|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Feb 26, 2015 4:25:34 GMT -8
Very good. This is the system I use, as a proponent of System Blind play. - Environmental clues suggesting a BAM to players (player in-game knowledge);
- DM destroys building within sight of players PCs without any damage roll (player in-game knowledge);
- NPCs take on BAM suffering massive rolled damage, and potential NPC TPK. (Maybe even have the players manage the NPCs who rush ahead to this fight - player in-game knowledge).
- Collateral damage as described to PCs too close to the fight, say ranged PCs aiding the NPCs being obliterated by the BAM (player in-game knowledge)
No rulebook needed - just BAM rule consistency. That's my system of tabletop engrossment. I doubt this fits the rules immersed munchkins who want to "win" so not sure it applies to Legion TJ's question. But I like it because it gave me a chance for a positive comment. ps - Stu Venable this is the instance, the application, where the GM does not need a GURPS ruleset to indicate to the other players that headshots are deadly, potentially career ending for PCs.
|
|
oldnemrod
Apprentice Douchebag
Posts: 92
Preferred Game Systems: WOD (old and new), 4E DnD, Shadowrun, 5E DND,
Currently Playing: Star Wars Saga Edition( I'M A MANDALORIAN!)
Currently Running: 5E Hoard of the Dragon Queen
|
Post by oldnemrod on Feb 26, 2015 13:33:04 GMT -8
In Tabletop RPGs, we are fortunate in that we are both actors and audience. Engrossment and investment are interchangeable because we are constantly switching from player to character and back to player.
What I'm trying to get at is that no matter how deadly, rules heavy, or tactic dependent an encounter is, at the end it is just a difficult encounter that players will remember as just that. Unless the players/characters are affected in some non-statistical way, I doubt it will stick in their minds as well.
What kind of reward are you giving? Just loot? Does this encounter have a point or is it a dungeon crawl?
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Feb 26, 2015 17:12:02 GMT -8
You know what CreativeCowboy? I will go to my grave convinced that you would dig Apocalypse World based games if you would just loosen up a bit on your dislike for "organized systems".
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Feb 27, 2015 1:15:49 GMT -8
dislike for "organized systems". Much too much has been written and shared about how the system interfaces with the players and how this matters and, in comparison, nothing has been said about how the players interface with each other. This interface is not to be confused with discussion that the GM filters the system - maybe by reading the system rules aloud to the other players, like a referee might read the rules to participants in the boxing ring. And what is the result of this talk: the GM is not often considered a player in the game; not unlike the referee is not a boxer. This leads to the nonsense talk about how third party rules ameliorate the us vs. them adversarial mentality. Munchkin Chisler’s answer is exactly an example of us vs. them. Nothing wrong with it as it answers Legion TJ’s question. But it does point out the adversarial “win” perquisite built into the question and, thus, the mentality of that group’s RPG content. That’s the way they play: by chiseling munchkins. Legion TJ is asking the question how to graduate to the next level for his chess playing munchkins. How to give them what they want when they’ve upped their game so to speak. You mention “organized systems” as something I disdain as if I espouse some mélange of higgledy-piggledy, inconsistent, haphazard mess. Your connotation could not be further from the actual truth. Meanwhile, I raise jazzisblues’s blood pressure when I talk of a structured process for new group intakes. So am I a discombobulated GM, or a systematic one? Or maybe I am just a purposeful douche bag? My intent to play role-playing games is to meet real people; to get to know them as individual persons. I will explain because I am uncertain if anyone understands what I just wrote. When my role as a player is to be GM, I place others into my world where they may do whatever they do, individually or as a team, and cope with consequences to their stated actions. Their actions reflect their thinking. The consequences I imagine reflect mine. When I play a role within the party, the interpersonal dynamic I enjoy remains, only the roles change; now I must cope with the GM’s imagined consequences of my action, but enjoy freer player agency (than the role of GM) in a dynamic system. Your intent when playing a role-playing game follows the same approach to playing any non-RPGs. You submit yourself to the published system, regardless of your role within the game, and seek to win/manoeuvre within player limitations beyond the static system. Your contest is with the game designer. When you find something is not covered well enough by the system, rather than seeing an organic expansion, you categorically see a broken system that needs be fixed. You can play solo in this way and receive the same scorecard. I was not socialized to RPGs like this. I did not learn from a book. I do not require others to learn from a book. (I possess my own DMG, and expect/respect other GMs possess their own DMG.) Muchkin Chisler’s answer conforms to your system uber alles mindset; a mindset I fundamentally reject in role-playing games, where I believe the system is organic but, like our evolving universe, also organized, structured and consistent. People can enter both conceptual systems of play, yours and mine, and find an ordered system. The chief difference comes from 1) player intent with the game, and 2) the origin point of the system they play. I think before anyone’s question can be answered those two factors at the table need to be known first. My apologies to Legion TJ. I just do not like to be misrepresented or mischaracterized, even on an RPGs forum.
|
|
|
Post by legiontj on Mar 3, 2015 6:20:44 GMT -8
First off Thank you Happy Jack for using my question on the podcast. Second thank everybody for helping me on the forum. I'm new to listening to your podcast. So seeing this kind of response to my question really blesses me. I've been playing Rpg since I was 8 ,about 30 years. It is my one hobby passion. Two month ago I started running for a group of my friends. It's been about 10 years sense I've ran a game. So all of Yall are making my game alot of fun for my players. Thanks again and Drink!
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Mar 4, 2015 6:26:50 GMT -8
Making the big bad live up to reputation? Well, first coup de grace any unconscious characters first, then make sure your NPC is at least 5ft further away than the parties longest ranged attack, then have the NPC run away leaving the remaining PC's dead and dying and trapped - such is the wisdom of HappyJacks that totally unrelated segments of any show can answer other totally unrelated segments (like a human ouroboros). Aaron (PS: posted in jest )
|
|
mrcj
Journeyman Douchebag
Posts: 173
|
Post by mrcj on May 16, 2015 6:37:02 GMT -8
A quick bump up to address a common let down when facing the Big Monster; avoiding the monster getting owned by the party:
Particularly at higher levels/experience and also particularly in systems where there are limited or no multiple attacks like GURPS. GMs run into the problem of having a single big monster and the combat begins only to have the big monster owned because the players act five times to the monster's one.
Each party/game is different, but GMs need to take care to design that encounter so that the encounter is more than just 5 vs 1. Some mitigating strategies to level that encounter include limited access such as narrow passageways, chasms, the sky in the case of flying monsters; lower level minion helpers; environmental that the monster can take advantage of such as bad footing or limited vision; splitting the party so less time will pass before the entire party can engage, etc.
|
|
|
Post by weaselcreature on May 22, 2015 13:59:02 GMT -8
A little late to the game, and while I did listen to the episode, I can't recall if this was covered: Have your party get its assed handed to them but escape. Then they can build up some firepower, and get revenge!
The last time I fought a dragon was in a recent Pathfinder (or was it 3.5) game. We followed a plot hook the GM wasn't ready for us to follow, but she didn't tone down the level of the dragon, as it was already in existence in the world, and it was crazy...as in mentally unstable. We knew if we fought it, we MIGHT win, but it could be a TPK. We ALMOST talked our way out of it, when our thief decided to grab a handful of treasure and was spotted.
That thief was immediately pancaked, and we all took off running with no gear (part of the agreement for letting us go was leaving all our magic stuff behind). Luckily, I was a Conjurer with lots of group dimension hops and short teleports available, and we were able to get away with 2 of us near death.
So there we were...10th level (or so), starting over in terms of gear (my spellbooks!), and we couldn't wait to go back and kick its ass! (which never happened...the GM went to get her Masters so we did a few sessions of wrapping up the main plot and ended the campaign).
|
|