There are some weapons that the DM has at his disposal that I'm not terribly fond of using. These include night attacks, gear-destroying attacks, energy drain, and save or die spells. So, I'm not terribly fond of the idea of firing off a Destruction spell and requiring the party rogue to make a Fortitude save at DC 22, or be destroyed forever.
That's not to say I won't use such attacks.
The truth is that all of the above are valid parts of the game system. Night attacks can and do happen, and should be permitted. Some creatures can and do damage the equipment of their foes, or have the dreaded energy drain ability. And extremely powerful magic should be something to fear. Not including these elements does the game a disservice, and does the players a disservice as well (because if you remove these elements, shouldn't you also remove PC death at all, or perhaps injury, or... The point being that a lot of the excitement of the game comes from knowing that bad things can happen.)
However, it is important to note that I will not make extensive use of any of the above attacks on PCs. I won't throw endless ambushes by energy draining creatures at night at PCs, nor take every opportunity to destroy their equipment. I will use these attacks, but will use them sparingly. Oh, and I'll let the PCs cut loose with their powerful abilities, as well.
Of course, it would be nice to assume that the same holds true in reverse - if the PCs discover a particular combination of abilities that becomes unbeatable, I would like to see them use it perhaps twice before moving on. There's not a lot of fun to be had if every opponent is defeated in one round by the tactical nuke feat.
Not that that's a problem I've had lately.
Sunday, 6 March 2005
Monday, 28 February 2005
On Uncharted Ground
Edit: My original post seems to have disappeared into the ether. I suspect user error.
Since the release of 3rd Edition, I have run two large D&D campaigns, not including the current one. The first came to an end with the characters at 9th level (they might have reached 10th by the end of the last adventure - we never counted up the XP). The second came to an end with a total party kill at 10th level.
The current campaign has reached 11th level, and is still going strong. It came as something of a shock to me at the weekend when I realised that this is now the highest-level campaign I've run under the current rules-set.
I think I'm starting to get vertigo...
Since the release of 3rd Edition, I have run two large D&D campaigns, not including the current one. The first came to an end with the characters at 9th level (they might have reached 10th by the end of the last adventure - we never counted up the XP). The second came to an end with a total party kill at 10th level.
The current campaign has reached 11th level, and is still going strong. It came as something of a shock to me at the weekend when I realised that this is now the highest-level campaign I've run under the current rules-set.
I think I'm starting to get vertigo...
Sunday, 27 February 2005
When DMs Screw Up
Normally, when a mistake is made in combat, my policy is to just ignore it and move on. So, if you discover that the big bad NPC had immunity to fire just after the party mage hits him with a fireball, he's still toasted. It won't work again, but that's the extent to which I generally retcon things. Likewise, if the party cleric flame strike's the big bad, and doesn't take into account that the rogue is going to be hit before he rolls damage, the rogue is dead. Sorry.
Of course, when the DM discovers he's been using the stats for a Storm giant instead of a Stone giant during the combat, and there's about to be a total party kill...
When I first discovered the mistake, my first instinct was to ignore it, continue using the Storm giant stats, and award XP accordingly. It rapidly became apparent that the party was about to be wiped out, which wasn't really something I could allow. A TPK under normal circumstances is one thing, but that would be entirely another.
Needless to say, it was all a bit embarrassing. Still, I'll get you next week.
Of course, when the DM discovers he's been using the stats for a Storm giant instead of a Stone giant during the combat, and there's about to be a total party kill...
When I first discovered the mistake, my first instinct was to ignore it, continue using the Storm giant stats, and award XP accordingly. It rapidly became apparent that the party was about to be wiped out, which wasn't really something I could allow. A TPK under normal circumstances is one thing, but that would be entirely another.
Needless to say, it was all a bit embarrassing. Still, I'll get you next week.
Sunday, 20 February 2005
Star Wars USA
I tend not to have as much to say about games I play in as I do about games I'm running, partly because I tend to analyse games I run quite a lot with a view to getting better at GMing, and partly because people might not like what I have to say about the way they run their games. (And it's fair to say that whenever I see any game, film, book, or even a project at work, there's always something I would have done differently, sometimes radically so. It's not necessarily the case that my change would necessarily make things better, it's just that I would prefer it that way.)
It's also true that I usually have a lot less to say about one-offs than about campaigns, since there's so much less to see, and also because the quality of a one-off is hardly a fair indicator of how things normally are - when I ran Star Wars d20 I had a really bad day; when I ran Ravenloft I had a really good day; reality is somewhere in the middle, and it's reality that my current group are having to deal with at the moment.
That said, I was asked for comment, so here goes:
The scenario was simple: you're on Hoth, the Imperials are invading, time to leave.
This is good on three counts:
1) It's nice and simple, and presents a scene familiar to 99% of all gamers. And the other 1% don't count.
2) It jumps straight into the action.
3) It allows you to take the game in any direction you want.
The other good thing about the game was that it was kept flowing. Because there wasn't any interaction with NPCs (at all!) there were no awkward bits where we didn't know where to go. It just ran.
Now, the less good stuff:
1) Just because we know where Hoth is doesn't mean you get to skimp on describing it. Tell us about the field of white in front of us, the smoke from the burning Rebel defences, the clank of the approaching AT-ATs. Remind us that our YT-1300 transport is looking a bit beat-up. Use words like "squat", "ugly" and "boxy" to describe the Imperial vehicles, phrases like "efficient white" for the Stormtrooper armour, "welcoming embrace" for the chairs in the transport, and "empty vastness" for space.
Description is king. It changes a tactical exercise (get to the ships) into a thrilling life-or-death struggle (get to the ships!).
2) Variable difficulty numbers. If the PC has 6 dice in his pool, and the difficulty is rated at 4 dice, this is statistically equivalent to the player rolling 2 dice and trying to get a positive number.
Honestly. It really is.
What's more, since the difficulty number is calculated behind the screen, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference whether the difficulty is rolled or just pulled out of a hat. Better to just stick with the difficulties out of the book (what is it? Simple 5, Difficult 10...?). Rolling extra dice doesn't add anything to the game, and it just slows things down. Not to mention the fact that you can't consistently get a 5 on d6's, which means your difficulties effectively go up in increments of 3.5. Is that really what you want?
3) Deus ex machina.
If the DM puts the PCs into hopeless situations and then has his pet NPC miraculously show up and save their skins, the players will (rightly) get pissed off. If the DM puts the PCs into hopeless situations and then has the gods decide to make a surprise visit, the players will be rightly pissed off. One of the reasons a lot of people don't like the Forgotten Realms is the prevalence of high-level NPCs, which can make the PCs exploits seem unimportant by comparison.
So, we had the PCs trapped on the open plains, being chased down by an AT-ST walker, transport gone, and in deep trouble. What happens? In comes the A-Wing to save the day. Later, the PCs are trapped by an Interdictor, and in all sorts of trouble. So, here comes Rogue squadron! (Quite aside from the fact that Rogue Squadron gets so badly mauled on Hoth that the squadron is actually disbanded! I think Wedge and his gunner are actually the only two who walk away from that firefight.)
4) Wild dice. If there's one mechanic I hate in RPGs it's botching. Be it 1's cancelling successes in Storyteller, critical fumbles on a natural 1 in d20, or the Wild Dice in Star Wars, it sucks. The biggest part of the problem is that these mechanics tend to take the form of "The GM is encouraged to be inventive." This translates to "screw over the players as much as you want." Worse still, these rules inevitably don't get applies equally, so it becomes a question of whoever has pissed of the GM lately getting screwed, while other characters getting an easy time of things. Which really sucks.
(As an aside, if you're planning a d20 campaign and are considering implementing this as a House Rule, be aware that I most likely will not play. I'll grudgingly tolerate these mechanics when they're written into the system, but I see no reason to do so when they're there at the whim of the DM.)
In Conculsion
It may seem that I'm being very negative. However, it should be noted that point 4 above is a fact of the game system, and nothing to do with the particular game at all. And point 2 is an example of "something I would have done differently... It's not necessarily the case that my change would necessarily make things better..."
I think points 1 and 3 are valid, however. Improving on descriptions will make a huge difference to the quality of your games. Meanwhile, if deus ex machina is overused in the game going forward it will kill it. If you have to bail the PCs out of trouble more than a couple of times in the campaign, something's not right. And if it's that the PCs keep getting themselves in deeper than they should be, let them fry.
I did enjoy the game. But saying that doesn't make for a very full post.
It's also true that I usually have a lot less to say about one-offs than about campaigns, since there's so much less to see, and also because the quality of a one-off is hardly a fair indicator of how things normally are - when I ran Star Wars d20 I had a really bad day; when I ran Ravenloft I had a really good day; reality is somewhere in the middle, and it's reality that my current group are having to deal with at the moment.
That said, I was asked for comment, so here goes:
The scenario was simple: you're on Hoth, the Imperials are invading, time to leave.
This is good on three counts:
1) It's nice and simple, and presents a scene familiar to 99% of all gamers. And the other 1% don't count.
2) It jumps straight into the action.
3) It allows you to take the game in any direction you want.
The other good thing about the game was that it was kept flowing. Because there wasn't any interaction with NPCs (at all!) there were no awkward bits where we didn't know where to go. It just ran.
Now, the less good stuff:
1) Just because we know where Hoth is doesn't mean you get to skimp on describing it. Tell us about the field of white in front of us, the smoke from the burning Rebel defences, the clank of the approaching AT-ATs. Remind us that our YT-1300 transport is looking a bit beat-up. Use words like "squat", "ugly" and "boxy" to describe the Imperial vehicles, phrases like "efficient white" for the Stormtrooper armour, "welcoming embrace" for the chairs in the transport, and "empty vastness" for space.
Description is king. It changes a tactical exercise (get to the ships) into a thrilling life-or-death struggle (get to the ships!).
2) Variable difficulty numbers. If the PC has 6 dice in his pool, and the difficulty is rated at 4 dice, this is statistically equivalent to the player rolling 2 dice and trying to get a positive number.
Honestly. It really is.
What's more, since the difficulty number is calculated behind the screen, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference whether the difficulty is rolled or just pulled out of a hat. Better to just stick with the difficulties out of the book (what is it? Simple 5, Difficult 10...?). Rolling extra dice doesn't add anything to the game, and it just slows things down. Not to mention the fact that you can't consistently get a 5 on d6's, which means your difficulties effectively go up in increments of 3.5. Is that really what you want?
3) Deus ex machina.
If the DM puts the PCs into hopeless situations and then has his pet NPC miraculously show up and save their skins, the players will (rightly) get pissed off. If the DM puts the PCs into hopeless situations and then has the gods decide to make a surprise visit, the players will be rightly pissed off. One of the reasons a lot of people don't like the Forgotten Realms is the prevalence of high-level NPCs, which can make the PCs exploits seem unimportant by comparison.
So, we had the PCs trapped on the open plains, being chased down by an AT-ST walker, transport gone, and in deep trouble. What happens? In comes the A-Wing to save the day. Later, the PCs are trapped by an Interdictor, and in all sorts of trouble. So, here comes Rogue squadron! (Quite aside from the fact that Rogue Squadron gets so badly mauled on Hoth that the squadron is actually disbanded! I think Wedge and his gunner are actually the only two who walk away from that firefight.)
4) Wild dice. If there's one mechanic I hate in RPGs it's botching. Be it 1's cancelling successes in Storyteller, critical fumbles on a natural 1 in d20, or the Wild Dice in Star Wars, it sucks. The biggest part of the problem is that these mechanics tend to take the form of "The GM is encouraged to be inventive." This translates to "screw over the players as much as you want." Worse still, these rules inevitably don't get applies equally, so it becomes a question of whoever has pissed of the GM lately getting screwed, while other characters getting an easy time of things. Which really sucks.
(As an aside, if you're planning a d20 campaign and are considering implementing this as a House Rule, be aware that I most likely will not play. I'll grudgingly tolerate these mechanics when they're written into the system, but I see no reason to do so when they're there at the whim of the DM.)
In Conculsion
It may seem that I'm being very negative. However, it should be noted that point 4 above is a fact of the game system, and nothing to do with the particular game at all. And point 2 is an example of "something I would have done differently... It's not necessarily the case that my change would necessarily make things better..."
I think points 1 and 3 are valid, however. Improving on descriptions will make a huge difference to the quality of your games. Meanwhile, if deus ex machina is overused in the game going forward it will kill it. If you have to bail the PCs out of trouble more than a couple of times in the campaign, something's not right. And if it's that the PCs keep getting themselves in deeper than they should be, let them fry.
I did enjoy the game. But saying that doesn't make for a very full post.
Saturday, 19 February 2005
Typical
Last encounter in the adventure. The entirely predictable NPC betrayal takes place, and the stage is set for a few moments of high tension, since the group are all pretty beaten up, and what happens?
"I hit him for 106 points of damage."
Exit one NPC.
Damnit!
"I hit him for 106 points of damage."
Exit one NPC.
Damnit!
Wednesday, 16 February 2005
Gaming in America
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) 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!
Tuesday, 15 February 2005
Pregenerated Adventures and Wafer-thin Characters
Although there is a lot of good material in the Adventure Path that is currently in use, and have been some really good set-peices in the campaign (the fight with Tongue-eater, the Kua-toan temple fight), one of the big problems is that the characters are extremely thin. So thin that the impact of Eloi's death was more, "Oh, we've not got a wizard. Oh, well. Next!" than anything else.
That's not to say there is no characterisation: Rurik and Zantar are distinctly different, despite both being dwarven barbarians with waraxes (and don't get me started on how much weapon familiarity annoys me. I've ranted about it enough in the past...). However, this difference is more due to a difference in the players involved, rather than a conscious role-playing decision.
The reasons for this problem, as I see them, are three-fold:
1) The adventures are not tailored to the PCs (and, really, how could they be in any meaningful way?), so it doesn't really matter what characters are involved. They're just vehicles for getting through the story.
2) There isn't a setting as such, which means there's nothing to hang character backgrounds on. And without backgrounds, it's difficult to develop a three-dimensional character. Or even the two-dimensional caricatures you get in RPGs.
3) Having two characters really doesn't help. There's little enough in the campaign to hang one character on, let alone two distinct ones, and especially two distinct ones that speak with the same voice.
Ah, well. There's nothing to be done about it. Rest assured, however, that I won't be relying so heavily on pre-gens for any future campaigns I run (might use one or two, of course).
That's not to say there is no characterisation: Rurik and Zantar are distinctly different, despite both being dwarven barbarians with waraxes (and don't get me started on how much weapon familiarity annoys me. I've ranted about it enough in the past...). However, this difference is more due to a difference in the players involved, rather than a conscious role-playing decision.
The reasons for this problem, as I see them, are three-fold:
1) The adventures are not tailored to the PCs (and, really, how could they be in any meaningful way?), so it doesn't really matter what characters are involved. They're just vehicles for getting through the story.
2) There isn't a setting as such, which means there's nothing to hang character backgrounds on. And without backgrounds, it's difficult to develop a three-dimensional character. Or even the two-dimensional caricatures you get in RPGs.
3) Having two characters really doesn't help. There's little enough in the campaign to hang one character on, let alone two distinct ones, and especially two distinct ones that speak with the same voice.
Ah, well. There's nothing to be done about it. Rest assured, however, that I won't be relying so heavily on pre-gens for any future campaigns I run (might use one or two, of course).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)