Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[DnD 4E Discussion] Staff Fighter and Pyromancer essentials builds released on time!

1356761

Posts

  • PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    delroland wrote: »
    That's kind of pedantic delro, skill challenges are obviously put in the game for PCs to "do things" and those "things" can involve "getting good stuff." The rules don't need to explicitly say "The Duke likes you and gives you a +1 sword!" if your skill challenge is "convince the Duke to give you a +1 sword."

    I still don't see skill challenges providing any game benefit, but intentionally reading them in the worst possible way doesn't strike me as a compelling argument against them.

    Well considering 4E is very rules- and detail-oriented, I don't see how that is pedantic at all. Skill challenges, as designed, are a gatekeeper system. Fail to satisfy the gatekeeper, and you suffer. Succeed, and the only benefit is that you get to pass through the gate. "Answer me these questions three..."

    I don't think skill challenges need an explicit section saying "YOU CAN GIVE PLAYERS REWARDS FOR SUCCESS!" in order for that to be an official option. I'm fine with looking at the RAW and examining them on their merits, but you're expecting the game to spell out some really basic-level stuff here. Does the DMG need a section saying "its ok for you to play this game with less than 5 people or more than 5 people. Its ok for you to play this game at night?"

    PotatoNinja on
    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    When I do skill challenges, I set a number of successes the PCs need to get to and a gradient for the effects of cumulative failures.

    For example:

    Cut them off at the pass!
    Successes: 8
    Full success: PCs beat their enemies to the pass, and successfully set up the ambush.

    Failures:
    0: The PCs arrive several minutes early, and have time to set up a successful ambush (free surprise round).
    1-2: The PCs cut it tight and have to scramble to get in position (-2 to all stealth checks).
    3-4: The PCs make it to the pass concurrently with their enemies (no chance to ambush).
    5+: The PCs make it to the pass only to find their enemies lying in wait (NPCs get surprise round).

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Amigu wrote: »
    Now I don't know enough about past D&D games or other publishers to really comment here but are there other games that have done it better?

    What else is there?

    Not many, unfortunately. Some heist / team style games have done a good job of taking the "role" concept D&D uses for combat and applying it outside combat. Shadowrun is an interesting example because of the changes they made to hackers: long story short, hacking now works better when you're close to a machine not because of world logic or balance, but to keep the team together and make the game more fun.

    I can't think of a system that has codified "roles" like D&D 4E has done with combat. I wouldn't mind seeing one take a shot at it.

    PotatoNinja on
    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • smeejsmeej Registered User
    edited August 2010
    delroland wrote: »
    Nowhere in any published adventure does it suggest to include bonuses for a successfully completed SC.
    The wartime skill challenge they published in Dragon is a series of simultaneously occurring skill challenges and combats that provide bonuses to the other aspects of the fight when completed. *shrug*

    Most of the published skill challenges are terrible but I don't see how that destroys the system. And it tells you to award XP for skill challenges, and I'm pretty sure the purpose of completing a skill challenge is to earn a benefit, many times. The DSCG has skill challenges for talking your way out of getting in trouble with a templar, for example. Avoiding a fight and getting XP is pretty tight.

    smeej on
    IT'S A SAD THING THAT YOUR ADVENTURES HAVE ENDED HERE!!
  • InfidelInfidel Heretic Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    delroland wrote: »
    That's kind of pedantic delro, skill challenges are obviously put in the game for PCs to "do things" and those "things" can involve "getting good stuff." The rules don't need to explicitly say "The Duke likes you and gives you a +1 sword!" if your skill challenge is "convince the Duke to give you a +1 sword."

    I still don't see skill challenges providing any game benefit, but intentionally reading them in the worst possible way doesn't strike me as a compelling argument against them.

    Well considering 4E is very rules- and detail-oriented, I don't see how that is pedantic at all. Skill challenges, as designed, are a gatekeeper system. Fail to satisfy the gatekeeper, and you suffer. Succeed, and the only benefit is that you get to pass through the gate. "Answer me these questions three..."

    I don't think skill challenges need an explicit section saying "YOU CAN GIVE PLAYERS REWARDS FOR SUCCESS!" in order for that to be an official option.

    It doesn't need it, but it does have it.
    delroland wrote:
    Infidel: Combat encounters are more complex, wherein each member of the party has something to contribute every round. Plus you have tactical movement, positioning, terrain elements... SC's have none of these, and as-written boil down to, "Do you have this skill? Roll it. Good. How about this one? Roll it. Good."

    "Do you have this power? Roll it." etc. All you're pointing out here is that skill challenges are simpler, not broken.

    You pass and you're rewarded, you fail and you face consequences. It's pretty simple and part of being a game. Success being an eventual guarantee is not exciting if it is apparent.

    Infidel on
    OrokosPA.png
    Play D&D 4e? :: Check out Orokos and upload your Character Builder sheet! :: Orokos Dice Roller
    The PhalLounge :: Chat board for Critical Failures IRC! :: #CriticalFailures and #mafia on irc.slashnet.org
  • FoefallerFoefaller Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    I don't own any of the DMGs (only book I have that has skill challenges in it is the Dark Sun one) but it seemed pretty clear to me that, for most of the skill challenges I've seen, success usually means you avoid a combat encounter(s), while failure means having to go through a fight or two (or a minor quest) to get the XP, loot, and story progression you would have gotten if you didn't fail on the skill challenge.

    ...and for not working together, isn't there skill assists?

    Foefaller on
    steam_sig.png
  • TerrendosTerrendos Decorative Monocle Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    I can't imagine it would be too difficult to use the 4 roles for a skill challenge simulation. Maybe some powers and stuff to go along with it.

    A "Leader" would have lots of ways of giving out bonuses to other people's skill checks. A "Striker" would be great at throwing out really high checks that maybe give extra successes. A "Controller" perhaps minimizes the effect of losses the party accrues.

    I bet you could use a variation on the Theme system to implement those powers, too. For example, take the Skill Challenge Leader theme, and you get this At-Will power:

    Decisive Action - At-Will - Standard Action
    Your ability to direct the flow of, for example, conversation, allows others to compound upon what you do.
    Effect: Make a check as part of a skill challenge. If you succeed, one of your adjacent allies gets a +2 bonus to his next skill check. If you fail, one adjacent ally gets a +1 bonus to his next skill check.

    Then with each level or two you get an encounter power or such.

    Also, I wonder how using a sort of HP system, where the party and the "challenge" both have HP values. Then the skill challenges are really just attacks against DCs and such.

    Terrendos on
  • ChanusChanus Sugoi! ^_____^Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Terrendos wrote: »
    Also, I wonder how using a sort of HP system, where the party and the "challenge" both have HP values. Then the skill challenges are really just attacks against DCs and such.

    So, essentially, identical to combat :P


    I think the draw of skill challenges is they're different from combat... at least for me, I'm totally on board with the idea of one character being good at X type of skill and another being good at Y and having the DM utilize that so it's not one person doing all the work every time... because really, how is anyone but the thief going to really do much to get past the trap... or how is the brutish goliath going to smooth-talk the doorman to get the party in to see the boss?

    Sometimes it's not a team effort... the trick is to make sure everyone at least gets a roughly equal share of the limelight.

    Chanus on
    **Winner Softest and Most Comfy Hugs Award Summer 2018**

    Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone
  • TerrendosTerrendos Decorative Monocle Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Chanus wrote: »
    Terrendos wrote: »
    Also, I wonder how using a sort of HP system, where the party and the "challenge" both have HP values. Then the skill challenges are really just attacks against DCs and such.

    So, essentially, identical to combat :P

    That was sort of the point. Could we take the excellent combat system the makers created and adapt it in such a way that it could be applied to skill challenges.

    Terrendos on
  • ChanusChanus Sugoi! ^_____^Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Terrendos wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    Terrendos wrote: »
    Also, I wonder how using a sort of HP system, where the party and the "challenge" both have HP values. Then the skill challenges are really just attacks against DCs and such.

    So, essentially, identical to combat :P

    That was sort of the point. Could we take the excellent combat system the makers created and adapt it in such a way that it could be applied to skill challenges.

    No, I get the point... I just like the idea of a system that's rather different from the combat system... To me it would make things feel like a grind if every step of the adventure followed the same format.

    Chanus on
    **Winner Softest and Most Comfy Hugs Award Summer 2018**

    Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone
  • NotoriusBENNotoriusBEN Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Infidel wrote: »
    delroland wrote: »
    Infidel wrote: »
    Said stuff.

    Said stuff.

    No, I didn't change a damn thing. What did I change?

    If you want to quote the book then look at the Goal and Context of skill challenges. "Success at the challenge should be important to the adventure, but not essential. You don't want a series of bad skill checks to bring the adventure to a grinding halt. At worst, failure at the challenge should send the characters on a long detour, thereby creating a new and interesting part of the adventure."

    Which means "don't make trivial challenges, don't make game ending challenges." If a challenge itself wipes the party like you worry about so much, then that was an ill-designed challenge against the intention of the rules.


    It's perfectly doable to make fun and balanced skill challenges to both the intent and the letter.


    This. End of Discussion. Next Subject please.

    NotoriusBEN on
    notoriusben_zpsa205e831.png
    Steam - NotoriusBEN | Uplay - notoriusben | Xbox,Windows Live - ThatBEN
  • PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    I'd love a skill system that encouraged more teamwork and more player involvement. Right now "roll d20 and hope for a good result" is not particularly compelling. It kind of reminds me of low level combat in 2E: "Roll d20. Miss. Kobold rolls d20. Misses. Roll d20. Miss. Kobold rolls d20. Misses. Roll d20. Hit. Roll d6. 2 damage. Kobold rolls d20. Misses." etc. etc.

    I don't think it needs to explicitly follow the established combat system, but mechanics that provided for more involvement, teamwork, and player choice would be great.

    I've been experimenting with some options so far. One thing I've had great results with is treating any trained insight, perception, or knowledge (arcana, history, religion, nature, dungeoneering) check as a limited success by default, with the check determining what a player can ask. Example:

    Player: "This altar looks suspicious, can I roll religion to see what I know about it?"

    Instead of "roll d20, if you meet an arbitrary number I tell you stuff," successes determine what a player can ask and how specific it can be. So imagine continuing that example:

    Player: "I rolled a 24."

    DM: "Alright, you can ask me one open question and three yes / no questions, that's it."

    Player: "Alright.... was this altar used for human sacrifices?"

    DM: "Nope."

    etc. etc.

    The idea of letting one player give another player a bonus would work, but I think that's kind of a cheap way to enforce teamwork. I'm still playing around with ideas and trying to figure out ways to deal with the inherent flaws in the skill challenge system.

    PotatoNinja on
    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • ChanusChanus Sugoi! ^_____^Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    I've never been a fan of the "Five Players, One Roll, One Chance" approach to skill checks, unless that makes sense... like, if the Rogue fails to disarm the trap, the Cleric isn't going to waltz up and go, "No, like this"... but for something like Diplomacy, I see no reason why someone can't botch a roll and then another party member step up with a, "Now, hang on. What we mean to say is [this]"... or something... maybe at a -2 to the DC or something since it's sort of like a second chance, and also most likely being done by a character with a lower mod in the skill.

    I wouldn't let all five players do that, though... that would seem ridiculous.

    But there's no reason all five players can't try to open the stuck door or listen for distant voices or footsteps or something like that where one person's failure doesn't really affect another person's chance at all.

    Or even something like an Endurance check on a long march through unpleasant terrain where one member could fail, but another member who succeeded could also (if the roll is high enough) lend a shoulder to lean on, as it were. That way the party can help each other out if certain characters are less able than others.

    It doesn't all have to be pass/fail situations.

    Chanus on
    **Winner Softest and Most Comfy Hugs Award Summer 2018**

    Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Chanus wrote: »
    I've never been a fan of the "Five Players, One Roll, One Chance" approach to skill checks, unless that makes sense... like, if the Rogue fails to disarm the trap, the Cleric isn't going to waltz up and go, "No, like this"... but for something like Diplomacy, I see no reason why someone can't botch a roll and then another party member step up with a, "Now, hang on. What we mean to say is [this]"... or something... maybe at a -2 to the DC or something since it's sort of like a second chance, and also most likely being done by a character with a lower mod in the skill.

    I wouldn't let all five players do that, though... that would seem ridiculous.
    I would totally let them do it if they roleplayed it out.

    Complete with foot stomping and elbows to the ribs as each failed to successfully make their case in turn.

    Bonus points if the one who nails it is the half-giant barbarian with a -1 Diplomacy mod and a speech impediment.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    I like skill challenges as a DM because they yell to me "sweet, a way I can organize this non-combat interaction ahead of time without having to think up rolls on the fly (which then morphs into thinking up rolls on the fly because the party decides they'd like to be difficult)". And they're structured in such a way as I can massage things, since the DCs and skills aren't set in stone.

    I've used a couple skill challenges for far in my PbP game here, most not having a specific "Hi, this is a skill challenge" (although the party picked up that it's likely one early on) and only 1 combat triple-skill challenge that I specifically laid out, mainly because it was complicated as hell and easier for the party to know exactly what their range of options were.

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Chanus wrote: »
    I see no reason why someone can't botch a roll and then another party member step up with a, "Now, hang on. What we mean to say is [this]"... or something... maybe at a -2 to the DC or something since it's sort of like a second chance, and also most likely being done by a character with a lower mod in the skill.

    Man, more people need to roll Aid Another checks. They are the best party-supporting actions, particularly in skill checks!

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • KistraKistra Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    I've enjoyed all of the skill challenges I've played in. I really don't get the hate for them. In the one Zed mentioned it became a running joke that the hut we were supposed to be finding our gear in was a hut of hiding because we had about 45 minutes where nobody at the table could roll higher than a 5.

    Kistra on
    Animal Crossing: City Folk Lissa in Filmore 3179-9580-0076
  • AmiguAmigu Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    I've been experimenting with some options so far. One thing I've had great results with is treating any trained insight, perception, or knowledge (arcana, history, religion, nature, dungeoneering) check as a limited success by default, with the check determining what a player can ask.

    I really like that concept actually.

    Chanus also makes a good point I mean you need to make common sense judgements; sometimes a failure is just an opportunity for another player to jump in and get it right.

    Amigu on
    BitD PbP Character Volstrom
    QEz1Jw1.png
  • Silas BrownSilas Brown Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    If they want you to run, you get to run what you want.

    Then just enforce a "no snarkiness" policy for the first couple sessions so they give it a real shot.

    If they don't like it after that they're probably lost causes anyway.

    Late, but I wanted to address this. It's a philosophy I'm unsure of myself. I'm in a position where I can be flexible or I can be stern. Sure, 4E is my chosen game, but if they don't want to play it, doesn't that mean I'm directly affecting how much fun they are having in the game? Where is the line between DM preference and player enjoyment?

    Silas Brown on
  • InfidelInfidel Heretic Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    If they want you to run, you get to run what you want.

    Then just enforce a "no snarkiness" policy for the first couple sessions so they give it a real shot.

    If they don't like it after that they're probably lost causes anyway.

    Late, but I wanted to address this. It's a philosophy I'm unsure of myself. I'm in a position where I can be flexible or I can be stern. Sure, 4E is my chosen game, but if they don't want to play it, doesn't that mean I'm directly affecting how much fun they are having in the game? Where is the line between DM preference and player enjoyment?

    If you have to draw one, it's probably not going to work out.

    That's one of the hardest parts of gaming in my experience, finding a good DM, and that's going to be unnecessarily difficult if you're pushing one into something they don't prefer.

    Unfortunately it usually means no game. Many of the 4e players we have now are from a different pool as some of the older players don't really care for the 4e.

    Infidel on
    OrokosPA.png
    Play D&D 4e? :: Check out Orokos and upload your Character Builder sheet! :: Orokos Dice Roller
    The PhalLounge :: Chat board for Critical Failures IRC! :: #CriticalFailures and #mafia on irc.slashnet.org
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    If they want you to run, you get to run what you want.

    Then just enforce a "no snarkiness" policy for the first couple sessions so they give it a real shot.

    If they don't like it after that they're probably lost causes anyway.

    Late, but I wanted to address this. It's a philosophy I'm unsure of myself. I'm in a position where I can be flexible or I can be stern. Sure, 4E is my chosen game, but if they don't want to play it, doesn't that mean I'm directly affecting how much fun they are having in the game? Where is the line between DM preference and player enjoyment?
    The bottom line is that if you're running it you're putting out a lot more time and energy than they are. So you get to make that call. If they decide they don't want to play it, one of them can assume the duties instead.

    DM the system you want to run because you're going to be sinking a ton of your time into it. If they object strongly enough, they an run a different one. If that level of energy outlay is too great for them to stomach, then they're not actually that bothered by the system you chose.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    So would I be a jerk for playing a halfling monk with an AC of 25 at 4th level? Will I get my ass raped because his NADs aren't up to his AC so running around the bad guys backfield will likely single me out for extra forceful attention?

    Link here.

    The powers are mostly place holders until I bother to write in some from Complete Psionic. He's intended as an Iron Soul monk. I'm going to play him as a kind of dapper little city dweller who through apparent blind luck beats the hell out of mooks. Kind of a comedic Indiana Jones riff.

    Comments are by all means welcome.

    DevoutlyApathetic on
  • smeejsmeej Registered User
    edited August 2010
    Infidel wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    If they want you to run, you get to run what you want.

    Then just enforce a "no snarkiness" policy for the first couple sessions so they give it a real shot.

    If they don't like it after that they're probably lost causes anyway.

    Late, but I wanted to address this. It's a philosophy I'm unsure of myself. I'm in a position where I can be flexible or I can be stern. Sure, 4E is my chosen game, but if they don't want to play it, doesn't that mean I'm directly affecting how much fun they are having in the game? Where is the line between DM preference and player enjoyment?

    If you have to draw one, it's probably not going to work out.

    That's one of the hardest parts of gaming in my experience, finding a good DM, and that's going to be unnecessarily difficult if you're pushing one into something they don't prefer.

    Unfortunately it usually means no game. Many of the 4e players we have now are from a different pool as some of the older players don't really care for the 4e.
    I've seen it more as 3E people not wanting to go 4E while old 2E players are finally coming back in to play.

    At least that was my experience. I've only played 3E through video games.

    smeej on
    IT'S A SAD THING THAT YOUR ADVENTURES HAVE ENDED HERE!!
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    smeej wrote: »
    Infidel wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    If they want you to run, you get to run what you want.

    Then just enforce a "no snarkiness" policy for the first couple sessions so they give it a real shot.

    If they don't like it after that they're probably lost causes anyway.

    Late, but I wanted to address this. It's a philosophy I'm unsure of myself. I'm in a position where I can be flexible or I can be stern. Sure, 4E is my chosen game, but if they don't want to play it, doesn't that mean I'm directly affecting how much fun they are having in the game? Where is the line between DM preference and player enjoyment?

    If you have to draw one, it's probably not going to work out.

    That's one of the hardest parts of gaming in my experience, finding a good DM, and that's going to be unnecessarily difficult if you're pushing one into something they don't prefer.

    Unfortunately it usually means no game. Many of the 4e players we have now are from a different pool as some of the older players don't really care for the 4e.
    I've seen it more as 3E people not wanting to go 4E while old 2E players are finally coming back in to play.

    At least that was my experience. I've only played 3E through video games.
    This is my experience as well. 2E was really my first edition, and 4E feels like a homecoming after a long journey through the dark woods of third.

    A lot of the other people who were around before 3rd have expressed similar feelings.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • InfidelInfidel Heretic Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    smeej wrote: »
    Infidel wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    If they want you to run, you get to run what you want.

    Then just enforce a "no snarkiness" policy for the first couple sessions so they give it a real shot.

    If they don't like it after that they're probably lost causes anyway.

    Late, but I wanted to address this. It's a philosophy I'm unsure of myself. I'm in a position where I can be flexible or I can be stern. Sure, 4E is my chosen game, but if they don't want to play it, doesn't that mean I'm directly affecting how much fun they are having in the game? Where is the line between DM preference and player enjoyment?

    If you have to draw one, it's probably not going to work out.

    That's one of the hardest parts of gaming in my experience, finding a good DM, and that's going to be unnecessarily difficult if you're pushing one into something they don't prefer.

    Unfortunately it usually means no game. Many of the 4e players we have now are from a different pool as some of the older players don't really care for the 4e.
    I've seen it more as 3E people not wanting to go 4E while old 2E players are finally coming back in to play.

    At least that was my experience. I've only played 3E through video games.
    This is my experience as well. 2E was really my first edition, and 4E feels like a homecoming after a long journey through the dark woods of third.

    A lot of the other people who were around before 3rd have expressed similar feelings.

    This is sorta our case as well, just that quite a lot of the 4e crew didn't play any edition really (other than dabbling once or twice in the past.)

    My roommate and I played mostly 2e, we played 3e, and now we really like 4e while our newer 3e friends don't as much.

    Interesting.

    Infidel on
    OrokosPA.png
    Play D&D 4e? :: Check out Orokos and upload your Character Builder sheet! :: Orokos Dice Roller
    The PhalLounge :: Chat board for Critical Failures IRC! :: #CriticalFailures and #mafia on irc.slashnet.org
  • Silas BrownSilas Brown Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    All I know is when I look at Pathfinder/3rd, is it looks like a bunch of unnecessary mess. The stuff they have rules for are insane and the experienced players just invent some outlandish shit. Sometimes I look at Pathfinder, and I kind of drool over all the tables and figures, but there doesn't actually seem to be anything necessary there.

    I'm still pretty torn about what to do for the game. I guess I'll put in an ultimatum, but I still feel kind of bad about it because I know the DM really wants to play a Pathfinder game and he can't get anyone to run it for him.

    Silas Brown on
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Is there nobody else in the group willing to run a Pathfinder game, Prof?

    If there is, put it to a vote. Otherwise, I'd say you're free and clear to do what you want.

    Players and bitchers are a dime a dozen. DMs are rare enough that they can call the shots.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • Silas BrownSilas Brown Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Is there nobody else in the group willing to run a Pathfinder game, Prof?

    If there is, put it to a vote. Otherwise, I'd say you're free and clear to do what you want.

    Players and bitchers are a dime a dozen. DMs are rare enough that they can call the shots.

    I think you're right. I'm gonna prepare the most bitchin' Ebberon heist game ever.

    Silas Brown on
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Infidel wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    smeej wrote: »
    Infidel wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    If they want you to run, you get to run what you want.

    Then just enforce a "no snarkiness" policy for the first couple sessions so they give it a real shot.

    If they don't like it after that they're probably lost causes anyway.

    Late, but I wanted to address this. It's a philosophy I'm unsure of myself. I'm in a position where I can be flexible or I can be stern. Sure, 4E is my chosen game, but if they don't want to play it, doesn't that mean I'm directly affecting how much fun they are having in the game? Where is the line between DM preference and player enjoyment?

    If you have to draw one, it's probably not going to work out.

    That's one of the hardest parts of gaming in my experience, finding a good DM, and that's going to be unnecessarily difficult if you're pushing one into something they don't prefer.

    Unfortunately it usually means no game. Many of the 4e players we have now are from a different pool as some of the older players don't really care for the 4e.
    I've seen it more as 3E people not wanting to go 4E while old 2E players are finally coming back in to play.

    At least that was my experience. I've only played 3E through video games.
    This is my experience as well. 2E was really my first edition, and 4E feels like a homecoming after a long journey through the dark woods of third.

    A lot of the other people who were around before 3rd have expressed similar feelings.

    This is sorta our case as well, just that quite a lot of the 4e crew didn't play any edition really (other than dabbling once or twice in the past.)

    My roommate and I played mostly 2e, we played 3e, and now we really like 4e while our newer 3e friends don't as much.

    Interesting.
    Our current group is me (basically a 2nd Edition guy), my wife (newb), another guy who has been a long time Saga player with us, two guys who started with first and spent a ton of time with second and a guy who was a hardcore power gamer in 3rd but now refuses to play it (to the point where he was resistant of Saga).

    So it's kind of an eclectic mix right now. But in general it really does seem to be that those of us coming from older editions are really enjoying 4E, but those that started with 3rd are hanging back. With the exception of Jordin (the power gamer), he's one of the biggest 4E evangelists I know.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Is there nobody else in the group willing to run a Pathfinder game, Prof?

    If there is, put it to a vote. Otherwise, I'd say you're free and clear to do what you want.

    Players and bitchers are a dime a dozen. DMs are rare enough that they can call the shots.

    I think you're right. I'm gonna prepare the most bitchin' Ebberon heist game ever.
    That's the spirit.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Looking forward to Wednesday. Going to run an encounter out of the Draconomicon 2. Time to find out if the players are smart enough to be able to do a skill challenge without being told its a skill challenge. Otherwise they might get eated.

    DarkPrimus on
    wpyz0Y5.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Looking forward to Wednesday. Going to run an encounter out of the Draconomicon 2. Time to find out if the players are smart enough to be able to do a skill challenge without being told its a skill challenge. Otherwise they might get eated.

    Likely outcome of events:

    * Your players will be oblivious to the skill challenge, failing miserably.
    * Your players will get eated.
    * Your players will then decide to show the thing that eated them who's Boss, and come up with their own impromptu skill challenge culminating in them exploding the eater from the inside.

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • delrolanddelroland Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Is there nobody else in the group willing to run a Pathfinder game, Prof?

    If there is, put it to a vote. Otherwise, I'd say you're free and clear to do what you want.

    Players and bitchers are a dime a dozen. DMs are rare enough that they can call the shots.

    I think you're right. I'm gonna prepare the most bitchin' Ebberon heist game ever.

    As long as you don't steal my sky pirate attack on the lightning rail adventure... :x
    Or steal it, I don't care. :P

    delroland on
    EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
    "Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
  • smeejsmeej Registered User
    edited August 2010
    Isn't sky pirates attacking the lightning rail the first adventure everyone makes in their mind when they first hear about Eberron? There's even a picture of a warforged hanging off an airship over the lightning rail!

    smeej on
    IT'S A SAD THING THAT YOUR ADVENTURES HAVE ENDED HERE!!
  • delrolanddelroland Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Yeah, but to do it is something else entirely.

    Something AWESOME.

    Other highlights in that campaign:

    Being sentenced to hang in Thrane for killing a sergeant in their army (though for good reasons, they saved a changeling in the process) and breaking out of prison to escape on the 6am rail to Sharn.

    The half-orc barbarian marrying a jungle princess in Xen'drik. Who happens to be a pygmy lizardfolk.

    Tripping a megaraptor mid-pounce, Ewoks vs. AT-ST style.

    delroland on
    EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
    "Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
  • TerrendosTerrendos Decorative Monocle Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    It wasn't the first adventure I made in my mind. The one I came up with was some sky buccaneers attacking the electricity bus....

    Dangit.

    Terrendos on
  • abotkinabotkin Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    How do you DMs find time to actually put stuff together? My group just finished up KotS that I was running for them and I've got ideas for advancing the campaign, but particularly since our game is run through maptools, it takes an absurd amount of time to prep stuff.

    Also on that note, I was going to try and leave what to do next up to the players after giving them several hooks to follow, but is there a better way to do that than just prepping all of the potential encounters you'd need in maptools?

    abotkin on
    steam_sig.png
    3DS: 0963-0539-4405
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Jeebus.

    A 33 AC against opportunity attacks at 4th level.

    That is probably going too far.

    DevoutlyApathetic on
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    abotkin wrote: »
    How do you DMs find time to actually put stuff together? My group just finished up KotS that I was running for them and I've got ideas for advancing the campaign, but particularly since our game is run through maptools, it takes an absurd amount of time to prep stuff.

    Also on that note, I was going to try and leave what to do next up to the players after giving them several hooks to follow, but is there a better way to do that than just prepping all of the potential encounters you'd need in maptools?

    Magician's Choice.

    Essentially make the encounter mechanically similar for all the options. This doesn't help much for the prepping of tokens that look correct for Map Tools though.

    The idea is to design some encounters that could fit into multiple potential plot choices and fit them together with what minor changes are appropriate.

    Of course, you should put forth some effort into not making this obvious to the players.

    DevoutlyApathetic on
  • smeejsmeej Registered User
    edited August 2010
    delroland wrote: »
    Yeah, but to do it is something else entirely.

    Something AWESOME.

    Other highlights in that campaign:

    Being sentenced to hang in Thrane for killing a sergeant in their army (though for good reasons, they saved a changeling in the process) and breaking out of prison to escape on the 6am rail to Sharn.

    The half-orc barbarian marrying a jungle princess in Xen'drik. Who happens to be a pygmy lizardfolk.

    Tripping a megaraptor mid-pounce, Ewoks vs. AT-ST style.
    I just want to do an Eberron game where the PCs are special ops mailmen.

    smeej on
    IT'S A SAD THING THAT YOUR ADVENTURES HAVE ENDED HERE!!
Sign In or Register to comment.