[D&D] Hot elves, morality, and the missing initiative roll
contracycle:
Seems to me the lizardman situation is a classic Revenge plot. Or at least, it could be assumed to be a revenge plot, although it could also be a "falling prey to cruelty" plot. That kind of stuff is easy enough to determine, and could be selected from an appropriate list (such as those lists of plot archetypes that already occur). What is much less clear is how you actually go about building a revenge plot such that it is more than just another simple encounter.
I think the same applies to the chase situation. Chases by their nature demand immediate creation of setting elements, and usually elements more interesting than "the road stretches out before you endless and straight". Anyone who has, say, played for example Grand Theft Auto will be aware that the are in which the chase occurs produces different kinds of hazards, and can spill over from one area to another. But this is very difficult to systemtize in RPG, and would need to be contextualised not just for setting as a whole but for small local regions within a setting.
In both cases the key problem, IMO, is content creation rather than system or even conflict resolution. The conflict res mechanics of HeroWars, for exmaple, do not IMO serve any better at producing interesting content for chases, even if the mechanical problem of the chase is much better represented by a conflict res mechanic.
LostSoul:
You might want to check out Kellri's Encounter Reference .pdf. It's got a ton of random tables for all sorts of different things.
Here is the link to the blog (the .pdfs are on the right hand side): http://kellri.blogspot.com/
Callan S.:
Quote from: athornton on February 11, 2010, 09:08:03 PM
But, in some sense, all RPG rules are really just Dumbo feathers.
I think they're dumbo feathers as much as a guitar is a dumbo feather to a guitarist - as if he could do what he does without the 'dumbo feather'. Some people might want to treat rpg rules that way (which at it's full philosophical extension is air guitar, AFAICT), but I'll leave a dissenting view against the idea that all of roleplay and it's rules always and only work/exist in a dumbo feather way.
Meramec:
Daniel,
I think you've nailed what I'm getting at here with your comments about rules that come into play when needed and recede when they are not and rules to help engage the DM.
I the end, this post was for me to discuss and work through some issues that crop up in my play that I want a game to address. Like most gamers, I am working on my own "design", and I firmly believe the rules affect the play.
You read a lot on "old school D&D" forums things about "superior players and DM's will generate awesome play" regardless of rules. But I think rules can add value considerably.
Take one example: say a game has a social skill. Now, lots of games have these. In WOTC's first D&D offeirng, you roll your diplomacy or intimidate check and consult a table for the result. What if instead you roll your check and, depending on your success, you were given "points" to spend during the social engagement as a PLAYER. You could spend a point to say "wait, I didn't know the guard was going to attack me if I made fun of his armor, let me say something else isntead" or you could spend a point to ask "how do I think this guy will respond if I ask about why his wife hasn't been around lately?" Things like that which actually add ot the game but retain the nearly freeform nature of a social encounter. I think with such a ruleset in play you could have markedly superior "role-playing" encounters than you can without (at least with some segment of players), because the "game" would now officially cover such things in a way that empowers the PLAYER, not the character. In fact, I think one of the greatest things a ruleset does is direct how a player thinks, and having rules that get a player to actively think along more dimensions is a plus. So putting some "tactics" or "resource management" into things like talking to the barkeep after the latest foray into the dungeon seems desirable to me. It allows more easily for the possibility that danger, excitement, imagination and story may emerge from sources not statted with hit dice and AC's.
Anyway, this is the direction I'm heading with most of my "resolution" notions. The idea that you roll a die, add your modifiers, and consult a chart for resolution bores me these days. I want something else. I love the "old school" D&D's focus on player skill and flexibility (the canonical example being the searching for traps sequence), but I think there are ways to capture that with technology much different from that found in 70's era games.
Thank you all for your comments, and thanks to everyone who helped my thought process here. I'll try to post more on the Forge, although learning the jargon used here will take some time. I still have no solid idea what is being said on many of the threads here!
Take care and game on!
John
Jeff B:
John,
I'm really late seeing this thread, but wow! What a fantastic account, and a DM expressing so many of the key issues in making an experience great.
As others have noted, I was also struck by your approach to rolling the melee round and avoiding the person-by-person interrogation about their actions, which constantly leads to a waste of time. I remember so many games where, after 10 minutes of bickering, my turn FINALLY came around. I'd roll a 6, of course. "Miss". There it was -- my 3 seconds of active play time for the hour.
Great thoughts, and I'm keeping your idea of "everybody roll melee attacks!" for use later. Many thanks.
Isn't it contradictory how source material is good, but over-documented game systems are bad? Just look at what you did with a tiny book, tiny preparation time. Eight million volumes of the latest edition sourcebooks were simply not needed. On the other hand *something* was needed to help with those high-potential moments in the game. It is not possible for the DM to think of everything, and there is no time for him to sit and wonder -- the game must go on.
In exchange for your great insights, I'll trade one back to you that I hope you will find thought-provoking. I am determined to construct a resolution system in which the DM never rolls any dice. Instead of the DM frantically playing 10 goblins and rolling dozens of dice (doing the work of several players), the DM instead says, "The goblins attack. Roll melee defense. John and Judy, you have two goblins each on you. Fred, Estelle, Louise, you have only one goblin each to deal with." And my rules system will essentially do the rest, leaving the DM free to absorb the combat results, mark damage to his many goblin monsters, move figurines perhaps, and the zillion other mental tasks a DM is engaged in. Who knows, it might even give him time to throw color and flavor into the encounter! The whole fight is resolved without the DM touching a die. Instead of rolling for a trap that might spring, the DM says, "Joel, roll vs. trap avoidance". I think you get the gist of it -- old habits and language patterns will have to change, but I think it's the way of the future. The trick is, a simple resolution has to determine which party was hit (if either) and how much damage was taken. But I'm confident I will eventually solve that problem. I think making the DM diceless is part of next-generation RPG gaming. :)
Thanks again for sharing your terrific experience...you sound like a great DM!
Jeff
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page