[D&D/Rifts Style Games] DM burnout- what's a DM get out of it?
Natespank:
Quote
3) Use their greed to split them up
4) Force them to cooperate or lose individually.
It's an interesting conflict of interest. Ever play Counterstrike or Killing Floor? Your score is tallied individually, but your survival depends on your team- so you compete for points to the maximum extent you can without letting it destroy you. You don't really pull together as a team until the last few waves, or against a strong cs team.
This is extremely easy to do though- extremely. My last session 2 PCs were killed by other PCs- conflict isn't hard to do!
Quote
2) Change it up -- look for and challenge the parties weakspots. Avoid their strengths and hit them where they are vulnerable.
This one's tricky.
Consider swarms: controllers destroy them in 4e. However, my group has no controller so a single swarm can sometimes nearly TPK the group. There's no way for them to combat it fairly- their best strategy is to replace one character with a controller. I dont' want to encourage that sort of strategy.
Then, consider "fireball." What if the mage just got some cool fire spells- how abusive is it to throw fire-resistant enemies at the party after that?
Finally, my tank player is weak against attacks that target his will. In one encounter the party fought 8 artillery wizards who had vs will attacks. The tank was blind the entire fight and basically couldn't do anything but take hits for people. It was fun, but if the entire game was like that it'd be really lame.
I don't think I should specifically target the party's weaknesses unless an intelligent foe is doing the targeting when he builds his gang. It seems like it should be an occasional thing.
Oh- ever play Magic the Gathering? My friend used to use artifact decks. In response, we built decks that did nothing but kill artifacts- it worked great! However, we can all agree that's a pretty freaking lame strategy for regular play- it's only really appropriate for special occasions.
"6) Once you have determined the right amount of opposition, your devious strategies and tactics -- have fun! play hard but scrupulously fair - try to win. Narrate the monsters having a victory celebration if they do win! Let the monsters steal some of THEIR stuff if they do win."
PC failure needs to be spectacular. Last time the dragon ate a PC the dragon took him alive, ate his arms, and then over a week nibbled off the rest of his bits. The players prefer for their deaths to be excellent and spectacular.
Quote
1) The level of opposition should be pitched so that if the players play well, they win, and if they dont they lose. Thats still a judgement call, but at least you have a clear guideline. It means the players fate is in their own hands.
Is this the DM's goal statement? To challenge the players? The rest is more of a tactics section for pursuing this goal.
stefoid:
Not exactly 'challenge the players', which is a side effect, but the point to it is make their decisions matter. Thats all any players really want. If the fight is mismatched on one side or the other then it doesnt matter what the players decide -- the outcome is going to be the same. And it also makes the GMs tactics matter too, which hopefully will give you the fun youre after.
On targeting the characters weakspots. different weakspots at different times -- not all weakspots all the time. change it up so that they have to alter their tactics continually. and when you target a weakspot, lower the other parameters of the opposition accordingly. The point to it is to make the players make decisions and those decisions have to matter. The players have designed these characters and some of the designs will be min-maxed, which is a perfectly valid design decision. But it has consequences. Hit them in their 'mins' occasionally, forcing them to adapt. this also highlights the players who have designed with a 'strength through diversity' pattern -- it allows them to shine when the narrow-focus characters are floundering.
basically the game is squad-based tactical combat right? keep that in mind at all times. Dont have bits in your campaign where the game stalls because someone failed an 'observe' or 'persuade' roll and so the game doesnt move on to the next high-stakes fight.
Callan S.:
Quote
But in gamist terms, the GM only really gets to be a referee and facilitator- not a gamer himself. He's partially excluded from the creative agenda. His gamist challenge is merely to challenge the players and keep them on their toes- mostly a design aspect, not a gameplay aspect.
I wasn't neglecting it, I just agree so much I moved on!
Primarily because your describing another aspect of the broken D&D hull. Yep, there's a massive break there, as well!
So are you trying to make something new, or trying to raise that sunken hulk to the surface?
I'd suggest making something new & simple, like a square room with nothing in it except for the PC's, and one or two NPC's you've made, by the PC rules. Then go at it - have some rescue mechanic so it isn't the end for the PC's if they lose.
I'm kinda betting you'd say 'But that's too simple - where is the buying of oil to destroy the lizard folk mound?' or such?
If so, for that scope of action I'm thinking either you don't have it, but as GM your actually playing, or you do have it, but as GM your not playing, merely designing the game in the moment it's being played. Can't have both, as far as I can tell.
I'd really suggest taking my PC's Vs NPC PC's (lol) and talking about adding mechanics onto that that expand it, rather than trying to grasp the capacity to drive away goblins with a forest fire and trying to build rules upon rules until you get right to the very start of play (ie, avoid trying to build from the outside, inward).
stefoid:
Quote from: Natespank on March 22, 2011, 03:03:27 PM
Quote
"6) Once you have determined the right amount of opposition, your devious strategies and tactics -- have fun! play hard but scrupulously fair - try to win. Narrate the monsters having a victory celebration if they do win! Let the monsters steal some of THEIR stuff if they do win."
PC failure needs to be spectacular. Last time the dragon ate a PC the dragon took him alive, ate his arms, and then over a week nibbled off the rest of his bits. The players prefer for their deaths to be excellent and spectacular.
no, thats not what I mean. I dont see the point in PC death, unless the player was bored/disatisfied with that design. losing the contest has to be consequential, not necessarily spectacular. There has to be something substantial on the line other than PC death. Generally it will be opportunity lost - some phat loot they dont get, or even worse, some of their own loot lost. And make it permanent, for whatever fictional reason, there are no second tries. the stakes are on the line one time only, now fight and win to get them!
contracycle:
Play that is oriented exclusively on the dungeon fighting type thing struggle with any kind of consequence, IMO. Even fairly rigid mission style play can do this better. In that structure there is a mission to fulfill, and the means are not necessarily strictly defined. The GM may introduce surprises, previously unknown dangers, twists etc, all of which can present a risk of failure in terms other than winning or losing fights. It seems to me that successive versions of D&D have moved away from that style of play, and put almost all their effort into the dungeon crawl style.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page