conversations with players of characters with the silent brooding anti-social types that they designed their PCs and that while I certainly have no objection to run a very combat oriented game his fellow players want something more out of the game. It is also partially up to the player to make sure the PC has something to do in situations that do not involve combat.
In itself I have no issues with systems were not everybody is equally good in a fight. It requires a game though where fights either don't take up much time, or allow the non-combatants to do equally time consuming stuff as the fighters in the company. It is not just about each PC having a shining moment. It is also about how long a character is in the center stage and how much that has to do with character build and player's personality.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 15, 2012 - 9:02AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
I'd make encounters that were about more than just killing the other side.
That in itself is not enough. It is all about how much time each player spends at a certain moment at the game. The longer one player has nothing to interact with, the more likely that player is to be really bored.
I'd make interesting encounters that were about more than just killing the other side, probably inspired by my players telling me what they find interesting, instead of what I think they should find interesting.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 15, 2012 - 12:15PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Mar 17, 2010
|
It is all about how much time each player spends at a certain moment at the game.
Advice: Call upon each player to spend the amount to time, participate to the degree they feel comfortable with. If they feel comfortable with five minutes out of each how, then let them have their five minutes.
Where post battle clean-up is concerned, let the non-combat characters look over the stuff the fighters find and report on it. Means extra work for the DM, but it'll mean a lot for the game.
One dagger is a plot point. A thousand daggers is inventory. Thank you for disrailing this thread.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 15, 2012 - 2:57PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Oct 11, 2010
|
First you don't design encounters to adjust to the characters. 4 Goblins won't show up cause your group can't handle more, they don't care how many you can or can't handle, can't handle more?, than learn to run. Example - Goblins are in a dungeon I have built for the game(I don't do many dungeon crawls within my campaigns but this is just an example), first I figure out why they are there to begin with(most of this may have been justified for me as I designed the dungeon with creatures like goblins in mind, either way a realistic reason for them being there is what I aim for). After that is sorted out I am left to think of how many would be in there and again why so many ect(The goblins will not plan much around a set number of people coming in, so I reason out how many and why so many goblins would be there without considering the group of characters when doing so, cause the goblins wouldn't and I gotta be fair to them for realism). Goblins will not care if they(the group of pc's) have one fighter instead of many, they won't care many of the characters or any cannot handle melee combat ect, they will simply do what they do. At that point the players are being challenged to bend to the situation instead of the situation bending for them.I don't run games as DM vs. Players or I would always win, "Your standing in-front of the enemy, you drop dead, enemy wins the fight", as much as that would suck for the players, as a DM that is how much power I have(meaning DM vs. Player is a meaningless concept). You think it is the characters world, no it is the DMs world and you gotta survive in it and not just survive but succeed. The idea of challenging the characters is not to take their hands and walk them through it, allow the realism to help you challenge them. Non fighters can learn tricks to support warriors in their group and have to come up with new ideas to defend themselves during encounters, that is part of the challenge for them and not for me to take such a challenge away so they win the encounter much easier(the game is not made for a weak mind, the same way chess is not a game for weak-minded people, hence why there is a games for weak-minded people like WoW).DMs keep the control, bad ones abuse it(if your gaming with a bad DM get out of it and don't use them as an excuse to put a rope around a good DMs neck trying to force things upon them through game rules ect), good ones are great with it(good DMs can end up having a hard time running a good game with books and players telling them what they can or cannot do), I will give in where it is needed and won't let the books or rules force me to do anything unless I! allow it.You wanna have your character do something, well you gotta convince me the DM to allow it, players don't simply have the freedom to state "I am doing this" and it auto happens with their characters, they can state that but than need the ok from the DM who has full control. Oh and when it comes to who knows what, age doesn't matter, experience and understanding does, doesn't matter if your 30 or 50, the person with the experience and understanding will be the wiser of the two.
Oh and non combat focused characters collecting treasure, with some many greedy hands amongst todays players with their characters, yeah they can search the enemies with the warriors standing over them watching(I be like "Your not claiming what I! fought for").
Another note: If the players in a combat situation need five minutes to think of how to react to the creature charging them that will be there in ten seconds than maybe this ain't for them. Moments their character have five minutes to think give it to them, moments their characters don't push them, it is part of the challenge!.
Been DMing 20+ years and haven't missed a month in those 20+ years without at least running one session. I currently run two table top games each very large groups and a smaller group currently online as well. All my players love my game and it works, my opinions might not be taken in well by less experienced people but to those who know whats up, take what you can from it.
http://advanceddnd2edrevamp.proboards.com/
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Nov 15, 2012 - 3:09PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
SMH.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
