Started by Natespank, February 28, 2011, 12:21:55 AM
QuoteThe hardest part of "versus" gamism, that is, a GM producing challenges for everyone else, is that you have to constantly challenge the group, which isn't easy if you're not the most tactical minded and power-nitpicky of the bunch.
QuoteBesides, how would we collectively solve the issue? "G., stop making douchebag characters. K., no obnoxious builds that require 50 rounds to end a fight but can't lose. J., don't go through 1-2 characters every 3 sessions, stick with one. C., give your character at least SOME personality." It won't happen.
Quote4E is set up that each encounter is supposed to eat up 25% of a party's resources, so 3 waves is 75%, still do-able.
QuoteAt all points we chose our risks. I liked it
QuoteThe 4E advice on core encounters is solid- you want a good mix of monsters, you want a good set of terrain. The two places the core books fall down are:1) MInions. Most folks on various boards have argued they should be rated 6:1 or 8:1 instead of 4:1. But basically, minions take next to no time to take out, and usually don't inflict enough damage to be worth it unless you have some kind of effect they stack up upon.2) Solos. Solos are generally underpowered in terms of damage, owing mostly to the fact that players get 4x the amount of actions a Solo does. There's a good series of posts on that here:
Quote2) Hazards! Consider one-off hazards that make things hard for the players. "We're fighing in a blizzard, -2 to all ranged attacks, everyone is Slowed, and monsters that aren't Yetis take 2 damage a turn!" Change these up, they force the players to constantly re-evaluate how to deal with problems and make the best of bad situations. Players who find a winning formula find they can't do it the same way anymore.3) Delay hazards. Pits, heavy sacks of grain that fall on you, a deep bog, things that you can set up that force players to lose one action or turn. This is an excellent way to delay the players and incapacitate the heavy hitters a bit. It adds frustration to the players, so try to spread it out. It also makes them wary of terrain.4) Bad choices. "The easiest place to fight the monsters is in the magic circle. But in the magic circle, if killed, they rise up as undead versions. Crap."5) Divide requirements. "Someone has to go open the gate on the left path while some one else disables the trap mechanism on the right path, within 2 rounds of each other, otherwise they both reset." This splits up the party within the same encounter, and also might be a fun skill challenge along with the fight.6) Pain in the Ass combos. Get monsters together that really combo well. Some of the monster groups in 4E do this, but a lot don't. If you have someone who creates a damaging zone, you want someone else who pushes targets into it, and someone else who immobilizes them there. A useful trick is to look across the monster board and see if someone has a power that does it, and reskin them appropriately or just pull the power- that way you don't have weird stuff like, "Wait, why is an Aboleth working with these goblins?"
QuoteI think in chess when the king is surrounded, can't move in any direction and is threatened as well, it's ridiculously unbalanced. I'd actually say winning is about one player taking balance and breaking it over his or her knee.Well, I've talked about the whole 0-1000 winning track thing. I know it's a pain because you expect to be able to just deligate that responsiblity to the written rules, instead of having bought a product and then write your own game anyway. But I think you don't want things to be balanced forever and ever - you have to determine how they can finally unbalance things and take the king, so to speak.Anyway, speaking in those terms I'd consider instead of trying to faff about with banning classes, just put a cap on damage output. Also a cap on the number of rounds you can kite, before the enemy automatically closes with you. It's just too hard to try to find and fill in all the little holes, so just put a bigger bag around the whole thing. But still at some point there needs to be a king taker move.
QuoteNate, try checking out capes. You can download the lite version for free. It's not actually a gamist inclined game, but it has a complete procedure (so you just play - you don't have to tighten the nuts on the engine every five minutes) and it does involve strategic play.And I know I already said it before, but I think having a chat which says 'Don't play douchebag characters' is entirely dysfunctional. Not because it's rude, but because dude A and dude B's idea of a douchebag can so very easily be very, very different. And that difference goes in so many wrong directions I can't go into it and have a short post! If your not both thinking the same thing, it's not a rule. If you can convert 'don't be a douchebag' into something both parties understand in the exact same way, fully, then that'll work out.
Quote from: Natespank on March 08, 2011, 01:26:05 AM-What are some people's favorite rule systems? I realize this is tricky because of the variety of systems out there. I'm aiming for fantasy, gritty, with exploration and discovery. I want some rules that make combat fun, but I don't necessarily want it to be the focus like 4e is. Old D&D is sketchy because of many reasons haha, but I like aspects of it. Rifts too, but only aspects of it. I can try to be more specific but I need to figure out more of what exactly i want.
Quote from: Natespank on March 08, 2011, 03:41:02 AM4e should be marketed as a pure-gamist system akin to a board game. Out of the box the rules aren't good for much of anything except combat, magic items and leveling up to fight better. He, in a way, did "win" 4e with that rager. That's partly the game's fault- ie, MY fault, right? 4e is the engine, my campaign's the game. Poor design on my part. Not technically a douchebag move of his, but created conflict.
QuoteAnd the thing is, maybe you don't want to design either? Which would be entirely valid as well. Perhaps your looking for a solution from someone because you just wanna get on and play? Which I'd totally get. Or maybe I'm simply thinking of myself in that - in trying to grab onto a certain social scene (and perhaps even a zeitgeist), a socially validated creative outlet, just started trying to get this thing work as a game, but not interested in designing for it's own sake. Or atleast not interested enough to make an entire multi player, complex game without a jot of design help from anyone else. Simple ones, yeah, but not designing complex ones with zero outside contribution.