I was involved in two games while in the States, running one and playing in a second. I have a few observations:
1) The use of miniatures slows the game considerably. While over there, I ran D&D using freeform combat and movement. We lost quite a bit of exactness as a result, but the game also ran a great deal more quickly. All in all, I think there's no one true way. Miniatures add a lot to the game, but they also take a few tolls.
2) Power levels were a lot higher there. I built the characters with the 28-point-buy system, which is a bit better than I usually use (25 points). The comments? "These characters are quite a bit weaker than we're used too." I would have thought that if you liked playing at a higher power level, the answer is to play at, you know, higher level. But maybe I'm just odd that way.
3) Go to town on the descriptions. It really helps set the scene, build mood, and generally improves the game if you really put effort into descriptions. This is something I've fallen down on of late in the Adventure Path. Although I'm not just talking about the DM here. For the most part, I've been telling players the AC for their opponents, which is probably a bad idea, since it allows them to calculate the best use of Expertise and Power Attack, rather than having the guess. However, it does mean that they know, with almost total accuracy, whether they hit or miss, and they know how much damage they do. So, I see no reason they shouldn't say "Khoraz strikes the demon a mighty blow, his holy weapon hewing a great gash in its side. The demon screams in pain. 24 damage," rather than "I hit for 24 damage". It just adds to the game.
4) Having a great villain in your adventure is pointless if you don't get to use him. Dammit!
1) I thought the reason we used counters was because it was easier than buying loads of miniatures for monsters we'd only use for a couple of weeks. There is a problem of finding a miniature that matches your character including weapon/equipment for example.
ReplyDelete2) Before the current group I was used to playing AD&D with PC's who had three or more at "high" (14+) levels with Charisma usually the lowest unless it was the Paladin. I think I like lower-stat characters more since I think it helps with teamwork a lot more.
The point system also avoids one player moaning his character is weaker than the rest, which used to cause problems in my old group with certain players.
3) Again I think this is down to individual groups on how serious they take games. I reckon our current one likes to joke around during games even in "intense" situations which was why Rogers horror-campaign was dropped.
Personally I'd prefer to not know the enemies AC, even how much damage they've taken, as it adds to the fun of the game for me.
4) You won't be saying that if you use him and he gets wiped out within a round or two. :-P
1) You're right, of course. Where I said "miniatures", I really meant "miniatures, counters, or the like".
ReplyDelete4) Also true. But I don't think that would have been the case with Strahd :-)
THink i shall shed some light of clarification 2 reasons they were used to more 'powerful'is beacuse of dice rolling for stats, which i agree can cause powerful characters. The 2nd is when point buy is used its usually the default living city, which is popular here, and is 32 points not 25 which Stephen uses. That being said its what people are used to. sure throw in something new and they will comment ( or like in my case i had a halfling with 0 dexmod cleric or not :) ) And as for not using the big bad...well it was a one session adventure run from a mini campaign only so much time i was sad to say to run the game in. And what did you think of the 2nd game that was standrard (couple of extra dice cos of vet status ) anyway i'll stop now :)
ReplyDeleteI'll comment on the Star Wars game in another post. However, a couple of things about ability scores:
ReplyDelete1) The standard "4d6 drop lowest" method of rolling is statistically the same as 25 point buy. If this method is applied as written, without rerolls, characters should on average be about as powerful as normal (there may, of course, be weaker and more powerful characters, but the average should be the same). If a player or players are consistently getting better characters, they are either cheating or using faulty dice. (Please note the use of the word "consistently" there. If you get a much better character once, it's luck. If it happens twice in a row, it's unusual, but still luck. If it happens every time, or damn near it, it stops being luck.)
Of course, if the DM allows players to reroll until they get a set of stats they like, or allows them to reroll any score under, say, 6 this vastly adjusts the character creation method. Each such modification pushes the power level higher, in which case the cause of high stats is NOT that dice are rolled - it's a generous DM, and my comment applies.
2) The Living City campaign has been retired - the RPGA don't support it any longer (for reasons that had nothing to do with the power level). Living Greyhawk uses 28-point buy.
3) 32-point buy is probably worth a level or two, particularly at low levels. It make a BIG difference to the power of characters.
4) You'll note that I didn't say playing powerful characters was bad. I merely commented that if that's what you want to do, why not just use higher level characters?