TheRPGSite

Last night we had our 13th week in the Temple of Elemental Evil, and man was it a doozy.  After 18 deaths over those 13th weeks, in finally seems the party cannot go on after so many deaths.

Here's a log of the campaign so far. (http://thewargate.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_9.html)

For some time now, I've been pushing for what I call "familiarity". (http://thewargate.blogspot.com/2012/11/fostering-familiarity.html)  I've attempted to enact a rule, and for a while it was working.  We got some interesting character hooks and roleplay out of this simple precept.

Yet with so much death, it's been hard to keep tabs on various character story arcs within the framework of the old adventure.

So now we have party decimated by so much death that the remaining characters now have little reason to continue to adventure.  Behold, the current group now, and bear in mind they have known each other only days:

• Kay Oh Stubbs, Half Orc Fighter IV (Lawful Evil)
• Mooshue, Oeridian Cleric of Hieroneous IV (Neutral Good)
• Ewe Gee Stubbs, Half-Orc Fighter IV (Lawful Evil)
• Kakkarakk, Valley Elf Magic-User III  (Neutral)
• Ulfric Broomhandle, Dwarf Fighter III (Lawful Evil)
• Long Fellow, Half Elf Ranger III (Neutral Good)

All of the party's impetus has been slowly killed by the players ignoring the "familiarity" clause, and choosing clashing alignments and even religions.  Ewe Gee Stubbs secretly serves Hextor, Hieroneous' sworn enemy.

These mercenaries have seen nothing but death and haven't been paid in the week or so the oldest one has been among the party.

I'm going to give my players a chance to save this party, by having the survivors talk it over in character.  Why would they continue to seek death in the Temple?  They've made it clear that only money motivates them, yet they have seen nothing from the place:  their late leader kept most of the profits of their ventures, and the bodies of the leader and mapper were not recovered from the temple, meaning the party has lost their maps as well.

All in all, these characters (except for two) don't know each other, and many of them don't like each other either.  If they can't convince me they have a reason to continue, I'm going to dissolve the party and have the players create an entirely new one of about 5th level.  

We'll use the Ghost Tower of Inverness as a starting point, and I will repopulate the very small portion of the dungeon the players mapped and cleared with new encounters.  

I feel that by their own decisions, the players have created an unworkable party who have no reason to stay together and no reason for adventure.  They are all evil and out for themselves, save the two good aligned players that will start to receive penalties for association with evil.  I've already warned the cleric that Hieroneous doesn't like him healing Evil folks.

What do you think?  Is dissolution the only answer?

What reason could they possibly come up with that wouldn't stretch belief?  

• For money?  There's no evidence of any money out there, only a fuck ton of murdering fucks.
• For love?  They barely know each other, the group of survivors that had been recruiting new adventurers are all dead!
• For revenge?  The only folks they know killed by the servants of the temple are their employers.  Can't really call any of the characters friends, and this is their own choice.

Dissolving the party?

Maybe they don't get along so well but an acid bath is kind of harsh punishment.

I'm kinda hung up on the fact that DEATH and SUFFERING are huge parts of this equation.

Motivation to defeat evil is not, by the player's own admission the only point of the expedition was for the prospect of treasure, which there has been no evidence of other than the chump change carried by the 0-level guards.

Also, the two half orcs (the only ones with any connection) were stiffed by their former employer, who is now dead.

I am pushing for a story, because I don't really enjoy this random group of people adventuring for no reason.  

The punishment isn't for not getting along, it's for deliberately creating an in-game atmosphere that isn't conducive to group play.  The original group created to adventure in the temple is long dead, and some of these players are in the 4th "generation" of removal from the original party due to frequent run ins with death.

Who the hell are you to tell the players to dissolve the party? That is a player decision. If they are having fun then let them continue (while naturally enforcing the consequences such as the ranger losing ranger status and the priest of Heironeus losing his spells).

Talk about a ham fisted intervention. You present the world and impartially adjudicate the consequences of their decisions. THEY decide what they do, the character they play and who they adventure with.

These things sort themselves out without the DMs help. Either the players get sick of the bullshit or natural attrition takes care of the problem.

I wouldn't interfere if they're still having fun. Maybe they're just together because they're all mercenaries and adventurers out for loot in a dangerous world, and being part of a party, no matter how disparate, is better than being alone. When they get tired of it, they'll tell you—or have their characters do something about it, most likely.

The only time to intervene, really, is if the players aren't enjoying themselves. Of course, if you're just sick of running for the group and want to try something else, that's another matter entirely, but if they're enjoying themselves, that's good enough. It sounds as if you have a high attrition rate—if any of the characters actually survive, that might be a bonding experience right there, as "members of the old company".

Quote from: Fiasco;624822Who the hell are you to tell the players to dissolve the party? That is a player decision.

I am the Dungeon Master for this game.  Who the hell are you?

It's not a player decision if I don't feel that alignment and motivation are being fulfilled, i.e. roleplayed.  

That said, I will still have a "hearing" at the beginning of the next session as I stated above.  If the players want to continue with this party, all they have to do is give me a good reason why their characters would.

Quote from: Fiasco;624822If they are having fun then let them continue (while naturally enforcing the consequences such as the ranger losing ranger status and the priest of Heironeus losing his spells).

The priest of Hieroneous already said fuck this place, there's nothing but death here.  The Ranger doesn't know any player characters other than getting drunk one night.  I really don't think that either would make the decision to continue, which the players reinforced when we spoke about it.

Quote from: Fiasco;624822Talk about a ham fisted intervention. You present the world and impartially adjudicate the consequences of their decisions. THEY decide what they do, the character they play and who they adventure with.

I know what I'm supposed to do.  I am doing that.

I have said several times that this is all their own choosing.  It's not like I'm just springing this on them, I've been warning them for over a long time, at least 8 weeks.

Quote from: Fiasco;624822These things sort themselves out without the DMs help. Either the players get sick of the bullshit or natural attrition takes care of the problem.

We're not going to stop playing, if that's what you're alluding to.  All the players will continue, but their characters..well, they've pretty much roleplayed them right out of the scenario.

Quote from: Zachary The First;624824I wouldn’t interfere if they’re still having fun. Maybe they’re just together because they’re all mercenaries and adventurers out for loot in a dangerous world, and being part of a party, no matter how disparate, is better than being alone. When they get tired of it, they’ll tell you—or have their characters do something about it, most likely.

The only time to intervene, really, is if the players aren’t enjoying themselves. Of course, if you’re just sick of running for the group and want to try something else, that’s another matter entirely, but if they’re enjoying themselves, that’s good enough. It sounds as if you have a high attrition rate—if any of the characters actually survive, that might be a bonding experience right there, as “members of the old company”.

I appreciate the comments.

I think the attrition rate is damning.  You should hear the players talking in character.

I can assure you the reason for considering the disbandment of this party comes from the disparity between the characters.  They are starting to find it hard to roleplay with one another, based on conflicting goals and alignments.  I've talked with several already, and I know they are having fun still...but that's because they are simply playing the game.  

My games are deadly, so they are fun (for my players - who prefer that sort of thing), but over the weeks each new character widened the rift so to speak as far as character interaction.  Now no one trusts any of the others.

These characters will probably move on to greener pastures unless I can be given a truly compelling reason for them to face death together.

I'm done with this "hey I just met this guy I think I'll trust him with my life and money even though I'm some form of evil".  I don't think the players are respecting alignments (regardless of what anyone else thinks) and the interplay is not compelling.

Where we used to have lots of awesome roleplay, now it's diminished and it's mainly the fault of the characters, not the players...who will all create a NEW party with NEW plot threads.  

This new "center" for the party will provide the basis for adventure, since it will be easy to create a new party that is bent on entering the temple.  However, I could be wrong - they could give me lots of good reasons this next week.

I highly doubt it though, yet I encourage you guys to attempt with your own reason.

Just because there's safety in numbers isn't a good reason for the mercs to stay together.  There's no one to pay them, there's no evidence of any treasure (leading many to openly talk about it being a myth) and there's little mercenary work in Hommlett.  Greener pastures beckon, and for each character it's in a different direction.

Quote from: Zachary The First;624824I wouldn't interfere if they're still having fun. Maybe they're just together because they're all mercenaries and adventurers out for loot in a dangerous world, and being part of a party, no matter how disparate, is better than being alone. When they get tired of it, they'll tell you—or have their characters do something about it, most likely.

The only time to intervene, really, is if the players aren't enjoying themselves. Of course, if you're just sick of running for the group and want to try something else, that's another matter entirely, but if they're enjoying themselves, that's good enough. It sounds as if you have a high attrition rate—if any of the characters actually survive, that might be a bonding experience right there, as "members of the old company".

I appreciate the comments.

I think the attrition rate is damning.  You should hear the players talking in character.

I can assure you the reason for considering the disbandment of this party comes from the disparity between the characters.  They are starting to find it hard to roleplay with one another, based on conflicting goals and alignments.  I've talked with several already, and I know they are having fun still...but that's because they are simply playing the game.  M

y games are deadly, so they are fun (for my players), but over the weeks each new character widened the rift so to speak as far as character interaction.  Now no one trusts any of the others.

These characters will probably move on to greener pastures unless I can be given a truly compelling reason for them to face death together.

I'm done with this "hey I just met this guy I think I'll trust him with my life and money even though I'm some form of evil".  I don't think the players are respecting alignments (regardless of what anyone else thinks) and the interplay is not compelling.

Where we used to have lots of awesome roleplay, now it's diminished and it's mainly the fault of the characters, not the players...who will all create a NEW party with NEW plot threads.  

This new "center" for the party will provide the basis for adventure, since it will be easy to create a new party that is bent on entering the temple.  However, I could be wrong - they could give me lots of good reasons this next week.

I highly doubt it though, yet I encourage you guys to attempt with your own reason.

Just because there's safety in numbers isn't a good reason for the mercs to stay together.  There's no one to pay them, there's no evidence of any treasure (leading many to openly talk about it being a myth) and there's little mercenary work in Hommlett.  Greener pastures beckon, and for each character it's in a different direction.

I think one important question is: are the players enjoying themselves?

Because if I found myself in a game where (if I understand your post correctly) the statistically average life expectancy of a character is less than one session plus the DM took away our maps every time the mapper died because "the rest of you don't remember anything about the layout despite having been there for a while"*, I would quite possibly get rather disgruntled. And the next thing you know, your players don't care about providing the DM with sufficient motivation to keep the party together, or even just having compatible alignments, because they just don't care any more.


*This is a pet peeve of mine. We all have the ability to navigate large and expansive building complexes with a rather decent accuracy based on nothing more than having been there once or twice before. Without ever having mapped it in the first place. And yet, many DMs want to enforce a stupidly irrealistic form of amnesia where professional explorers, spelunkers and adventurers are apparently brain damaged and can't remember anything if they're not holding a map of it in their hands.

Quote from: Blackhand;624825It's not a player decision if I don't feel that alignment and motivation are being fulfilled, i.e. roleplayed.  

That said, I will still have a "hearing" at the beginning of the next session as I stated above.  If the players want to continue with this party, all they have to do is give me a good reason why their characters would.

It's your game and all, and if the players are down with it it's all good, but as described it sounds like this is your hang-up and not theirs. Why worry about it?

DM enforcement like you describe is why I hate alignment rules.

I should also state once more (for those that don't know) that what we're doing is part of a deliberate experiment.  We are playing classic campaigns through all editions of AD&D starting with this one.

This is not "Free Range Greyhawk" style play.  This is a focused scenario:  we are playing The Temple of Elemental Evil.

Any characters wanting to "free range" are simply removed from play.  We are not focused on the characters as much as we are on the scenario.  This is an academic consideration, but it removes a lot of the arguments that could be devised about "not" dissolving the party.

I actually suspect there will be little resistance to this, and a lot of heads bowed in silent acknowledgement.  Mostly, due to people selecting Evil as an alignment when the party was mostly Good, and now selecting Good alignment when the party is mostly evil, they know the party can only end in division and mostly likely murder.

Yeah PatW, I enforce the alignment rules like I enforce 0 hp = dead.  A lot of folks don't like that one either, or the money it costs to train a new level.

Oh, and no one in Hommlett can help a dead character.

Sounds like a case of the DM cracking the sads to me. Also sounds like the players don't give much of a shit anymore, possibly due to the high attrition rate.

Quote from: Fiasco;624835Sounds like a case of the DM cracking the sads to me. Also sounds like the players don't give much of a shit anymore, possibly due to the high attrition rate.

I remain arbitrary, but heavy hearted that no one has listened to my cries of alignment conflict.  I'm not having a "sulk" or whatever you intimate.  I'm doing my job as DM.

It's not that the players don't care, it's that the attrition rate robs them of many resources...including their maps, a whole truckload of gold (needed for leveling up!) and even magic items.  

By the way, maps are a mechanical consideration in AD&D 1e that affects movement.

This in turn robs characters of their impetus to even be there, other than perhaps the explanation that all of them have death wishes and don't care about life, wealth or happiness...don't many of you bitch about "roll play" vs "role play"?  In this moment, I am defending the roleplaying portion of the game.

If I went the other way, you'd be telling me all I care about is rolling dice and slaying monsters, and that I've abandoned creating and promulgating stimulating roleplay between actual players - you would tell me I successfully turned AD&D 1e into a 4e clone by focusing on combat rather than player interaction.

I could do that.  I'm not going to, however.

Quote from: Blackhand;624825I am the Dungeon Master

Ahahah, ah jeez. We really need a thread on dungeon mastering techniques.

Quote from: The Traveller;624840Ahahah, ah jeez. We really need a thread on dungeon mastering techniques.

Yeah, because you're someone I'd take advice on gaming from.

How about a thread on replying in threads?

For instance, the whole point of this was to explore whether or not I could find a compelling reason to NOT dissolve the party.  The only answers have been those I addressed in the original post, or suggestions that would be reliant on it being "free range" rather than focused on these scenarios for a specific purpose.

Instead, people attack me for running my game the way I run it.

Dissolving the party, much like, you know, roleplaying your character is a PLAYER call.

Quote from: Fiasco;624843Dissolving the party, much like, you know, roleplaying your character is a PLAYER call.

I absolutely disagree that dissolving the party is a player call, and yet I know it must be approached with utmost caution and deliberation.

I've spoken to a lot of my players and 7/8 agree it's for the best.  We won't make it official until next Sunday when we have the "hearing".

Let me point out that what you are effectively saying is that asking for a single good reason for an adventuring party to adventure in the DM's adventures is not within the DM's purview.

You are wrong.

Quote from: Blackhand;624841For instance, the whole point of this was to explore whether or not I could find a compelling reason to NOT dissolve the party.  The only answers have been those I addressed in the original post, or suggestions that would be reliant on it being "free range" rather than focused on these scenarios for a specific purpose.

Fair enough.  Most of the reasons you've got are metagame-based - "it's more fun to play than dissolve parties". They are reasons, just not the kind you want.

So, ignoring that - do the characters know their alignments are in conflict?  If they're not waving the "I'm evil!" and "I'm good!" banners around, maybe there's no reason for the good PC's to know there's an issue?

Is the rumor of gold in the temple common in Hommlet?

Does one of the PC's have a high CHA? Maybe he's a natural leader, and the rest will go along where he goes for gold'n'glory?

Maybe they consider their former employers complete incompetents, and think they can do a better job of sacking the place?

What if there isn't a single good reason, but a bunch of individual (and perhaps intensely private) reasons hwy they're sticking together? If every party member is seeking something different from sticking around in the party could that work?

If the big issue is the split between good and evil PCs, why not force the issue? Let the party go out with a bang rather than fizzling out; have the patron gods of the Good and Evil characters tell them that the time has come to purge the infidel from the party, and let the Neutral characters support whichever side they may. Whoever survives can form the core of the new party - or not, if they don't have a good reason to continue in the scenario - but you may as well have a bit of PvP fun since the party seems to be sliding that way anyway.

Quote from: PatW;624857Fair enough.  Most of the reasons you've got are metagame-based - "it's more fun to play than dissolve parties". They are reasons, just not the kind you want.

Oh, we're still going to play, even if this party dissolves...so the whole "it's more fun to play" doesn't really apply.

Yes, I want an articulate reason that I consider moving.

Quote from: PatW;624857So, ignoring that - do the characters know their alignments are in conflict?  If they're not waving the "I'm evil!" and "I'm good!" banners around, maybe there's no reason for the good PC's to know there's an issue?

Yes they do.  It's gone so far as the half orc worshipper of Hextor leaving the room when healing is performed by and being derisive to the cleric of Hieroneous, and we already had a paladin of Hieroneous elect to leave the party because of the Evil within it.  

He then made the servant of Hextor we're talking about.

Quote from: PatW;624857Is the rumor of gold in the temple common in Hommlet?

Only death has come from the ruins.  No gold or treasure has been seen.

Quote from: PatW;624857Does one of the PC's have a high CHA? Maybe he's a natural leader, and the rest will go along where he goes for gold'n'glory?

No.  All surviving PC's have CHA scores from 10 through 12.

Quote from: PatW;624857Maybe they consider their former employers complete incompetents, and think they can do a better job of sacking the place?

This is the same thing as I've already said.  There's no evidence that there is anything to be sacked.  Yet they probably feel good the no longer have employment.

Quote from: Warthur;624858What if there isn't a single good reason, but a bunch of individual (and perhaps intensely private) reasons hwy they're sticking together? If every party member is seeking something different from sticking around in the party could that work?

That could work.  I would want a compelling reason from each character, and no player has offered anything other than why he would want to leave, not stay.

Quote from: Warthur;624858If the big issue is the split between good and evil PCs, why not force the issue? Let the party go out with a bang rather than fizzling out; have the patron gods of the Good and Evil characters tell them that the time has come to purge the infidel from the party, and let the Neutral characters support whichever side they may. Whoever survives can form the core of the new party - or not, if they don't have a good reason to continue in the scenario - but you may as well have a bit of PvP fun since the party seems to be sliding that way anyway.

This would upset my player base.  We do quite a lot of PVP anyway, but how is this not as "ham fisted" as simply prompting / allowing the characters to leave?

Quote from: Blackhand;624864That could work.  I would want a compelling reason from each character, and no player has offered anything other than why he would want to leave, not stay.

Sounds like the party's doomed, then, if you put the players on the spot and say "Gimme a reason why your character might want to stick around in this scenario" and they can't justify it then they really have screwed the pooch when it comes to character creation and party hooks.

Would it be appropriate for your group's style to have the players propose reasons why each of their characters might be determined to crack the Temple when they're doing character gen? If these people are just showing up from out of the blue as blank slates without any pre-programmed urge to tackle the scenario then that might contribute to them struggling to find a reason to stick around.

QuoteThis would upset my player base.  We do quite a lot of PVP anyway, but how is this not as "ham fisted" as simply prompting / allowing the characters to leave?

Oh, it's ham-fisted as hell, but it's mildly less scorched earth than junking the current party completely and starting again. But if you and your group would prefer to start with new PCs then go for it.

I usually demand the "hook" upon creation and introduction to the party, via the whole "familiarity" thing.

The players who died would often make characters as quickly as possible, and after about 10 deaths the reasons stopped coming and I stopped enforcing it.  So they've had plenty of time...

I've also warned them several times that if something happened to the "core" of the party that was organizing an expedition if I didn't hear some reasons (i.e. good roleplaying) that the party would be at best penalized, at worst disbanded entirely.

I should have enforced it more strictly, and I will going forward to prevent this sort of thing from happening again.

By the way, having them fight it out is only MILDLY less scorched earth, and that's only if there's more than one survivor.  At worst, this is way more polarizing towards the players (players would hate on each other more), rather than let them be shooed away by their arbitrary GM to make room for a real party with real motivations.

Yet you said it.  If I put them on the spot, all I get are blank looks.  This is going to be the key feature of the "hearing" next week.  In fact, it will serve as the catalystic example of why the party deserves to be disbanded.

Sounds like an odd situation - or maybe I'm just lucky with my players. Nobody I GM would dream of rolling up a new character for a campaign without thinking through how they fit in with the party (and the ongoing scenario, if there is one). The players in my current D&D game have expended vastly more energy on working out how their characters met and ended up becoming fast friends than on any other aspect of their character backgrounds.

Quote from: Warthur;624880Sounds like an odd situation - or maybe I'm just lucky with my players. Nobody I GM would dream of rolling up a new character for a campaign without thinking through how they fit in with the party (and the ongoing scenario, if there is one). The players in my current D&D game have expended vastly more energy on working out how their characters met and ended up becoming fast friends than on any other aspect of their character backgrounds.

Most of the time, the players are very good at this sort of thing.

I think it's the high mortality rate that has eroded that particular section of their thinking.

Quote from: Blackhand;624882Most of the time, the players are very good at this sort of thing.

I think it's the high mortality rate that has eroded that particular section of their thinking.

Well, it's probably very hard to get any sort of investment or interest in a character if they know they probably won't last more than a few sessions.

What is the exact kill count, if you don't mind my asking? As in, how many players, and how many characters have been killed off. What's the current character with the most longevity?

Quote from: Warthur;624880Sounds like an odd situation

It is an odd situation.  I thought the board might like to hear about it, since most of the answers I am getting are pointing to DM's deliberately fudging ALL the dice rolls involved in player death (in their favor to prevent a death) or simply letting them do whatever the hell they want.  I refute the storygame answers, and profess that I am an impartial referee.  I want to see what happens, and I don't have a "story" to promote.

All I want to do is get the Temple on our club's "experience" list and move on to the next one.  And I will run the game RaW, expressly as written in the scenario.  This isn't because I'm a shitty DM as some would have you believe, but because this experiment is important to myself and the club.

Quote from: Zachary The First;624884Well, it's probably very hard to get any sort of investment or interest in a character if they know they probably won't last more than a few sessions.

What is the exact kill count, if you don't mind my asking? As in, how many players, and how many characters have been killed off. What's the current character with the most longevity?

There are nine players, and the kill count is 18.

Once again, most relevant information is here. (http://thewargate.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_9.html)

We have played for 13 weeks.  The oldest character is only four weeks old, in game time like somewhere between 1 and 2 weeks.

Looking at the current roster, there's bound to be conflict.

You mention that pvp isn't unheard of. Have they been working as a team up till now?

Quote from: One Horse Town;624889Looking at the current roster, there's bound to be conflict.

You mention that pvp isn't unheard of. Have they been working as a team up till now?

Yes, under the purview of the two elven brothers who perished at the temple last session.  They were the ones who had moved to the forefront of planning and executing the expeditions...but most of their party was not happy with the Lawful Evil leader not divvying up treasure as they thought it should be...namely, by not divvying up.

Yeah, he intended to hold all the money as long as he could by simply refusing to pay folk.  Now he's dead and all the money is gone.

Yeah, i wouldn't give a fuck about that game either.

I'm seeing a pattern developing in this thread.

Blackhand: "Blah blah blah maybe it's because the PCs are dying too often."
Various posters: "Blah blah blah oh, and it's because the PCs are dying too often."
Blackhand: "Blah blah blah, coincidentially, I think it might be because the PCs are dying too often."
Various posters: "Blah blah blah, and yes, it's definitely because the PCs are dying too often."
Blackhand: "Blah blah blah, I'm sort of getting the feeling it might be because the PCs are dying too often."


Blackhand, the players are the way they are because they're disgruntled, and that in turn is because their PCs are dying too often. Dissolving the party and starting again, or taking it to another module, or anything else is not going to work as long as you keep killing the PCs this often. It doesn't matter how often you reconstitute the party from scratch, as long as you keep up the same lethality you will drive them into not giving a shit again and again and again. The only problem to your solution is to ease up on the grind.

Quote from: Premier;624899I'm seeing a pattern developing in this thread.

Blackhand: "Blah blah blah maybe it's because the PCs are dying too often."
Various posters: "Blah blah blah oh, and it's because the PCs are dying too often."
Blackhand: "Blah blah blah, coincidentially, I think it might be because the PCs are dying too often."
Various posters: "Blah blah blah, and yes, it's definitely because the PCs are dying too often."
Blackhand: "Blah blah blah, I'm sort of getting the feeling it might be because the PCs are dying too often."


Blackhand, the players are the way they are because they're disgruntled, and that in turn is because their PCs are dying too often. Dissolving the party and starting again, or taking it to another module, or anything else is not going to work as long as you keep killing the PCs this often. It doesn't matter how often you reconstitute the party from scratch, as long as you keep up the same lethality you will drive them into not giving a shit again and again and again. The only problem to your solution is to ease up on the grind.

I see you didn't read the part where I started the thread by saying it was the high mortality rate that was the culprit.  We are examining WHY.

So what you're saying is you have a problem with the ruleset? In the same breath you intimate that this is all my fault as DM.

Players getting killed is not my fault.  Other than I'm not fudging dice rolls.

This isn't the point of the thread, by the way.  However, I'll give three examples that will help illustrate my point.

Cleric is attacked by ghouls.  Fighters flank him to provide an escape route.  His action:  Stand where he is and cast spells.
Ghouls actions:  Kill him where he stands.

Illusionist / Thief makes it behind the gnoll line.  He moves to backstab one of the last gnolls and misses.  I rule in the players' favor that the gnoll is confused.
His Action:  Stand where he is and fight.
Gnoll action:  Kill him where he stands.

Four earth elementals jump out of the ground (you know what I'm talking about).  Elven brothers sound retreat, entire party backs out before anything bad happens.
Party Action:  Charge the Elementals.  I have given two players +2 weapons, one of which is double specialized.  One person does damage.  All other weapons ineffective.
Elemental: The nearest elemental attacks, nearly kill hardest fighter in one hit.  Other elementals patrol.
Party Action: Continue to fight, talk about retreating.
Elemental: Kill party leader.  Others patrol.
Party Action:  Retreat.  Elf brother attempts to get the body of his brother which has all the money.
Elemental: Kill the other brother.  4-32 damage, hit AC3 on a 5+.  3rd - 4th level fighters all the way around.

What you are suggesting is that it is MY FAULT AS DM that this is happening.  The point I wish to illustrate is that it is the player's fault, and they just haven't developed the mindset of these early adventures.  Yet, they will.

True, I could have said different dice scores so that they didn't die.  True, I could have had the monsters fail every attack just by decreeing they do so.

I could have implemented house rules saying that you don't die at 0 hp.  I could have decided someone in Hommlett could revive dead characters.

Yet that is not being true to the rules, to the scenario or to my players. I just feel that would make me into a shitty GM.  Not just a shitty GM, but a shitty storygamey GM.

My character was Ganth Ralpar in the campaign Blackhand is currently running and discussing. I can honestly say that as the weeks have gone by it has gotten harder and harder to justify the group traveling and working together.

The Brothers Ralpar functioned together because they ultimately had a goal they were both working towards together. But even then some decisions were difficult to make and follow through with due to alignment. So it does make sense that the current party will have a falling out. Even with the brothers leading the group, the reasons for continuing with the rest of the party were getting stretched thin.

I suppose some people would have no issue with this, but if I'm truly roleplaying my character then I have to take into consideration what he would think of everyone else trying to loot the bodies of their fallen comrades and then leave them in the most evil place he has ever seen. It just doesn't make sense to go along with all of that when my character is of a good alignment.

Quote from: Premier;624899I'm seeing a pattern developing in this thread.

Blackhand: "Blah blah blah maybe it's because the PCs are dying too often."
Various posters: "Blah blah blah oh, and it's because the PCs are dying too often."
Blackhand: "Blah blah blah, coincidentially, I think it might be because the PCs are dying too often."
Various posters: "Blah blah blah, and yes, it's definitely because the PCs are dying too often."
Blackhand: "Blah blah blah, I'm sort of getting the feeling it might be because the PCs are dying too often."


Blackhand, the players are the way they are because they're disgruntled, and that in turn is because their PCs are dying too often. Dissolving the party and starting again, or taking it to another module, or anything else is not going to work as long as you keep killing the PCs this often. It doesn't matter how often you reconstitute the party from scratch, as long as you keep up the same lethality you will drive them into not giving a shit again and again and again. The only problem to your solution is to ease up on the grind.

We aren't disgruntled. A character dying is part of the game. The way I see it is that we are making small mistakes that really become big mistakes. When we first started playing we kicked in doors and tried to chop the head off of everything all at once. We tried to play like we were invulnerable/invincible and we found it didn't work (duh). We like rules. A lot. I would hate to think that I survived only because the DM fudged the rules so my mistake wasn't so severe. I want to learn from my mistakes not have them forgiven before I know I made them.

It's not a question of grind. It comes down to how we choose to play our characters.

Quote from: Blackhand;624902Four earth elementals jump out of the ground (you know what I'm talking about).  Elven brothers sound retreat, entire party backs out before anything bad happens.
Party Action:  Charge the Elementals.  I have given two players +2 weapons, one of which is double specialized.  One person does damage.  All other weapons ineffective.
Elemental: The nearest elemental attacks, nearly kill hardest fighter in one hit.  Other elementals patrol.
Party Action: Continue to fight, talk about retreating.
Elemental: Kill party leader.  Others patrol.
Party Action:  Retreat.  Elf brother attempts to get the body of his brother which has all the money.
Elemental: Kill the other brother.  4-32 damage, hit AC3 on a 5+.  3rd - 4th level fighters all the way around.
.

Just so you know, I wasn't going for the money. I was trying to retrieve the body of my older brother! We had left Hambone down there I wasn't gonna leave another brother to that cursed place.

I was just reading (listening to) this the other day:

QuoteFortunately, there's an easy way to fix this. Instead of arguing with the player about his character's motivations, let the player figure it out. Be honest and tell him that this is what you need to get things started.

Seems like sound advice.  You've already stated that there's a tacit agreement to play through the module come hell or high water, so asking them to make things work in keeping with that goal doesn't seem to need a rule at all.

Quote from: Malphaeus;624907Just so you know, I wasn't going for the money. I was trying to retrieve the body of my older brother! We had left Hambone down there I wasn't gonna leave another brother to that cursed place.

I know that, and you should really be applauded.  Everyone else was running the other way.

2/3 of the party was Evil, though - and were only interested in the money.  Though at that moment, they were only interested in getting away as fast as possible.

Remember this:

"Fuck yeah, we retreat!"  Very loud, very matter of fact how-could-you-ask-me-that sort of way.

Quote from: Premier;624827*This is a pet peeve of mine. We all have the ability to navigate large and expansive building complexes with a rather decent accuracy based on nothing more than having been there once or twice before. Without ever having mapped it in the first place. And yet, many DMs want to enforce a stupidly irrealistic form of amnesia where professional explorers, spelunkers and adventurers are apparently brain damaged and can't remember anything if they're not holding a map of it in their hands.

Actually in this case it makes total sense. Because most of the party were new characters that hadn't delved very deep, if at all, into the temple. And so wouldn't have the prior knowledge of what was behind all those doors and down all those corridors. So if the map guy dies and no one retrieves his stuff then the maps are lost. Vaguely remembering the general layout isn't the same as a map.

Quote from: Blackhand;624913Remember this:

"Fuck yeah, we retreat!"  Very loud, very matter of fact how-could-you-ask-me-that sort of way.

Yeah, they didn't even check to see if the earth elemental was following. It was just FLEE!!  They failed their morale check. Horribly.

But the joke was on them for leaving the bodies. They lost all sorts of loot and the maps.

I think a huge part of the problem is that there are expectations placed upon character ability.

Think about it, we play RaW...by every single game.

So players whose only experience is 3e or Pathfinder might find the whole thing...a little bit different.  The survival rate is greater in those games because they are largely forgiving with regards to how fast characters die...there's the whole -10 thing.

Even Warhammer and Dark Heresy are more forgiving due to the critical hit system.  You don't die, you lose a finger or an eye.  Even if you do die, there's always the Fate Point.

Not so for AD&D.  I think the mentality will change when we start a new party.

Looking forward to next weekend!

ive been playing in this campaign from the beginning, and i must say ive enjoyed the hell out of it. However i must say the suspention of disbelief decreased everytime we have a new party member show up, to sign up for a 25% percent chance of death in a dungeon of horrors. The current characters dont have a personal stake in the adventure. And i feel my DMs frustration it isnt really a roleplaying game unless we actually try to make decisions based on what our characters would actually do. I hate to say it but Asheron the 3rd level magic user would probably get the hell out of the Hommlet area, and take a vacation in Greyhawk city. That being said the sheer amout of death that our previosu characters have suffered is actually a great plot thread for a party of "true hardened dungeoneers" to take up the challenge. Representatives of the Dyvers, and greyhawk city have already been made aware of the situation at the temple, and the evil within must bedealt with. perhaps these authoirty figures in the area might gather a handpicked party to take up the mantle. But during character generation we may want to include some ground rules.

1. No evil characters, i mean we are fighting an evil temple cult, not recruting for it.

2. All the characters should know each other before the adventure. Simply to foster familiarity, and also to make a persons "characters" death meaningful.

3. The characters should coordinate their abiilities, the 2nd ed. arms and equip guide suggests adventurers use similar polearms and shields to maximize group tactics, this will cut down on party deaths. And less need for our poor dm to stuggle to find reasons the party would hang out.

4. Perhaps we have a patron from the Dyvers or Greyhawk city, who could refer us to replacements for the party if the unfortunate does happen.

Our group really has needed to get on the same page for a while, we love the game but everyone is going in tottally different directions. We have had some new players lately and i dont know if they UNDERSTAND (or care about)completely the adventuring group dynamic.

I intend to make the temple my puppydog bitch. if we need a new party to do that. then its a good thing. It just makes our other characters deaths interesting anecdotes, for patrons of the Welcome Wench to tell as an interesting prelude, to the "REAL" adventuring team to show up.

Quote from: Blackhand;624825Who the hell are you?

I'm the Juggernaut bitch!

Quote from: Blackhand;624825It's not a player decision if I don't feel that alignment and motivation are being fulfilled, i.e. roleplayed.

Alignments change to the fit the actions of the character. In 1e, there are XP penalties for alignment change if the DM wants throw them down.

If the Good god doesn't want his spells being used to help Evil PCs, then the spells don't work or the cleric doesn't get any more spells until he atones.
 
This shit ain't rocket science.

Quote from: Fiasco;624835Sounds like a case of the DM cracking the sads to me. Also sounds like the players don't give much of a shit anymore, possibly due to the high attrition rate.

It's AD&D with PCs as disposable pawns.

Quote from: Blackhand;624841For instance, the whole point of this was to explore whether or not I could find a compelling reason to NOT dissolve the party.

You are the DM. It's not your place to dissolve the party. Dissolve the campaign / Restart the Campaign / Change to another Campaign - these are the DM choices.

You allowed the PCs to be any alignment. Thus, you invited this disaster and now you have to enforce the alignment issues within the party. The paladin detects who is evil and knows it. He get dreams from his god asking WTF dude?

And when the Chaotic Evil guy acts Neutral, you get two choices:

1) Slap him with an XP penalty.
2) Warn him that if he takes an action out of his alignment, he will be slapped with an XP penalty and begin to change alignment.

I play OD&D so I use Chaotic/Lawful/Neutral and I don't read Chaos = Evil, but mixed parties do have their issues and I let the players do their thing BUT I will tell a player than an action doesn't make sense for their character and let them choose from there.

Usually, a "wait a second, you're Lawful" is enough for the player to rethink what they are about to do OR they will give me a good reason why their character is about to take that action.

Quote from: Blackhand;624902The point I wish to illustrate is that it is the player's fault, and they just haven't developed the mindset of these early adventures.  Yet, they will.

Or just get bored of your grindfest and join the legion of people who think AD&D is a game where your PC is a disposable pawn and you just meaninglessly die every session or two because your DM is being a dick.

You know they don't have a grasp of how to play or what the challenges they are facing, but instead you take away any incentive to keep playing and take away any reason to immerse themselves in their character.

It sounds like the party is pretty much dissolved anyway.

Quote from: Blackhand;624867I usually demand the "hook" upon creation and introduction to the party, via the whole "familiarity" thing.

The players who died would often make characters as quickly as possible, and after about 10 deaths the reasons stopped coming and I stopped enforcing it.  

By the way, having them fight it out is only MILDLY less scorched earth

I guess, but the consequences are far worse.

Quote from: Blackhand;624893but most of their party was not happy with the Lawful Evil leader not divvying up treasure as they thought it should be...namely, by not divvying up.

Keyword: Lawful.

Not only is this player using alignments incorrectly, they're being inconsiderate to the rest of the players. Maybe character motive isn't your biggest problem?

Quote from: Malphaeus;624906I can honestly say that as the weeks have gone by it has gotten harder and harder to justify the group traveling and working together.

So Blackhand isn't the only one...

Quote from: Captain Video;624961However i must say the suspention of disbelief decreased everytime we have a new party member show up, to sign up for a 25% percent chance of death in a dungeon of horrors. The current characters dont have a personal stake in the adventure. And i feel my DMs frustration it isnt really a roleplaying game unless we actually try to make decisions based on what our characters would actually do.

...and neither is Malphaeus.

Quote from: Captain Video;6249611. No evil characters, i mean we are fighting an evil temple cult, not recruting for it.

What an excellent point.

Quote from: Captain Video;624961We have had some new players lately and i dont know if they UNDERSTAND (or care about)completely the adventuring group dynamic.

Again, perhaps verisimilitude is not your primary problem here.

It strikes me that if you are going to run a meatgrinder (or things take a turn for the meatgrindery) – well, I have no problem with that, but, you need to concoct a unified origin or two for the meat. "The King sends more brave men to fight," at its dumbest... but something like that.

If some of the meat survives long enough for the players to get attached to it, then they can concoct more involved origin stories & quirks. Sorta like a war movie that way.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;624987Keyword: Lawful.

Not only is this player using alignments incorrectly, they're being inconsiderate to the rest of the players. Maybe character motive isn't your biggest problem?

Actually, it still fits within the framework of Lawful Evil. He was being evil by keeping all the money to himself and not telling anyone about it. He was the one in charge of divvying up the treasure and most of the time he would divvy out some loot (Keyword: some). Sometimes not. I'm sure his "share" of the loot we did collect was much larger than our own.

As long as he wasn't caught, he wasn't breaking the law. Just bending the rules.

Quote from: Malphaeus;625004Actually, it still fits within the framework of Lawful Evil. He was being evil by keeping all the money to himself and not telling anyone about it. He was the one in charge of divvying up the treasure and most of the time he would divvy out some loot (Keyword: some). Sometimes not. I'm sure his "share" of the loot we did collect was much larger than our own.

As long as he wasn't caught, he wasn't breaking the law. Just bending the rules.

Was there some sort of agreement made before the party gave Mr. Lawful Evil the loot to divide?  I'm assuming there must be, and if he was following that to the letter I could understand. But otherwise this sort of justification can be used for anything a Lawful Evil character does.

This is why I hate alignments. Lawful Evil doesn't say anything about whether a character is Just, Honorable, Selfish, Hateful, a Sadist, etc. And I usually only see alignment brought up when a player needs to defend their actions by saying "I'm just playing my character" or "It's what my character would do".

Sometimes Players and GM can't see the forest for the trees.

People can get so caught up in roleplaying a character who has conflicts or cross purposes to other members of the party that they forget that in most cases, that character would probably just walk away, or frag everyone take their stuff then walk away.

The unspoken, inherent metagame in roleplaying is, "My character should have some reason for being here, so I should make up a character who does, or my character should not be here."

Now everyone agreed beforehand that "We are doing ToEE.  We're not starting out doing ToEE, leaving, raping and pillaging a path north and setting ourselves up as a new Bandit Kingdom."  Everyone bought into the metagame restraint of doing ToEE, yet they are not making any attempt (it sounds like), to create characters that would do ToEE under current circumstances.

So, the party goes it's separate ways, the Evil remains undiscovered (and grows) fast forward a few days, weeks or months, and now another group might have the chance...

I see nothing wrong with it.  They all bought into the campaign, everyone knew what the goal was, and it's just not getting met.

However, in this case you have two things working against each other here, BH.  The deadliness of the dungeon is conflicting with the "random guys showing up who are motivated to stick together and uncover the secret if there is one."

It'a a Catch-22.  People don't really know there's some existential threat looming underneath the Temple, so the guys who would be motivated most to go there, are the least likely to randomly show up.  At some point, the 19th Ranger sent from the Gnarley Forest is gonna start popping up red flags somewhere.

You could always try the best motivator that's ever existed in AD&D, the high-level L/N wizard.  He knows Demons, Devils, Daemons, Drow, etc whatever are always gonna be trying to take everything over, he knows the Good guys are eventually going to mobilize and engage, so what he needs to do is cover the margins.  Find out where the "Next Big Evil Thing" is happening and uncover it.

Why does he care?  He needs the world to stay the way it is, so he can get back to what he does best, learning magic, expanding his power, working towards godhood, all that high-level wizard stuff.  

So eventually, intelligence filters through his web of contacts, informants, etc that there seems to be a whole lot of people mucking about in the old Temple area...and not coming back, but there currently doesn't seem to be any movement on the part of the Powers That Be.

This is exactly the kind of thing he sticks players' noses in.  So, he can use the carrot: riches, equipment, clones, whatever, or he can use the stick: geases, assassins, Magic Jar, whatever.

Never underestimate the power of the Clone.  The players keep their character, they still pay the penalty of losing everything they had, they have a built in personal motivator - Revenge, and they don't need to be convinced that there is something actually going on there, because they know it already killed them once.

True, this is a nuclear option that alters the overall campaign fundamentally, but nothing can organize a party of Neutral Fucks better then an even more powerful and motivated Neutral Fuck.

The WHY in the high mortality rate is simply because players get a itch to play something, they are thinking about a character, they think about it for a while, then BOOM, they got an idea and off to the races they go.

If there's a long amount of play time in between those, then the player gets to rebuild his "CharGen Chi".  If he's going through characters like flies, it becomes harder and harder to come up with a guy that actually means something "out of the gate".

Which is where the trope of "never name your guy until third level" came from.  It's like 'Nam or anyplace where the Imperial Guard fights: "Why even bother to learn the name of the new guy?"

The self-interested "Neutral Fuck" is the easiest character to envision and get motivations for.  It's also the least likely to actually stay in the face of serious opposition, and be interested in party cohesion.

That's what's happening and that's the why.  

As one of your guys said, it's a suspension of disbelief issue, there's only so many random guys with the will and motivation to stand in the face of overwhelming death wandering through Hommlet.  The guys that are most likely to be wandering through Hommlet are not the guys most likely to finish the Temple, and coming up with not one character but 18 characters who can meet that criteria is straining the believability of the whole thing.

Quote from: CRKrueger;625029Sometimes Players and GM can't see the forest for the trees.

People can get so caught up in roleplaying a character who has conflicts or cross purposes to other members of the party that they forget that in most cases, that character would probably just walk away, or frag everyone take their stuff then walk away.

The unspoken, inherent metagame in roleplaying is, "My character should have some reason for being here, so I should make up a character who does, or my character should not be here."

Now everyone agreed beforehand that "We are doing ToEE.  We're not starting out doing ToEE, leaving, raping and pillaging a path north and setting ourselves up as a new Bandit Kingdom."  Everyone bought into the metagame restraint of doing ToEE, yet they are not making any attempt (it sounds like), to create characters that would do ToEE under current circumstances.

So, the party goes it's separate ways, the Evil remains undiscovered (and grows) fast forward a few days, weeks or months, and now another group might have the chance...

I see nothing wrong with it.  They all bought into the campaign, everyone knew what the goal was, and it's just not getting met.

Yeah, that's the conclusion I am coming too.

Drop the metagame 'need' to complete the temple: The temple has won, you have been defeated, move on.

Quote from: CRKrueger;625029Sometimes Players and GM can't see the forest for the trees.

People can get so caught up in roleplaying a character who has conflicts or cross purposes to other members of the party that they forget that in most cases, that character would probably just walk away, or frag everyone take their stuff then walk away.

The unspoken, inherent metagame in roleplaying is, "My character should have some reason for being here, so I should make up a character who does, or my character should not be here."

Now everyone agreed beforehand that "We are doing ToEE.  We're not starting out doing ToEE, leaving, raping and pillaging a path north and setting ourselves up as a new Bandit Kingdom."  Everyone bought into the metagame restraint of doing ToEE, yet they are not making any attempt (it sounds like), to create characters that would do ToEE under current circumstances.

So, the party goes it's separate ways, the Evil remains undiscovered (and grows) fast forward a few days, weeks or months, and now another group might have the chance...

I see nothing wrong with it.  They all bought into the campaign, everyone knew what the goal was, and it's just not getting met.

Totally agree with this especially the bolded (and the subsequent too)

I think Blackhand here is just pointing out that the new characters that the players have bought in really have no reason to be there beyond the fact that they are controlled by the players who agreed to play this game. If the players stood back and thought about motivation role playing or even jsut alignment the group would brobably disintigrate pretty fast.
I don't think posing that question is bad GMing. I might have an NPC ask the question in play but doing itas the GM is fine.

only up to post 20 on this, but i think blackhand's got it right.  if that's the premise of how you're running ToEE, (hooks needed, etc.) and they've created "free range greyhawk" characters, then the point has been lost and it's time to start over.  

now to catch up on the rest of the discussion. . . . :hmm:

Those of you telling me I'm running alignment wrong should read page 25 of the 1e DMG.

@Spinachcat - No, XP penalties are in 2nd Edition.  See p. 25 as above.

I like how you guys seem to miss that they really enjoy the campaign.

BTW, the Lawful Evil guy was playing his alignment right.  Everything he did was Lawful and Evil.

Yes I did allow Evil alignments.  That's a player choice.  I didn't ban the alignment, I just want character hooks if they are going to go that way.  It's like some of the players want to be good guys but have an Evil alignment because they think it's badass.

The rest is DM choice, such as dissolving the party to make a new one when they can't provide plot hooks for their own characters.

One more time, everyone loves this "meatgrinder".  The problem is the disparity between characters created at different points.  The entire party has been replaced a couple of times, and I'm convinced (as are most of my players) this is the correct course of action.

Thanks for the replies.

Quote from: Blackhand;624902So what you're saying is you have a problem with the ruleset? In the same breath you intimate that this is all my fault as DM.

Well someone has to fix the problem, right?

Whose responsibility is that?

(Honest question, I'm not baiting promise :) )

Quote from: Piestrio;625088Well someone has to fix the problem, right?

Whose responsibility is that?

(Honest question, I'm not baiting promise :) )

What problem is it exactly?  Better yet, what's your solution?

I'm sure it will be quite different from what I would choose and what my players want.

If the problem is character death, that's a player problem.  They need to be more mindful and careful.  I didn't write this adventure, I'm refereeing it.

I'm not making house rules about living past 0 hp or fudging dice rolls, period.

No one in Hommlett can resurrect the dead.  I'm not changing that either, that's part of the scenario.

Whatever gains they make during this scenario, they will win it by themselves.  They'd demand we play wargames instead of RPG if they thought I was making things up on the fly or changing things so they could cope, or making up stories from "some place deep within me" on the fly.  I know this for a fact, as I've seen it happen more than once.  I have a certain baseline set of precepts to uphold, and I won't be seen doing otherwise.  

• The rules must be adjudicated RaW.
• I must not make up shit as I go along.
• I must let the dice fall where they may.
• I must stay true to the scenario and referee it as written.
• If I make adjustments to the scenario, they will be written into it before the session starts.
• All such adjustments must be within the purview of the scenario.

We've played for years and years with most of these assumptions, but we're trying something different.  We are playing a published campaign in the manner it was published...not haring off after another campaign based on the written one where I create entirely different adventures.

We've done that, I've got a long track record of successful campaigns where the players clamor for more, and most of it is because of the precepts above, except instead of running someone else's work I always write my own.

That's basically the entire thesis of the campaign, so we are encountering an issue we never have before.  That's why I put a thread on the board - I thought many would be interested in the circumstances.

However, a lot of the standard answers simply do not work for us.

Quote from: Blackhand;625091What problem is it exactly?  Better yet, what's your solution?

Your problem. My question is, if you have a problem with a particular rule that is making things less fun who is responsible for making it better? (Assuming we want to fix problems).

QuoteI'm sure it will be quite different from what I would choose and what my players want.

That's the beauty of RPGs with flesh and blood GMs.

QuoteIf the problem is character death, that's a player problem.  They need to be more mindful and careful.  I didn't write this adventure, I'm refereeing it.

I tend to agree, but not to the point where people stop having fun. This is, after all, a pastime.

I tend to view the rules as just one part of the game and just as open to adjustment for the betterment of the game as any other part.

In my view metagaming the group out of existence is more disruptive to the game than house rules. So in my case I would start with the least disruptive options and move to more disruptive if those prove unsuccessful in fixing the problem.

I get that you find this unacceptable and that's fine and more than likely why I can't help you. Most of my advice would revolve around adjusting playstyles, modifying the adventure and making house rules. All of which you are unwilling to do.

That's why I was curious, in your veiwpoint who is supposed to fix problems when they pop up because I assume you don't just throw your hands in the air and say, "well I guess we don't get to have anymore fun!"

Quote from: Piestrio;625105Your problem. My question is, if you have a problem with a particular rule that is making things less fun who is responsible for making it better? (Assuming we want to fix problems).

See?  You point at a rule and say "change it!".  That's not the issue, and I think only lesser DM's will go that route.  Sorry.

That's the beauty of RPGs with flesh and blood DM's.  I'm not going to change the game, because then there'd be a problem.

Quote from: Piestrio;625105I tend to agree, but not to the point where people stop having fun. This is, after all, a pastime.

Again, you miss the part where the game is still going strong and everyone is having fun.  The issue is that of character disparity and disassociation.

Quote from: Piestrio;625105I tend to view the rules as just one part of the game and just as open to adjustment for the betterment of the game as any other part.

We don't have a tendency, we have a predisposition.  That proclivity is that the rules are the rules, the GM cannot alter them.  That's just how we play, and we all enjoy it very much because nothing can be dragged out from under us.

Quote from: Piestrio;625105In my view metagaming the group out of existence is more disruptive to the game than house rules. So in my case I would start with the least disruptive options and move to more disruptive if those prove unsuccessful in fixing the problem.

For us, creating or implementing house rules WILL destroy the game.

Quote from: Piestrio;625105I get that you find this unacceptable and that's fine and more than likely why I can't help you. Most of my advice would revolve around adjusting playstyles, modifying the adventure and making house rules. All of which you are unwilling to do.

Which I have stated several times over the last five years.  This isn't just me - this is the view of the entire club.  We play RPG's as we play Wargames - everyone has a manual and knows how to use it.

Quote from: Piestrio;625105That's why I was curious, in your veiwpoint who is supposed to fix problems when they pop up because I assume you don't just throw your hands in the air and say, "well I guess we don't get to have anymore fun!"

I am responsible for the game.  I am fixing the problem.

It doesn't seem to be sinking in, even when they come here and tell you, that my players are still having a blast with the game.  Most of that is directly because I am completely inflexible when it comes to how I run the game.

Actually, as of Tuesday morning, the anticipation of dissolving the party and beginning the next leg of the campaign is building not just with me, but in my players.  There will be great expectations of the next party, and a "reboot" is exactly what we need at this point.

However, if I change ANYTHING about how I'm running it...I'll not just be letting myself down, but all the people who gather on Sunday night to play my game will feel like the whole game has gone to shit.  This applies to every single game the club plays.

That is no exaggeration.

Quote from: Blackhand;625107See?  You point at a rule and say "change it!".  That's not the issue, and I think only lesser DM's will go that route.  Sorry.

If you can't have a discussion without implying that people who don't pretend to be an elf the same way as you are somehow "lesser" than you then I have no desire to continue the conversation.

Good day.

Quote from: Piestrio;625108If you can't have a discussion without implying that people who don't pretend to be an elf the same way as you are somehow "lesser" than you then I have no desire to continue the conversation.

Good day.

Good day.

That's one less time I'll have to repeat myself.

Trust me, sometimes it's hard to look a player in the eye and tell them they are dead.  Usually, I don't make eye contact until I say "I'm sorry."  I then continue the combat.

I understand why some DM's would not want to go through this, but like I've said before - that's the implicit job of the DM.

Quote from: Blackhand;624902I could have implemented house rules saying that you don't die at 0 hp.  \

Just poking in my head to point out that not dying at 0hp is RAW in 1e AD&D.  (It's an option left to the DM, but it's there in black and white - a single blow taking the character to anywhere from 0 to -3hp will put them down, and they'll bleed out unless tended to, expiring at -10.  Going down to -4 in one blow is still dead, though.)  Your choice, though.  Carry on.

Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;625130Just poking in my head to point out that not dying at 0hp is RAW in 1e AD&D.  (It's an option left to the DM, but it's there in black and white - a single blow taking the character to anywhere from 0 to -3hp will put them down, and they'll bleed out unless tended to, expiring at -10.  Going down to -4 in one blow is still dead, though.)  Your choice, though.  Carry on.

Yeah, I should point some things out about that.  On page 105 of the PHB, it states "Any creature that reaches 0 hp or less is dead."

We elected not to use the optional rule, but to address it simply it wouldn't have mattered at all anyway.  The rule you are talking about (p. 82 of the DMG) applies only to those left with exactly 0 hp from an attack.  Note that it doesn't say "Zero or Less Hit Points" and it specifically maps out that only if you are left with 0 hp from an attack (optionally 0 to -3) will you fall unconcious and bleed to death.

In the whole splatterfest, only the last two characters died with exactly 0 hp in this manner, and their bodies were immediately abandoned during the retreat.

• In almost every case, retreat was required and the bodies left where they fell.
• Even if you survive 0 hp, Cure spells applied will still mean the character is down for at least a week, ending that player's current session (except for limping from one encounter to another).  Heal spells are not available at this level.
• Most deaths were overkill, and I do not use the optional rule about -3.  That has to be the same blow that brought it to 0, by the way - even if I did use it.  -4 hp still kills you outright, even with that optional rule.
• In other cases, no aid could be administered before -10 was hit.

The characters are higher level, and the new characters they start will start at 10,000 XP.  I've added a few magic items to the generator list that will help alleviate that particular problem, including Elixirs of Life.

In this manner, the -10 clause might affect play more going forward.  Only in specific circumstances, however.  In most cases, aid will not be necessary.

To my players, DestroyYouAlot has a point.  I will allow unconciousness at 0 hp, but only at EXACTLY 0 hp.

Speaking of death - I thought this was D&D.  Don't they have mitigations available for that?

Quote from: CRKrueger;625029The unspoken, inherent metagame in roleplaying is, "My character should have some reason for being here, so I should make up a character who does, or my character should not be here."

Thing of it is, that should never be left unspoken. It should be explained by the referee right from the giddyup at chargen.

Quote from: mcbobbo;625171Speaking of death - I thought this was D&D.  Don't they have mitigations available for that?

Not these characters, at this level, at this point in the scenario.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;625179Thing of it is, that should never be left unspoken. It should be explained by the referee right from the giddyup at chargen.

That's a good point.

That is something that has been discussed in all my games from the outset, and every time someone generates a character.

Well, if you're planning to stick 100% within the bounds of the module and not include elements present within the larger Greyhawk milieu, then really your only recourse is to reboot, have players come up with more motivated characters and hope the death count doesn't rise to the point where having yet another "hero" randomly showing up becomes silly.

Quote from: Blackhand;624959I think a huge part of the problem is that there are expectations placed upon character ability.

Think about it, we play RaW...by every single game.

I always laugh when people claim to play AD&D RAW. How do do initiative and surprise?

Of course with BlackHand we can safely assume he is a long way from RAW as the following gem indicates:

Quote from: Blackhand;612180Two of my players, with mediocre scores, managed to get +7 to hit, +11 to damage at first level, with 3 attacks every 2 rounds.

K?

That means, they need 3+ to hit AC -1 at L11.  Bastard sword does 3d6 (+11) damage to large creatures.

No, it's not a great and powerful monster as it should be, that's why they've been consistently beefed up with every edition.

Quote from: Fiasco;625216I always laugh when people claim to play AD&D RAW. How do do initiative and surprise?

Umm...by the book?  I've been asked this question before, and we have discussed it.  Use ADDICT and you really can't fuck it up.

Basically, initiative is rolled for the party.  Surprise is also one roll, and all that finaggly stuff in the rulebook is about what can happen during the surprise round.

I always laugh when people claim you can't play AD&D RaW, because I do it with a lot of other people every single week.

Quote from: Fiasco;625216Of course with BlackHand we can safely assume he is a long way from RAW as the following gem indicates:

Quote from: Blackhand;612180Two of my players, with mediocre scores, managed to get +7 to hit, +11 to damage at first level, with 3 attacks every 2 rounds.

K?

That means, they need 3+ to hit AC -1 at L11.  Bastard sword does 3d6 (+11) damage to large creatures.

No, it's not a great and powerful monster as it should be, that's why they've been consistently beefed up with every edition.

All that you do by bringing this up is indicate how ignorant of the rules you are.  I'm not even sure what you mean by this, I can only assume that you mean to intimate that I can't do the basic math of the game.  I'll clarify that little "gem" for you.

How do you get those stats?

Double Specialization grants +3 to hit, +3 to damage.
Exceptional Strength of 19 (yes, Korobokuru from OA before you ask) grants +3 to hit, +7 to damage.
Bastard Sword +1 (random magic for starting, rolled well - this is the only thing I 'gave' the player and it was mostly random) adds +1 to hit, +1 damage and does 3d6 damage to large creatures.

All that comes to +7 to hit, +11 to damage.  3d6 +11 for large creatures.

A 1st level fighter hits AC -1 on 20 assuming the creature does not wear armor.  An 11th level fighter hits AC -1 on an 11.

So you're right, my math was off.  This Bushi at L11 will require 4+ to hit AC -1, if he could get that far.  I calculated that example as if he were human.  Since he can only hit L6, he needs a 10+ (to hit AC -1 at L6 requires a 17).

Quote from: Blackhand;625242Umm...by the book?  I've been asked this question before, and we have discussed it.  Use ADDICT and you really can't fuck it up.

Basically, initiative is rolled for the party.  Surprise is also one roll, and all that finaggly stuff in the rulebook is about what can happen during the surprise round.

I always laugh when people claim you can't play AD&D RaW, because I do it with a lot of other people every single week.





All that you do by bringing this up is indicate how ignorant of the rules you are.  I'm not even sure what you mean by this, I can only assume that you mean to intimate that I can't do the basic math of the game.  I'll clarify that little "gem" for you.

How do you get those stats?

Double Specialization grants +3 to hit, +3 to damage.
Exceptional Strength of 19 (yes, Korobokuru from OA before you ask) grants +3 to hit, +7 to damage.
Bastard Sword +1 (random magic for starting, rolled well - this is the only thing I 'gave' the player and it was mostly random) adds +1 to hit, +1 damage and does 3d6 damage to large creatures.

All that comes to +7 to hit, +11 to damage.  3d6 +11 for large creatures.

A 1st level fighter hits AC -1 on 20 assuming the creature does not wear armor.  An 11th level fighter hits AC -1 on an 11.

So you're right, my math was off.  This Bushi at L11 will require 4+ to hit AC -1, if he could get that far.  I calculated that example as if he were human.  Since he can only hit L6, he needs a 10+ (to hit AC -1 at L6 requires a 17).

I'm just gonna quote the whole lot again so all can witness the glorious shitness.

Btw nice house rule on the bastard sword. They do 2d8 vs large if your are playing RAW.

Reading that eye sore of a character I really think you guys are playing the wrong edition. I'm also amazed that 18 such players managed to die. Something does not smell right here.

Quote from: Blackhand;625091I have a certain baseline set of precepts to uphold, and I won't be seen doing otherwise.  

• The rules must be adjudicated RaW.
• I must not make up shit as I go along.
• I must let the dice fall where they may.
• I must stay true to the scenario and referee it as written.
• If I make adjustments to the scenario, they will be written into it before the session starts.
• All such adjustments must be within the purview of the scenario.

I think the tripping point for a lot of us here is probably point 2 up there. For me, having the capacity to improvise and make shit up as you go along is a vital GMly skill. Even if you absolutely stay on-script, I don't think ToEE has detailed character dialogue and fully detailed combat tactics for every single encounter so you have to fill the blanks even when things are all going according to the module's expectations. And what do you do when the players do something unexpected which, whilst being entirely within the spirit of tackling the scenario, at the same time falls entirely outside the expectations of both the scenarios and the rules? (My players can be guaranteed to do this at least once every two or three sessions.) Do you stop the session so you can have some downtime to write a plan for how to adjudicate it so that you don't commit the terrible sin of improvisation?

Quote from: Fiasco;625249Btw nice house rule on the bastard sword. They do 2d8 vs large if your are playing RAW.

You're right.  Reviewing the character sheets, I got the character with the two handed sword and the one with the bastard sword mixed up.  That is, I got it mixed up while arguing with fools like you here on the forum, where I can get worked up and don't always double check minutiae.

That doesn't mean my entire campaign is circumspect.

Do you have anything else to add?  Or are these little jibs the best you can do?

Quote from: Warthur;625250I think the tripping point for a lot of us here is probably point 2 up there. For me, having the capacity to improvise and make shit up as you go along is a vital GMly skill. Even if you absolutely stay on-script, I don't think ToEE has detailed character dialogue and fully detailed combat tactics for every single encounter so you have to fill the blanks even when things are all going according to the module's expectations. And what do you do when the players do something unexpected which, whilst being entirely within the spirit of tackling the scenario, at the same time falls entirely outside the expectations of both the scenarios and the rules? (My players can be guaranteed to do this at least once every two or three sessions.) Do you stop the session so you can have some downtime to write a plan for how to adjudicate it so that you don't commit the terrible sin of improvisation?

No, the tripping point on #2 is that none of you seem to listen when I explain that.  I've done it approximately 1,000,000 times, but I'll do it once more just for you, Zardoz.

What you are implying here (and being deliberately obtuse in doing so) is that what I mean by "making stuff" up applies to characters and actions described in the scenario.  I don't mean that I can't decide that Zert leaves town to go to Nulb to join the mercenaries when he leaves the players' party. *This actually happened in this game*

Yes, I decide what they do based on what information the scenario has given me.  What I mean by "making shit up as I go" is deciding when the players open a certain door what is in there.  When you do that, it skews the game either in the player's favor (more often than not), but sometimes it skews the game in the favor of the player's enemies.

Why would you bring this up?  Of course I improvise most dialogue, but I don't decide random things that might help the player exist when they do not.  Likewise, I don't invent hurdles that aren't in the scenario either.  No, I don't spontaneously decide Jaroo can cast Heal, or that Terjon can Raise Dead.

I have a small notebook I keep track of all changes to the scenario, and I use that to adjudicate the actions of all NPC's based on the information given in the scenario - which I'm sorry, TToEE has in spades.  Way more than enough for me to work with.  Also, there is detailed combat information given in almost every single encounter space.

What do I do when they do something unexpected?  They do that shit all the time!  I take a moment to review the target area and decide how things work out, but I'll be honest...there's not much they can do to shake me up.  

Go on.  Ask 'em.  They are here.  Two have made themselves known already, the others are lurking quietly and laughing at many of the responses that hate on me.  A lot of the comments on any thread I post on are absolutely off-base character attacks.

I'm on top of this particular scenario, and there are a lot of moving parts.  I'm pretty sure I've proven consistently to my group that I'm up to this particular challenge.

Don't posit items for me to prove this to you, as like I said some of my players are here and I don't want to provide any spoilers.  If you have an item of interest from T1, I'll be glad to hear you out and I'll tell you exactly what happens.  If you read our log, you'll see that we have plenty of unique stuff happening.

No, I don't have to stop the session, I only have to skim the few paragraphs relating to that area IF they do something I don't expect.  It takes less time than it takes for the players to realize that's what I'm doing.

Your entire above post ignores much of what I've said before, and you imply I'm a terrible DM who can't improvise.  

Improvisation within the scenario is required of all games.

Making shit up as you go is not, and is a totally different thing.

I apologise for not having read all your posts.

I apologise again if this has been explained previously, but what's with the goofy text colours? I'm parsing your post at the moment but I don't want to jump to any conclusions about what you're saying in case there's nuances to your choice of text colour I'm not aware of.

Quote from: Warthur;625274I apologise for not having read all your posts.

I apologise again if this has been explained previously, but what's with the goofy text colours? I'm parsing your post at the moment but I don't want to jump to any conclusions about what you're saying in case there's nuances to your choice of text colour I'm not aware of.

It's to draw attention to areas of the text for people who are skimming, which they are obviously doing.

Apologies for any confusion.

Quote from: Malphaeus;624907Just so you know, I wasn't going for the money. I was trying to retrieve the body of my older brother! We had left Hambone down there I wasn't gonna leave another brother to that cursed place.

I wouldnt have left you either for the record

Quote from: Malphaeus;625004Actually, it still fits within the framework of Lawful Evil. He was being evil by keeping all the money to himself and not telling anyone about it. He was the one in charge of divvying up the treasure and most of the time he would divvy out some loot (Keyword: some). Sometimes not. I'm sure his "share" of the loot we did collect was much larger than our own.

As long as he wasn't caught, he wasn't breaking the law. Just bending the rules.

For the record... After I became leader I signed on new recruits under the premise of payment after our quest inside the temple was completed... No one complained or said No. With the great death toll I (IC) saw little reason to divy up as most times characters died and were unrecovered.

Also... I embezzled nothing from our coffers, but I also saw no point in selling stuff to the Homlett traders when they were price gougers. Greyhawk City at that point seemed a better place to peddle wares for profit.

As far as motivation inside the party Me and Ganth had ours and recruited characters as so needed. Now that we are gone there isnt alot of ties left for the remaining group. Rough spot to have to die in but no hard feelings thats how the dice roll. RAW is cruel and cold but Its how we've played for a long time.

Im looking forward to my new character...

Quote from: Blackhand;625266Go on.  Ask 'em.  They are here.  Two have made themselves known already, the others are lurking quietly and laughing at many of the responses that hate on me.  A lot of the comments on any thread I post on are absolutely off-base character attacks.

So if you're doing everything right, and everyone is happy, what kind of circle jerk is this thread?

Quote from: mcbobbo;625332So if you're doing everything right, and everyone is happy, what kind of circle jerk is this thread?

Apparently the kind where it gets off track very quickly for some reason.

From the OP:

Quote from: Blackhand;624799What do you think?  Is dissolution the only answer?

What reason could they possibly come up with that wouldn't stretch belief?  

• For money?  There's no evidence of any money out there, only a fuck ton of murdering fucks.
• For love?  They barely know each other, the group of survivors that had been recruiting new adventurers are all dead!
• For revenge?  The only folks they know killed by the servants of the temple are their employers.  Can't really call any of the characters friends, and this is their own choice.

Can you have a nearby ruler send some of his knights into the dungeon/ temple/ wherever you are (not very familiar with ToEE, sorry), get them killed, notice that there's an adventuring group in the area that has ventured on the quest he sent his knights to do, and then offer to re-employ the PCs to deal with the threat? (For ruler substitute wizard/ crime boss/ priest/ whatever's interesting, if desired)

Quote from: Looter Guy;625303I wouldnt have left you either for the record



For the record... After I became leader I signed on new recruits under the premise of payment after our quest inside the temple was completed... No one complained or said No. With the great death toll I (IC) saw little reason to divy up as most times characters died and were unrecovered.

Also... I embezzled nothing from our coffers, but I also saw no point in selling stuff to the Homlett traders when they were price gougers. Greyhawk City at that point seemed a better place to peddle wares for profit.

As far as motivation inside the party Me and Ganth had ours and recruited characters as so needed. Now that we are gone there isnt alot of ties left for the remaining group. Rough spot to have to die in but no hard feelings thats how the dice roll. RAW is cruel and cold but Its how we've played for a long time.

Im looking forward to my new character...

I know you wouldn't have left me either. When Hambone was left we both felt terrible, that was our mistake. It's good to know there was no embezzlement too!

Judging by PC alignments and past history body count, they'd have absolutely no reason to continue. They've seen no benefit, they've plundered no loot, and the only thing awaiting them is death if they enter.

Like was said earlier, the Temple won. They ain't strong enough to take it down.

You've got a bunch of disassociated PCs and you wonder why they should stick together? The question isn't that hard. If you're trying this hard to come up with a reason, the reason is 'fuck off, let's go get some ice cream and be done with it.'

As it stands, you don't have a party. You have a group of greedy individuals. You need a party to take down the Temple. Your PCs have gone past the point of party. There's no longer a soluble way to form a party unless everyone starts from scratch.

So tell them to go reroll a party that acts as a cohesive party and try again if they're so intent on kicking the temple's ass.

Let me state one thing very clearly, AD&D 1st IS playable rules as written. Our group plays ALOT of different games, it was bandied around the table, as more than a few of us have 1st ed books. Which classic campaigns would we as a group like to play?Our DM Blackhand did alot of research (and invested alot of time and money) on our grand experiment.

1. We would play all four (and a half) editions of our granddaddy of all rpgs. (plus pathfinder natch!)

2. We would play in all the most iconic campaign settings, in their native editions. (Ravenloft in second ed! hellz yeah!)

3. We would play the most iconic modules from these editions and settings.

4. We would run each edition RULES AS WRITTEN! gasp.

Its amazing to me how much flak he has taken over running AD&D 1st RAW, i dont normally post on these sites. But i read a few exerpts from this thread and i was inspired to chime in. Some of you guys have made some really helpful suggestions. However some of suggest things like cheating to hit or damage rolls , do you guys really do that in your groups? I mean why dont you just jack off to your own pictures, its more satisfing and you dont have to gather a group of three to eight to do it. Personally, i dont want my rolls to be fudged. If i fuck up, kill me. That way when i finish the dungeon i feel like i accomplished some thing (our group agrees with this philosophy without exception). Otherwise u may as well just play dress up, and have a tea party. I have personally died three times in this run, and i deserved every death. And we have had a great time doing it, scrapping the experiment was never an option. Our group loves pouring through these ancient tomes. (i am thinking of purchasing the fresh new reprints though). This experiment is far from over, the mechanical portion of the game is actually the least problematic. Our DM has put plenty of time working with the books and figuring out the more esoteric rules. Im a huge fan of this campaign but even i never realized how strange the organization of just the core three books is. When we started going through the books this became apparent, what was also apparent is that Blackhand had done his homework. And the players(myself included) have really enjoyed the product. Even amongst the carnage everyone keeps coming back for more. The only failing in the party is that WE havent tried hard enough to come up with plausable reasons why our characters would work with each other, much less, give our lives for each other. We all want to defeat the Temple, too many heroic (or at least brave) characters have given their pseudolives to that abomination. We will continue, the only question is......

Will our old disparate group come together again face death and dismemberment for little reward, with companions we dont like, or trust?

Or will a new group with aligned aims and tactics, step up and avenge the souls lost in the Temple?

I feel that our group has already decided on the latter, and as i stated in my previous post.  I think it makes a great prelude ( a really long prelude, sigh), for a party of truly noble adventurers to step up and raze the temple to the annals of history.

I wasnt mad when i found out you had all that gold, but i was mad I didnt think of hoarding it first. lol, Im looking forward to my new character too.

Honestly, from reading the OP post and the subsequent player posts, my take is:

1) If the current party is bad, make the Temple worse (and make it personal).  Even Evil McEvilson has a grandmother, feed her to an earth elemental.  Make it clear that this is just plain a Thing That Must Be Stopped.  No reason whatsoever that "evil" PCs can't get into that idea.  And nothing glues a disparate group together like an external threat.  

2) If the players just can't see their way clear to justifying things themselves, then it may require a hard reset.  New characters, make it clear that there is a premise here and that they should make PCs to match.  (I feel like this is a last resort.)

3)  Big one, here, and one that the players are already getting wind of - they need to get better at (A)D&D.  I mean that in the most constructive way possible, seriously.  Hear me out:

One of the players has already hit upon a big one in this thread: Group tactics with polearms, shield walls, etc.  The battle line is a big deal in AD&D.  

Retreating when the shit hits the fan.  (OP has touched on this.  Always the hardest lesson to learn.)  

Lastly, simply put, numbers.  Warm bodies.  It was mentioned that there isn't a Cha over 12 - this is a huge weakness for a party in RAW AD&D, for one big reason:  Henchmen.  Whatever assumed balance there is in BTB AD&D (not something I personally worry about, but if that's the premise, here) includes characters acquiring henchmen after a certain level, and it's gonna be a lot easier to get'em and keep'em from running with at least one decent Cha score in the party.  Note that not every one of'em has to go in the hole - my group has taken to having a "B team" for, among other applications, extractions.  In a worst-cast scenario, they're replacement PCs (with some experience under their belt, and presumably pro gear), avoiding the "we're tired of starting at level 1" complaints, and providing (we're coming back around to the point here, haha) party continuity.

Now, it's been noted that the group has been getting it handed to'em, so they probably haven't had time to build up their own levels, much less take on apprentices.  However, with a decent face in the group (and assuming you're making liberal use of one of the most important tools in the RAW DM's toolbox, the humble reaction roll), you could sweet-talk your way into some help from any number of (leveled) NPCs in town.  And make no mistake - T1-4 (the moathouse, in particular) was designed with this in tactic mind.  It sounds like they may have already burned a lot of bridges and left a lot of dead NPCs in their wake already, so this may not be that much help now, but it's worth keeping in mind for the future.


All in all, I think you've got a salvageable situation, there.  And it sounds like the players are still game, and are learning from their mistakes.  Keep at it, you guys'll crack that nut, yet.

Quote from: Blackhand;624799Last night we had our 13th week in the Temple of Elemental Evil, and man was it a doozy.  After 18 deaths over those 13th weeks, in finally seems the party cannot go on after so many deaths.

Here's a log of the campaign so far. (http://thewargate.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_9.html)

For some time now, I've been pushing for what I call "familiarity". (http://thewargate.blogspot.com/2012/11/fostering-familiarity.html)  I've attempted to enact a rule, and for a while it was working.  We got some interesting character hooks and roleplay out of this simple precept.

This is your first blunder. People don't have to know or like one another to cooperate, though it may help.

QuoteYet with so much death, it's been hard to keep tabs on various character story arcs within the framework of the old adventure.

That's funny, since you don't need to follow a "character story arc" for a dead PC any more than you need to track his or her alignment. They're dead.

QuoteSo now we have party decimated by so much death that the remaining characters now have little reason to continue to adventure.

Gold, glory and the other benefits of killing monsters aren't enough? :rolleyes:

QuoteBehold, the current group now, and bear in mind they have known each other only days:

• Kay Oh Stubbs, Half Orc Fighter IV (Lawful Evil)
• Mooshue, Oeridian Cleric of Hieroneous IV (Neutral Good)
• Ewe Gee Stubbs, Half-Orc Fighter IV (Lawful Evil)
• Kakkarakk, Valley Elf Magic-User III  (Neutral)
• Ulfric Broomhandle, Dwarf Fighter III (Lawful Evil)
• Long Fellow, Half Elf Ranger III (Neutral Good)

All of the party's impetus has been slowly killed by the players ignoring the "familiarity" clause, and choosing clashing alignments and even religions.  Ewe Gee Stubbs secretly serves Hextor, Hieroneous' sworn enemy.

A DM who doesn't suck could still make a campaign of it. If you need "character hooks" to provide motivation for PCs then you're a shitty DM.

I'll go one better: If you think you should decide whether a PC has a good enough motivation, you are an unbelievably shitty DM. One character's motivation can be as good as anyone else's.

The PC who decides to sack the Temple for the hell of it ("Because it's there" as Edmund Hillary would say) is just as valid as the one looking for money or the one fighting The Forces of Evil (or an evil PC who resents these Evil Johnny-come-lateleys for poaching on his turf for that matter), or seeking fame, free drinks and pussy that comes from being the one who succeeded where so many others failed.

The very idea of telling a player that his PC's reason for adventuring is "wrong" and that you're thinking of dissolving the group because in retrospect they haven't yet fulfilled it ("You wanted gold but didn't find much? I'm dissolving the group") tells me just how hard you suck as a DM.

QuoteThese mercenaries have seen nothing but death and haven't been paid in the week or so the oldest one has been among the party.

The smart ones will desert then. What's the problem?

QuoteI'm going to give my players a chance to save this party, by having the survivors talk it over in character.  Why would they continue to seek death in the Temple?  They've made it clear that only money motivates them, yet they have seen nothing from the place:  their late leader kept most of the profits of their ventures, and the bodies of the leader and mapper were not recovered from the temple, meaning the party has lost their maps as well.

Your players would be better served by relieving you of your DM position since you're obviously not cut out for it.

Quote from: jibbajibba;625046Totally agree with this especially the bolded (and the subsequent too)

I think Blackhand here is just pointing out that the new characters that the players have bought in really have no reason to be there beyond the fact that they are controlled by the players who agreed to play this game. If the players stood back and thought about motivation role playing or even jsut alignment the group would brobably disintigrate pretty fast.
I don't think posing that question is bad GMing. I might have an NPC ask the question in play but doing itas the GM is fine.

Oh for fuck's sake. :rolleyes:

Any time you have a group of people who set out to accomplish a task, you're going to have different worldviews and different motives. Think of the motives for people joining the armed forces:

• money (more recently tuition)
• devotion to the country
• to get away from home (for countless reasons)
• drafted or otherwise given no choice
• to impress girls
• to kill people without being prosecuted
• to handle guns
• because that's what daddy did
• glory
• just seemed like the thing to do at the time
• lousy job prospects back home

The same holds true in a business, a sports team -or among players getting together to play a game.

Imp, Tiny Outsider.  You've had some pretty good ideas, and when we reconvene we will probably attempt to integrate them on some level.

Quote from: Imp;624999It strikes me that if you are going to run a meatgrinder (or things take a turn for the meatgrindery) – well, I have no problem with that, but, you need to concoct a unified origin or two for the meat. "The King sends more brave men to fight," at its dumbest... but something like that.

If some of the meat survives long enough for the players to get attached to it, then they can concoct more involved origin stories & quirks. Sorta like a war movie that way.

This would require the players agree to be on some sort of mission for some kingdom, obviously.  I place this reminder here for them, and they can bring it up at the "hearing".

Quote from: Imp;625342Can you have a nearby ruler send some of his knights into the dungeon/ temple/ wherever you are (not very familiar with ToEE, sorry), get them killed, notice that there's an adventuring group in the area that has ventured on the quest he sent his knights to do, and then offer to re-employ the PCs to deal with the threat? (For ruler substitute wizard/ crime boss/ priest/ whatever's interesting, if desired)

I like this idea, and we tried it to some extent - many characters hailed from the Greyhawk City watch.

Quote from: Elfdart;625479This is your first blunder. People don't have to know or like one another to cooperate, though it may help.

Oh Christ, another one of these.  You didn't read any of this, did you?

I'll challenge that. I have made no blunders, other than to think to share the story with this board.  This community continually vomits up fuckrods like yourself, and will do so until it is made up of the garbage people that game with 2 or 3 buddies once a month and claim to be "hardcore" or whatever the fuck.  I can tell you have little experience with games by your backhanded attacks on issues I'm sharing with you.

Quote from: Elfdart;625479That's funny, since you don't need to follow a "character story arc" for a dead PC any more than you need to track his or her alignment. They're dead.

The character arcs we're talking about are the ones belonging the living characters.
 

Quote from: Elfdart;625479Gold, glory and the other benefits of killing monsters aren't enough? :rolleyes:

Death is quite a deterrent, and the players are roleplaying this out.

Quote from: Elfdart;625479A DM who doesn't suck could still make a campaign of it. If you need "character hooks" to provide motivation for PCs then you're a shitty DM.

Oh, so... I'm a shitty DM?

The campaign is great fun here, and you seem to be missing that critical point.  Everyone fucking loves it.

You're just another internet douchebag whose claims literally make my players laugh and wonder.  You're just making them happier it's me that's DM and not you.

Quote from: Elfdart;625479I'll go one better: If you think you should decide whether a PC has a good enough motivation, you are an unbelievably shitty DM. One character's motivation can be as good as anyone else's.

Again, you're not reading the circumstances of the campaign.  This isn't "Free Range Greyhawk".

Don't fucking comment if you've skipped the entire conversation, it makes you look like even more of an asshole than your avatar suggests.

Quote from: Elfdart;625479The PC who decides to sack the Temple for the hell of it ("Because it's there" as Edmund Hillary would say) is just as valid as the one looking for money or the one fighting The Forces of Evil (or an evil PC who resents these Evil Johnny-come-lateleys for poaching on his turf for that matter), or seeking fame, free drinks and pussy that comes from being the one who succeeded where so many others failed.

LOL

Not if the character has seen no money, fame, free drinks or pussy.  Not if he's reticent from the almost certain death that's looming.  Not if his companions can't be trusted.

You're a fucking fool.

Quote from: Elfdart;625479The very idea of telling a player that his PC's reason for adventuring is "wrong" and that you're thinking of dissolving the group because in retrospect they haven't yet fulfilled it ("You wanted gold but didn't find much? I'm dissolving the group") tells me just how hard you suck as a DM.

Once again you failed to comprehend anything in this thread, and this pretty much proves to me you're just using this opportunity to tell me I suck as a DM.  Who the fuck are you, other than a fucking asshole on internet with no redeeming qualities who knows nothing about my players, my campaign or myself, and refuses to learn these facts before spitting up garbage all over the forum.

Quote from: Elfdart;625479The smart ones will desert then. What's the problem?

That's the entire party, you fuckwit.  What do you think this is about?  It wasn't even MY idea in the first place to dissolve the party - it was suggested by one of the survivors from the Earth Temple.  I think it's a good idea and I'm just going to enforce it if no one can provide hooks when we convene on Sunday.

Quote from: Elfdart;625479Your players would be better served by relieving you of your DM position since you're obviously not cut out for it.

A slanderous attack that shows you're not paying attention and just trolling with bullshit.

Quote from: Elfdart;625479Oh for fuck's sake. :rolleyes:

We're not stopping the game.

If I decide I want a little more effort from my players in terms of compelling storyline, it is entirely in MY purview as DM to tell that player to get with the program.  If he can't provide his own hook, it's within my purview to disallow that character.

I can't even believe you think this is an issue, instead I must conclude you are simply angling for a overreaction.  You're not even the first person to show up in this thread with this bullshit.

I don't know if it's because the term "dissolve" as I have used it alludes that the campaign is over and I'm telling everyone to go home or what, but the reading comprehension level of most users on this site is fucking LOW.

Perhaps a better term to have been used would have been "reconvene" - that is, new characters and a new attempt at cracking the dungeon from a new perspective.

I didn't come here for validation, just to get some thoughts.  And most of those thoughts from a vast majority of the gamers here is that I suck as a DM.  It's a good thing I trust my instincts, and that my players love the game.

We've actually had a higher turn out lately, in part stemming from the death toll.

Posts like yours affirm to my players and myself that you are fucking stupid.  I truly doubt you have much experience as DM, or at least as DM in any game that uses rules or adventure plots.  You know.  I'll spell it out.  RPG's.

Man!  This thread sure had a lot of unproductive wrangling!  We're the masters of GM-Fu, so let's HELP the guy, not rip him a new one for his failure to run everything perfectly (Read as:  "the way I would do it...").

There have been a lot of PC fatalities.  It is important to make sure that the GM and players are on the same sheet of music regarding the game's brutality level, but it does sound like you have a group of players who would battle through Masks of Nyarlathotep (which can go through CoC investigator sheets faster than some people use up toilet paper) and still tell you "Bring it on!"

I particularly agree with one of the previous posts:

Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;625428If the current party is bad, make the Temple worse (and make it personal).  Even Evil McEvilson has a grandmother, feed her to an earth elemental.  Make it clear that this is just plain a Thing That Must Be Stopped.  No reason whatsoever that "evil" PCs can't get into that idea.  And nothing glues a disparate group together like an external threat.

If the players have a hard time getting motivated, the ToEE can bring the motive to them. Some surviving cult leader can use their intrusion as a chance to make alliance with another power group in the temple, uniting the troops by facing a common foe.  "These INFIDELS have trespassed upon our sacred halls.  We will relentlessly visit death upon them until all know that to interfere with us is to die!"

Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;625428If the players just can't see their way clear to justifying things themselves, then it may require a hard reset.  New characters, make it clear that there is a premise here and that they should make PCs to match.  (I feel like this is a last resort.)

The GM is not the only one responsible for coming up with party motivations.  Put the responsibility onto the players to come up with reasons their PCs are involved with this.  "My character tells others that he's just in it for the money, but someone from the ToEE killed his kitten when he was 5.  It's time for payback!"

As far as explaining why so many characters are showing up to explore the temple, you're going to have to suspend your disbelief a bit further:  It's the same as asking "why do comic book superheroes get in so many pointless fights with each other", "Whay are there orcs in the cave beneath the city" or other genre-based cliches:  "It's just the way it is."

I would also stop worrying so much about alignment.  So most of your guys are evil scumbags and others aren't :  Big whoop!  Even evil jerks can make friends and have people they care about.  Similarly, even jerks can see when they should back down.  They may consider taking more than their fair share of treasure or consider letting another PC get killed, but then remember that even the nicest of guys will hang their ass out to dry if they know they've been dealt with shabbily.  "Remember when you stole that wand in the chamber of echoes?  You thought I didn't notice, but guess what: I did.  I suspect that's why my god didn't give me as many healing spells as I usually carry.  He knew I wouldn't need any for you."

Revenge has been cited more than once as a reason, but you have to remember the timeline.

For many years, the temple has been nonexistent.  Now, it's still very secret.  The only folk to have truly encountered it's budding power are dead, or about to get hell out of Hommlett.  Therefore, if your kitten was killed it probably wasn't a cultist of Elemental Evil.  And even if it was, you don't know that.

Vendettas not born in-game are not happening.

I also must point out that there are no shield wall rules (which has been repeatedly suggested) in AD&D - and that you can't use pikes in the dungeon, or even in single combat (DMG p.66 "Weapon Speed Factor").

Quote from: Blackhand;625491Revenge has been cited more than once as a reason, but you have to remember the timeline.

For many years, the temple has been nonexistent.  Now, it's still very secret.  The only folk to have truly encountered it's budding power are dead, or about to get hell out of Hommlett.  Therefore, if your kitten was killed it probably wasn't a cultist of Elemental Evil.  And even if it was, you don't know that.

The PC might be mistaken, or might have been lied to, etc.  My main point is that the players can come up with additional hooks for their PCs on their own:  There's no reason that the GM has to carry the whole load.  I'd ask the players "So, why DO you want to explore the temple?" instead of feeling frustrated that they lack credible motives for pursuing the adventure.

Quote from: Sir Wulf;625495The PC might be mistaken, or might have been lied to, etc.  My main point is that the players can come up with additional hooks for their PCs on their own:  There's no reason that the GM has to carry the whole load.  I'd ask the players "So, why DO you want to explore the temple?" instead of feeling frustrated that they lack credible motives for pursuing the adventure.

Yeah, you would ask the players this.  I have done so, and there are no compelling answers.  The #1 answers were:

• I came to find my cousin. (x2)
• I was hired by the Brothers Ralpar. (x2)
• I was just in the neighborhood and thought these guys had a good idea - they didn't.

Also, it's very clear in the module if the Temple starts making any real moves they will be crushed out, and not by the player characters.  Already the Archcleric of Veluna has sent more agents to the area, and if anything resembling a unified front from the Temple is exposed the campaign will be over as the powers that be make a repeat of what came before.

Quote from: Blackhand;625496Also, it's very clear in the module if the Temple starts making any real moves they will be crushed out, and not by the player characters.  Already the Archcleric of Veluna has sent more agents to the area, and if anything resembling a unified front from the Temple is exposed the campaign will be over as the powers that be make a repeat of what came before.

This sounds like a viable strategy would be to work out who these agents are, make sure they get evidence (or "evidence") of such a united front, then swoop in after the Velunan SWAT teams, scooping up treasure as you go.

Quote from: Malphaeus;625371I know you wouldn't have left me either. When Hambone was left we both felt terrible, that was our mistake. It's good to know there was no embezzlement too!

Werd

Quote from: Captain Video;625401I wasnt mad when i found out you had all that gold, but i was mad I didnt think of hoarding it first. lol, Im looking forward to my new character too.

LOL! All that Gold was mine... I never spent any real money or had magical stuff at the beginning...

Quote from: Blackhand;625491I also must point out that there are no shield wall rules (which has been repeatedly suggested) in AD&D - and that you can't use pikes in the dungeon, or even in single combat (DMG p.66 "Weapon Speed Factor").

"Shield wall" in this context could probably be better phrased as "fully-armored front line.  And while pikes are obviously out, that still leaves every other polearm.  The humble spear serves admirably in this capacity, doubling the attacks you'll get in a front line formation.

Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;625567"Shield wall" in this context could probably be better phrased as "fully-armored front line.  And while pikes are obviously out, that still leaves every other polearm.  The humble spear serves admirably in this capacity, doubling the attacks you'll get in a front line formation.

No, it does no such thing.  I've spoken about this in a similar thread, this always seems to be what folks suggest - even though there are no rules for this.

There aren't rules for ranking up like this in AD&D 1e.  There simply are not.  You can't attack a creature not adjacent to you without missile weapons.  Weapon reach has no mechanical application, being used only to determine who hits first during a charge.

Remember that in AD&D 1e combat, combatants are paired up.  Initiative does not work like subsequent editions, this seems to be something a lot of folk have problems with (*dur you play RaW lol that's impossible how do you do initiative DERP*).

If you think you can attack through another character or that the 3e "Reach" condition applies, feel free to find that in the rulebook and quote the page number.  

I will totally listen.

Yet I'm going to tell you no such rules exist, and we are not making up new ones.  That sort of thing is reserved for masses of troops in AD&D.


Now don't start on the whole "you're a shit GM because you don't houserule Reach".  That's erroneous.  That falls into the "making shit up" category and has no place in this game.  It's explained in the DMG why polearms don't really work in a dungeon, and why they are reserved for mass troops.

Quote from: Blackhand;625572No, it does no such thing.  I've spoken about this in a similar thread, this always seems to be what folks suggest - even though there are no rules for this.

Well, sure.  There also aren't rules for sticking to the floor rather than floating around - you simply don't need them, these are things you can just do

QuoteThere aren't rules for ranking up like this in AD&D 1e.  There simply are not.

Not explicit ones, no.  The game does assume a certain amount of critical thinking.

QuoteYou can't attack a creature not adjacent to you without missile weapons.  Weapon reach has no mechanical application, being used only to determine who hits first during a charge.

You're right, it doesn't.  You can simply attack any target within 10 feet of you.  10 feet.  More than enough to get in a few ranks.

QuoteRemember that in AD&D 1e combat, combatants are paired up.

Except when they're not, as explicitly covered in the combat rules.

QuoteInitiative does not work like subsequent editions, this seems to be something a lot of folk have problems with (*dur you play RaW lol that's impossible how do you do initiative DERP*).

No one is saying this.  YOU are saying you're having problems playing RAW, and then come up with these bizarre selective interpretations of those rules.

QuoteIf you think you can attack through another character or that the 3e "Reach" condition applies, feel free to find that in the rulebook and quote the page number.  

I will totally listen.

3e?  Do you think you're on the GITP forums, here?



Well, in any case, good luck with your game.

Quote from: Blackhand;624799What do you think?  Is dissolution the only answer?

To return to this original question as I have no interesting the details of what AD&D does and does not allow (as for me, it doesn't allow anything I want to do, and disallows much that I do want).


I'm amazed that here in the den of the "GM is King" mindset that anyone would contest the idea that you have the right to dissolve a group. The GM is under no obligation to run any campaign he does not enjoy, nor does he have to continue to accept players who will not conform to the requirements of his campaign.

He may not have players after setting his foot down, but really if the campaign isn't working I'd call that the best possible outcome.

I'd close the campaign and tell them I'll reopen it when you come up with new characters that fit it.*



*Actually that's not what I'd do. I'd look at all these players who want to run evil characters, and boot them out of my house and find new players.

More needless conjecture.

Let me state this:  we are playing through all Editions in the next few years, consecutively.  We are only using published campaigns.  We are doing this to literally watch the game evolve.  That's a major factor in sticking to the rules - we want to feel them change over time.

Now on to your statements.

Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;625589Well, sure.  There also aren't rules for sticking to the floor rather than floating around - you simply don't need them, these are things you can just do

Actually it talks about why this doesn't work and I've already sent you to the relevant section of the manual.

Also, we play the rules as *inclusive* not *exclusive*.  That means the rules state what you can do, not what you can't do.

That's not to say I discourage stunts, but you find when you play with the rules you don't need to make up stuff as you go along.

Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;625589Not explicit ones, no.  The game does assume a certain amount of critical thinking.

It also assumes you read the book.

Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;625589You're right, it doesn't.  You can simply attack any target within 10 feet of you.  10 feet.  More than enough to get in a few ranks.

You just gave up at the initiative rules and didn't read the rest of it, didn't you?

I'm not sure where you got that number either.  When I represent combat on the board, the squares are 5' (that is, 1 map square = 4 tile squares).  That's melee range to me.

Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;625589Except when they're not, as explicitly covered in the combat rules.

Oh is it?  Got a reference for that explicit covering?  No, you don't.

It's answers like this that make me absolutely certain no one here has even attempted to play AD&D 1e RaW.

That said, pairing or grouping combatants is very important when initiative scores are tied.  I can see where it would be very confusing if you didn't look at each pairing or grouping of combatants as a different combat.

Consider weapon speed factors, casting times and the general flow of the combat resolution sequence on page 61 of the DMG.

Remember that actions are declared before initiative is rolled.  If you look at ADDICT, you'll see what I mean, even if the word "paired" should have been "grouped" to cover more than one opponent on a single individual.

Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;625589No one is saying this.  YOU are saying you're having problems playing RAW, and then come up with these bizarre selective interpretations of those rules.

No.  That's just fucking...I'm not sure where you got that other than you just made it up.

My players and I repeatedly state we have no problem with RaW.

Bizarre selective interpretations?  That sounds like what you are doing.

Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;6255893e?  Do you think you're on the GITP forums, here?

I don't know what this means.

Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;625589Well, in any case, good luck with your game.

Thanks, I appreciate that - but you can stop trying to educate me on the rules of AD&D.

Quote from: gleichman;625601To return to this original question as I have no interesting the details of what AD&D does and does not allow (as for me, it doesn't allow anything I want to do, and disallows much that I do want).

I'm amazed that here in the den of the "GM is King" mindset that anyone would contest the idea that you have the right to dissolve a group. The GM is under no obligation to run any campaign he does not enjoy, nor does he have to continue to accept players who will not conform to the requirements of his campaign.

He may not have players after setting his foot down, but really if the campaign isn't working I'd call that the best possible outcome.

I'd close the campaign and tell them I'll reopen it when you come up with new characters that fit it.*

*Actually that's not what I'd do. I'd look at all these players who want to run evil characters, and boot them out of my house and find new players.

Appreciate you stopping by, Mr. Gleichmann.  To elaborate, I won't lose players nor will I have to boot them from my house.  We don't have a problem with each other, and I don't have a problem with evil characters.

I just want a compelling story, and I demand that my players come up with backstory and motivation.

They just want to villify me despite the testimonials in this thread by my players.  I know you know how that feels.

Sometimes I wonder why I bother.  My players are convinced that most gamers are craven nerds simply by reading the responses on this board.

And you're right, I can't believe they would contest I can't do something in the campaign that I'm running, and hosting at my house with my materials.  Also, with my friends - not random gamers.

Other than just for the pleasure of trolling me.

I'm sorry if my advice wasn't helpful:  I never did run that scenario and it has been many years since I last read it.  I understand your desire to stay with the scenario as written, but I tend to take things "off the rails" when a party seems to have lost their focus as yours has.

Your players apparently feel less than creative when choosing their PCs' "hooks".  Third-party texts like Central Casting: Heroes of Legend and PC Pearls have tables that could be referred to for random PC background details: Perhaps one of those books would give your players fresh ideas to consider.

You've been more helpful and understanding than most, Sir Wulf.

I think a portion of the issue is that I've allowed people to roll up characters after they perished near the beginning of the session.  There's little separation time between one character and the next, and that might lend a little weight to whatever is blocking compelling hooks.

Of course the desire to roleplay evil characters in what was once ostensibly a good party has some effect, but I think it's got a lot to do with folks trying to get back in the game as quickly as possible.

Quote from: Blackhand;625616Sometimes I wonder why I bother.  My players are convinced that most gamers are craven nerds simply by reading the responses on this board.

I would have to agree with them, if this board was my only example of the hobby I would have never taken it up.

Quote from: Blackhand;625616Other than just for the pleasure of trolling me.

I'm certain that's part of it.

Simply put, you and I have a different approach to gaming and that approach is not acceptable here. That bleeds over into everything, and some of these people will reach the depths of the worse hypocrisy just to disagree with you as a result.

Quote from: Blackhand;625616Sometimes I wonder why I bother.  My players are convinced that most gamers are craven nerds simply by reading the responses on this board.

"You guys are nerds, I totally know some guys that think so."

(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/08/17/delay460x276.jpg)

Quote from: Blackhand;625482Oh Christ, another one of these.  You didn't read any of this, did you?

Of course I did -painful though it was.

QuoteI'll challenge that. I have made no blunders,

Other than thinking you're cut out to be a DM when you're not qualified to referee a Tic-Tac-Toe tournament ("I'm going to dissolve this game if you put an X in the center square!").

Quoteother than to think to share the story with this board.  This community continually vomits up fuckrods like yourself, and will do so until it is made up of the garbage people that game with 2 or 3 buddies once a month and claim to be "hardcore" or whatever the fuck.  I can tell you have little experience with games by your backhanded attacks on issues I'm sharing with you.

Want some cheese to go with your whine?

QuoteThe character arcs we're talking about are the ones belonging the living characters.

So if eight PC with "story arcs" begin the adventure, but four get killed, how many "story arcs" does the DM need to keep up with? No cheating!
 

QuoteDeath is quite a deterrent, and the players are roleplaying this out.

Really? Then they need to give up adventuring and pick up another trade.

QuoteOh, so... I'm a shitty DM?

Yep.

QuoteThe campaign is great fun here, and you seem to be missing that critical point.  Everyone fucking loves it.

So why are you thinking about dissolving it?

QuoteYou're just another internet douchebag whose claims literally make my players laugh and wonder.  You're just making them happier it's me that's DM and not you.

I've never had to break up a party because they weren't playing the way I wanted them too.

QuoteAgain, you're not reading the circumstances of the campaign.  This isn't "Free Range Greyhawk".

Obviously I read the thread, which is how I know you suck as a DM.

QuoteDon't fucking comment if you've skipped the entire conversation, it makes you look like even more of an asshole than your avatar suggests.

So now you don't like my avatar? I'm hurt.

QuoteLOL

Not if the character has seen no money, fame, free drinks or pussy.  Not if he's reticent from the almost certain death that's looming.  Not if his companions can't be trusted.

The point you are clearly too stupid to grasp is that how PCs choose to deal with these problems should be up to them and not you. Maybe they enjoy getting their characters splattered, then rolling up new ones. Maybe that's the only fun they can have when playing for a shitty DM.

Like you.

QuoteYou're a fucking fool.

First my avatar, now you don't like me either? Oh dear.

QuoteOnce again you failed to comprehend anything in this thread, and this pretty much proves to me you're just using this opportunity to tell me I suck as a DM.

If the shoe fits...

QuoteWho the fuck are you, other than a fucking asshole on internet with no redeeming qualities who knows nothing about my players, my campaign or myself, and refuses to learn these facts before spitting up garbage all over the forum.

:boohoo:

QuoteThat's the entire party, you fuckwit.  What do you think this is about?  It wasn't even MY idea in the first place to dissolve the party - it was suggested by one of the survivors from the Earth Temple.  I think it's a good idea and I'm just going to enforce it if no one can provide hooks when we convene on Sunday.

That's not what you wrote in the OP.

QuoteA slanderous attack that shows you're not paying attention and just trolling with bullshit.

Do you really think that you can change the meaning of the word slanderous by typing your little shit-fit in red?

QuoteWe're not stopping the game.

Oh that's nice.

QuoteIf I decide I want a little more effort from my players in terms of compelling storyline, it is entirely in MY purview as DM to tell that player to get with the program.  If he can't provide his own hook, it's within my purview to disallow that character.

That's right! Teach 'em who's boss!

QuoteI can't even believe you think this is an issue, instead I must conclude you are simply angling for a overreaction.  You're not even the first person to show up in this thread with this bullshit.

And instead of asking yourself honestly if we (whoever "we" are) are right, you shriek like someone rubbed sand in your vagina.

QuoteI don't know if it's because the term "dissolve" as I have used it alludes that the campaign is over and I'm telling everyone to go home or what, but the reading comprehension level of most users on this site is fucking LOW.

Especially yours.

QuotePerhaps a better term to have been used would have been "reconvene" - that is, new characters and a new attempt at cracking the dungeon from a new perspective.

Shouldn't the fact that you're hitting the reset switch for the scenario tell you that maybe -just maybe- you're doing something wrong in the first place?

QuoteI didn't come here for validation,

How lucky for you.

Quotejust to get some thoughts.  And most of those thoughts from a vast majority of the gamers here is that I suck as a DM.

Which should tell you something.

QuoteIt's a good thing I trust my instincts, and that my players love the game.

You have a strange way of showing it.

QuoteWe've actually had a higher turn out lately, in part stemming from the death toll.

Oh good for you! (http://youtu.be/lUF9BPOXfcE)

QuotePosts like yours affirm to my players and myself that you are fucking stupid.  I truly doubt you have much experience as DM, or at least as DM in any game that uses rules or adventure plots.  You know.  I'll spell it out.  RPG's.

If you type it in red it must be true.

If this is a traditional sandbox style setting, then the option may simply be to throw hands up and say, "let's adventure somewhere else." An entirely emergent approach should allow for PCs to retire the field, level up some, and come back to the temple when they are stronger. The players and DM made their beds, and should sleep in them.

Going for an entirety immersive play style, players might want to consider that PvP lead them into this mess and that D&D is a team based game. Players control their PCs, and can choose as easily to cooperate and not betray each other as they can to PvP.

As for you, Black hand, you need to man up and take control of your game. Having NPCs contact the players to provide hooks and motivation to reenter the TOEE is not "making shit up." The mod isn't a WOW raid which can run itself. I agree that rules matter,but you're abdicating control of your game to a narrow view of adventure text in favor of some weird idea of absolute impartiality. EGG wrote that "The dungeon master is the final arbitrator of all affairs pertaining to his or her campaign." The rules are there, but its your responsibility to run your game.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;625641As for you, Black hand, you need to man up and take control of your game. Having NPCs contact the players to provide hooks and motivation to reenter the TOEE is not "making shit up." The mod isn't a WOW raid which can run itself. I agree that rules matter,but you're abdicating control of your game to a narrow view of adventure text in favor of some weird idea of absolute impartiality. EGG wrote that "The dungeon master is the final arbitrator of all affairs pertaining to his or her campaign." The rules are there, but its your responsibility to run your game.

Moreover, the text as written says that the powers that be in neighbouring lands ought to get involved the more the hornet's nest gets poked and the louder the buzzing gets.

Quote from: Blackhand;625623Of course the desire to roleplay evil characters in what was once ostensibly a good party has some effect, but I think it's got a lot to do with folks trying to get back in the game as quickly as possible.

In my experience, when a character dies, many players have the desire to make their next character a "serious badass", vengeful and remorseless.  It's not uncommon for such characters to manifest as evil or borderline-evil killing machines.  

Players often put less effort into creating their new replacement characters.  Although they may not consciously realize it, they're emotionally distancing themselves from their characters.  This allows them to minimize the emotional impact of a character's death:  They're not letting themselves get attached to it.

To escape this downward spiral, you may want to take a break and play something lighthearted and non-deadly.  Pull out one of the other scenarios set in the region (perhaps one of the really stupid ones...) and give the players a chance to relax and reset, playing something that they can reasonably expect won't kill them.

I'm curious how you decide when two combatants are "locked in melee" because "it is generally not possible to select a specific opponent in a mass melee" unless "characters or similar intelligent creatures are able to single out an opponent or opponents, then the concerned figures will remain locked in melee until one side is dead or opts to attempt to break off the combat".

How do you decide if they "are able" to do so as the rulebook gives no guidance here?

Do you let players pick their targets in combat? Do you pick targets as the GM?

Page 70 "Who Attacks Whom"

I couldn't find it when I scanned the DMG, but I would have sworn there was a reference to characters fighting in multiple ranks by using polearms or spears.

Quote from: Sir Wulf;625646In my experience, when a character dies, many players have the desire to make their next character a "serious badass", vengeful and remorseless.  It's not uncommon for such characters to manifest as evil or borderline-evil killing machines.  

Players often put less effort into creating their new replacement characters.  Although they may not consciously realize it, they're emotionally distancing themselves from their characters.  This allows them to minimize the emotional impact of a character's death:  They're not letting themselves get attached to it.

To escape this downward spiral, you may want to take a break and play something lighthearted and non-deadly.  Pull out one of the other scenarios set in the region (perhaps one of the really stupid ones...) and give the players a chance to relax and reset, playing something that they can reasonably expect won't kill them.

Which is why we are creating a new party, and starting at The Ghost Tower of Inverness.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;625641If this is a traditional sandbox style setting,

You didn't read a damn thing.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;625641Going for an entirety immersive play style, players might want to consider that PvP lead them into this mess and that D&D is a team based game. Players control their PCs, and can choose as easily to cooperate and not betray each other as they can to PvP.

PvP we have done before, but not in this campaign.  I don't know where you got this, as I have only mentioned that it is not unknown to my group.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;625641As for you, Black hand, you need to man up and take control of your game. Having NPCs contact the players to provide hooks and motivation to reenter the TOEE is not "making shit up." The mod isn't a WOW raid which can run itself. I agree that rules matter,but you're abdicating control of your game to a narrow view of adventure text in favor of some weird idea of absolute impartiality. EGG wrote that "The dungeon master is the final arbitrator of all affairs pertaining to his or her campaign." The rules are there, but its your responsibility to run your game.

For real?  This is so out of context, that's all I can say.

Quote from: Piestrio;625648I'm curious how you decide when two combatants are "locked in melee" because "it is generally not possible to select a specific opponent in a mass melee" unless "characters or similar intelligent creatures are able to single out an opponent or opponents, then the concerned figures will remain locked in melee until one side is dead or opts to attempt to break off the combat".

How do you decide if they "are able" to do so as the rulebook gives no guidance here?

Do you let players pick their targets in combat? Do you pick targets as the GM?

Page 70 "Who Attacks Whom"

Yeah, I know the rule you are talking about and I reserve that for *mass* combat.  Not combat on a tactical grid between 10 to 20 combatants.  Mass combat is referenced several times.  That said, I make no differentiation other than models on the board.

In a recent encounter, 18 guards vs. 9 PC's, I put them on the board.  The ones at the front rank were the ones they could attack.  It's pretty simple, really.

Quote from: Sir Wulf;625649I couldn't find it when I scanned the DMG, but I would have sworn there was a reference to characters fighting in multiple ranks by using polearms or spears.

There's not one.

Whuh... Blackhand is dissolving a campaign becuase they're not playing out the story he'd like?

Quote from: Planet Algol;625706Whuh... Blackhand is dissolving a campaign becuase they're not playing out the story he'd like?

They're not role playing the way he'd like, and the way they could role play would suck for him anyway so... better kill the whole campaign.

Quote from: Benoist;625707They're not role playing the way he'd like, and the way they could role play would suck for him anyway so... better kill the whole campaign.

Pretty much. The irony being that they sound like charoppers who are playing 1E like its 3E. Double Specialisation with 19 str. Pfft

Quote from: Planet Algol;625706Whuh... Blackhand is dissolving a campaign becuase they're not playing out the story he'd like?

Who said dissolving a campaign? Just the current party to forge a new one. It's been said over and over and over again...

Quote from: Benoist;625707They're not role playing the way he'd like, and the way they could role play would suck for him anyway so... better kill the whole campaign.

Again... Not the campaign... Ugh...

Quote from: Fiasco;625710Pretty much. The irony being that they sound like charoppers who are playing 1E like its 3E. Double Specialisation with 19 str. Pfft

Wow... Have you read the books? Double Specialization is in there. Why is this an issue??

Campaign/party... splitting hairs. He's not dissolving the milieu.

Quote from: Planet Algol;625706Whuh... Blackhand is dissolving a campaign becuase they're not playing out the story he'd like?

Hilarious, isn't it?

This thread delivers.

Quote from: Malphaeus;625715Who said dissolving a campaign? Just the current party to forge a new one. It's been said over and over and over again...



Again... Not the campaign... Ugh...



Wow... Have you read the books? Double Specialization is in there. Why is this an issue??

So are drow who dual wield scimitars. Doesn't make it less of a wank.

Quote from: Fiasco;625746So are drow who dual wield scimitars. Doesn't make it less of a wank.

Oh right, I forgot that making a character using rules presented in the book is wanky. From now on I'll just make all my characters douchebags. Just send me your stats so I'll know where to start.

Quote from: Malphaeus;625750Oh right, I forgot that making a character using rules presented in the book is wanky. From now on I'll just make all my characters douchebags. Just send me your stats so I'll know where to start.

Why all the hand wringing and angst over alignment? Just roll up your new 18/00 dart specialist and get back in there tiger!

Mind you make him Lawful Good though so you don't mess with the DM's 'story'.

Hey Blackhand!

Quote from: Blackhand;624799I feel that by their own decisions, the players have created an unworkable party who have no reason to stay together and no reason for adventure.  They are all evil and out for themselves, save the two good aligned players that will start to receive penalties for association with evil.  I've already warned the cleric that Hieroneous doesn't like him healing Evil folks.

What do you think?  Is dissolution the only answer?

So, if I get you correctly.

- You and your group have decided to play ToEE. Playing this module is your group's goal.

- Through the normal course of the sessions and how events unfolded, the high attrition rate has caused a situation in which, if PCs are properly portrayed, they have no reason to adventure together, less son in an environment as the Temple, where no profit is seemingly at hand, only death.

- As you and your group decided that your goal is to play the module, if the PCs are not fit for that you are thinking about replacing them.

- Other than that, you and your group are enjoying the game and don't have any problem with the rules, setting or of personal nature.

Did I understand you correctly?

If I got you right I agree with you, you should dissolve the party and create a more cohesive one who is motivated to explore the ToEE. For example, they (and any replacement PC that could be needed) could be employed by someone or something who needs the Temple defeated. Other than a "mission" type of adventure, party dislution is the most sensible choice to me, assuming everyone in the group is OK that the party is not working.

Hope it helps.

Quote from: Imperator;625772Hey Blackhand!


So, if I get you correctly.

- You and your group have decided to play ToEE. Playing this module is your group's goal.

- Through the normal course of the sessions and how events unfolded, the high attrition rate has caused a situation in which, if PCs are properly portrayed, they have no reason to adventure together, less son in an environment as the Temple, where no profit is seemingly at hand, only death.

- As you and your group decided that your goal is to play the module, if the PCs are not fit for that you are thinking about replacing them.

- Other than that, you and your group are enjoying the game and don't have any problem with the rules, setting or of personal nature.

Did I understand you correctly?

If I got you right I agree with you, you should dissolve the party and create a more cohesive one who is motivated to explore the ToEE. For example, they (and any replacement PC that could be needed) could be employed by someone or something who needs the Temple defeated. Other than a "mission" type of adventure, party dislution is the most sensible choice to me, assuming everyone in the group is OK that the party is not working.

Hope it helps.

Hello my friend, it's good to see you again!

You nailed it directly on the head there, Imperator.  

I really don't understand all the hate coming up from this.  Yet it seems no matter how many times it's said, or how many people say it that a lot of the folk here seem to be willfully misreading everything I say.  Not that they have to read it and comment in the first place.

Appreciate you taking the time.  I've almost finished preparing the new module jumping off point, and I have to tell you I think it's going to revitalize the campaign.  I'm going to run The Ghost Tower of Inverness, and from there segue into the Temple in a slightly different manner - since we played through Hommlett already.

Some folks have suggested a "mission-master" type patron.  We do this sort of play with Dark Heresy (the Inquisitor and all) so I wanted to let the players come up with it themselves.  We had a couple of really fun stories somewhere in the 24 characters (between 10 players) these past many weeks, but what's left isn't working so well.  

My players really get into their characters, and are literally taking the logical choice here, in character.  It's not really a metagame thing.  I'm not heavy handed at all (though I am strict by the book), and I'm pretty lenient on character choices.  Already one of the players has created a background involving Tenser, and I liked what I read.  I think we might have a winner in the run for the patron, but that's just one player's background.  When we make the rest of the party (half a session in itself) we'll see what shakes out.

I think the hate is coming from the concept that we are somehow stopping the game.  Players feel it's a douchebag GM move to dissolve the campaign in a like manner and I understand that. Yet this is a mutually agreed thing, between the players and I.  The "hearing" will likely be a formality at this point, because we like to do things as a club, a group.  

I'd like to point out that even if I was the sort of person who'd get mad at my players, say "Fuck it!!" and nuke the campaign - taking all my books home and whatnot - the club has a schedule for gaming.  One of the other players is going to run Rise of the Runelords, immediately after we are done with AD&D 1e.  The gaming would not stop, and the largest portion of the group has been gaming together for almost two decades.  I am NOT that sort of person, and I resent being portrayed as such.

I can't figure out if this is an elaborate and expertly-crafted trollthread or not.

Lord Hobie

I think Blackhand and his group are being genuine - it's just that they have a very specific internal culture which 100% works for them but looks odd from outside, especially if the internal culture of your own gaming scene is very different. (For instance, they seem to be really against homebrew systems or deviating from RAW or improvising adventures on the fly, which runs directly against the preferences of more or less all the groups I've ever played with.)

Quote from: Warthur;625822I think Blackhand and his group are being genuine - it's just that they have a very specific internal culture which 100% works for them but looks odd from outside, especially if the internal culture of your own gaming scene is very different. (For instance, they seem to be really against homebrew systems or deviating from RAW or improvising adventures on the fly, which runs directly against the preferences of more or less all the groups I've ever played with.)

It's not that it's that he can't say three words about why he plays the way he does without grossly disparaging people who play even slightly differently.

Admittedly he's far from alone with that particular problem.

Quote from: Piestrio;625830It's not that it's that he can't say three words about why he plays the way he does without grossly disparaging people who play even slightly differently.

Admittedly he's far from alone with that particular problem.

And even then it wouldn't really be a problem if the way he played were broadly compatible with the way most of us play.

As it stands, it's a combination of his group's internal culture having fairly rigid expectations and the fact that he can't seem to imagine why people might find that constraining or not to their tastes unless they are namby-pamby wuss gamers who can't take it.

Ive been a member of Blackhand's group for about two years now and i can say that i look forward to the games he DM's more than anyone elses ,no offense comrades of the Wargate ! Its not that he doesn't allow us to have fun its that we really push it, ie. Mushue worshipping Heironius and healing the evil Hextor worshipper ? They should both be smited by their corresponding saviors! And they don't think of how it will affect the group, or they do  realize and just want to stir things up! A lot of us , including me, are still fairly virgin to RPG's or at least AD&D . I think a group discussion about solidarity and unity is in order before the restart.

Welcome, Blackhand's group! :)

Quote from: Warthur;625822I think Blackhand and his group are being genuine - it's just that they have a very specific internal culture which 100% works for them but looks odd from outside, especially if the internal culture of your own gaming scene is very different. (For instance, they seem to be really against homebrew systems or deviating from RAW or improvising adventures on the fly, which runs directly against the preferences of more or less all the groups I've ever played with.)

That is what I think, and I seem to recall that he said that they are a wargames club and they play RPGs like they play wargames: by the book, impartial referee, etc. Of course, I understand why it can be weird for many gamers outside their club, and I have no problem with it, they seem to be rocking and perfectly happy with their games. I think I would be able to play in one of their games without a problem, as they seem to be pretty hardcore inmersionists. I dunno why everyone gets so upset.

Quote from: Blackhand;625811You nailed it directly on the head there, Imperator.  

Good, good :)

QuoteAppreciate you taking the time.  I've almost finished preparing the new module jumping off point, and I have to tell you I think it's going to revitalize the campaign.  I'm going to run The Ghost Tower of Inverness, and from there segue into the Temple in a slightly different manner - since we played through Hommlett already.

Yeah, a new beginning seems to be the best option for me and it's what I would do. A clean slate will help to set in the player's mind the idea that "we're starting afresh, and this time we'll focus on getting a compatible party", so to speak.

QuoteMy players really get into their characters, and are literally taking the logical choice here, in character.  It's not really a metagame thing.  I'm not heavy handed at all (though I am strict by the book), and I'm pretty lenient on character choices.  Already one of the players has created a background involving Tenser, and I liked what I read.  I think we might have a winner in the run for the patron, but that's just one player's background.  When we make the rest of the party (half a session in itself) we'll see what shakes out.

Cool. Dunno about your group, but from my experience if the patron is related to a PCs background the group usually take it well.

QuoteI think the hate is coming from the concept that we are somehow stopping the game.  Players feel it's a douchebag GM move to dissolve the campaign in a like manner and I understand that. Yet this is a mutually agreed thing, between the players and I.  The "hearing" will likely be a formality at this point, because we like to do things as a club, a group.  

Awesome. That is how I roll. Sometimes my players feel like changing games or I will want to try a different thing, and we will do a similar thing.

QuoteI'd like to point out that even if I was the sort of person who'd get mad at my players, say "Fuck it!!" and nuke the campaign - taking all my books home and whatnot - the club has a schedule for gaming.  One of the other players is going to run Rise of the Runelords, immediately after we are done with AD&D 1e.  The gaming would not stop, and the largest portion of the group has been gaming together for almost two decades.  I am NOT that sort of person, and I resent being portrayed as such.

I understand why you would resent that. Gess is a misreading.

This thread is proof that my jazz improvisation analogy functions better in practice than RAW DM rigidity.

Quote from: jeff37923;625960This thread is proof that my jazz improvovisation analogy functions better in practice than RAW DM rigidity.

That post is proof that people will justify their own behavior in any and all possible ways- no matter how foolish or flimsy.

Quote from: jeff37923;625960This thread is proof that my jazz improvovisation analogy functions better in practice than RAW DM rigidity.

different strokes, etc.  i shouldn't be amazed, but still am, at the amount of idiot posts complaining about their group style.  at least a few folks were able to contribute meaningfully to this thread.

Quote from: beeber;625969different strokes, etc.  i shouldn't be amazed, but still am, at the amount of idiot posts complaining about their group style.  at least a few folks were able to contribute meaningfully to this thread.

Maybe it's because they are a bunch of Munchkins who love it RAW with a DM who attempts to portray himself as a manly gamer while wringing his hands over alignment. That and the are doing ToE so they can 'tick it and 1E' off their list.

Their skills aren't up to it and as others have said down thread, the temple has won.

Quote from: Fiasco;625989Maybe it's because they are a bunch of Munchkins who love it RAW with a DM who attempts to portray himself as a manly gamer while wringing his hands over alignment. That and the are doing ToE so they can 'tick it and 1E' off their list.

Their skills aren't up to it and as others have said down thread, the temple has won.

Not only is that a deliberate attempt to be inflammatory (to all of us), it's also a gross misrepresentation.

My ignore list is getting out of control.

Quote from: Blackhand;625991Not only is that a deliberate attempt to be inflammatory, it's also a gross misrepresentation.

My ignore list is getting out of control.

And yet your group has still been dissolved due to your lack of DM skills.

Maybe you should stick to wargames?

Quote from: jeff37923;625996And yet your group has still been dissolved due to your lack of DM skills.

Maybe you should stick to wargames?

Jesus Christ, for real?  How many times do we have to say this is NOT what's happening?

If you're not wanting to take part in this ongoing discussion, please don't comment.  People like you are making this board a worse Troll Hole than it ever was, simply because you read 2 sentences of the OP and then only posts by the other people making inflammatory statements.

What is actually happening is on every single page of this thread, in every post my players and I make.

Quote from: Blackhand;625999Jesus Christ, for real?  How many times do we have to say this is NOT what's happening?

If you're not wanting to take part in this ongoing discussion, please don't comment.  People like you are making this board a worse Troll Hole than it ever was, simply because you read 2 sentences of the OP and then only posts by the other people making inflammatory statements.

What is actually happening is on every single page of this thread, in every post my players and I make.

Things wouldn't have gone so badly for you and your group if you would have just learned to improvise more, but alas, the ToEE has won. You are all its victims.

Quote from: jeff37923;626001Things wouldn't have gone so badly for you and your group if you would have just learned to improvise more, but alas, the ToEE has won.

Improvise?  You mean run a "Free Range Greyhawk" campaign.  Which is explicitly what we set out to NOT do when we started this - but that's been stated several times already.

You're still way off base buddy, and I don't feel the need to argue with you.  Things wouldn't go so badly if you just learned to read a little more, but alas...

Quote from: Blackhand;626004Improvise?  You mean run "Free Range Greyhawk".  Which is explicitly what we set out to NOT do when we started this.

You're still way off base buddy, and I don't feel the need to argue with you.

No adventure ever survives contact with the Player Characters.

Every GM worth their salt knows this.

Quote from: Blackhand;625991Not only is that a deliberate attempt to be inflammatory (to all of us), it's also a gross misrepresentation.

They seem to have quite the hate on for you. Might be even worse than how they react to me and that's saying something.

In general they are wedded to the idea that it's impossible to play a game RAW, and so will go out of their way to misrepresent anyone doing so. It's really their only option as much of the self-image of the OSR is tied up in that delusion.

So you've come in and set their bonnets on fire, and they're having the predictable reaction.

Quote from: Blackhand;625991Not only is that a deliberate attempt to be inflammatory (to all of us), it's also a gross misrepresentation.

My ignore list is getting out of control.

Sorry dude, running Riund with 19 str characters who have double specialized with weapons is about as munchkin as you can get in 1E. Most of us around here don't like munchkins much like your group doesn't like female gamers.

The fact that ToE has chewed up your munchkins and spat them out makes it all the more amusing.

Quote from: gleichman;626008They seem to have quite the hate on for you. Might be even worse than how they react to me and that's saying something.

In general they are wedded to the idea that it's impossible to play a game RAW, and so will go out of their way to misrepresent anyone doing so. It's really their only option as much of the self-image of the OSR is tied up in that delusion.

So you've come in and set their bonnets on fire, and they're having the predictable reaction.

Happens every time.  It's like I told them their girlfriends were ugly bitches and then with a straight face danced the robot while looking them dead in the eye.

Quote from: gleichman;626008They seem to have quite the hate on for you. Might be even worse than how they react to me and that's saying something.

In general they are wedded to the idea that it's impossible to play a game RAW, and so will go out of their way to misrepresent anyone doing so. It's really their only option as much of the self-image of the OSR is tied up in that delusion.

So you've come in and set their bonnets on fire, and they're having the predictable reaction.

Blackhand loves it RAW but he doesn't allow women at his table. Beware your bedfellows, Gleichman.

Quote from: Blackhand;626010Happens every time.  It's like I told them their girlfriends were ugly bitches and then with a straight face danced the robot while looking them dead in the eye.

Well, in a way you did. It's hard to overstate how important this is to them.

You and I *must* be wrong, or they lose value. Where you and I only claim that their style is something we dislike and don't respect- they claim that ours is impossible.

That's the house of cards they stand on. So any breeze is a threat.

The way some people go on, you'd think Blackhand had come round to their house and forced them to game his way with a gun held to their head.

Likewise, you'd think that Blackhand and Gleichman are under some delusion (shared by many a Goon, i might add) that this forum is a person. The RPGsite thinks this and theRPGsite thinks that. They do this, they think that.

Neither is true. Neither is constructive. Neither actually helps the OP in any way.

Why don't you get the players that have piped up here to post their thoughts on how to improve things - or, you know, cut out us middle-men and have the conversation face to face.

Quote from: One Horse Town;626021Likewise, you'd think that Blackhand and Gleichman are under some delusion (shared by many a Goon, i might add) that this forum is a person. The RPGsite thinks this and theRPGsite thinks that. They do this, they think that.

I have found that to be the case more than not. Just count how many here are dog-piling Blackhand compare to how many are defending him.

Therpgsite is like all forums self-selecting in membership, and like attracts like. I can count the number of meaningful exceptions on my fingers. Those exceptions are important (to me), but they stand out as the exceptions they are.

Quote from: One Horse Town;626021The way some people go on, you'd think Blackhand had come round to their house and forced them to game his way with a gun held to their head.

Likewise, you'd think that Blackhand and Gleichman are under some delusion (shared by many a Goon, i might add) that this forum is a person. The RPGsite thinks this and theRPGsite thinks that. They do this, they think that.

Neither is true. Neither is constructive. Neither actually helps the OP in any way.

Why don't you get the players that have piped up here to post their thoughts on how to improve things - or, you know, cut out us middle-men and have the conversation face to face.

I'm sorry, I don't mean EVERY single person on this forum is such a goon.  I like most of the folks, that's why I spend so much time reading all the threads. I genuinely enjoy this place, its my favorite forum on the web.

When I say "they" I mean those folks here in this thread attacking me for some such reason or another.  When one quits working, they just roll out another.

You're very right, neither is constructive.

I've been in communication with lots of my players through this week, and they have been watching.  A lot don't spend so much time crawling this forum but I'm trying to alleviate that by creating threads that directly relate to this game.  Many don't want to fight the trolls, and are discouraged from attempting a discourse.  They wonder why I bother to do so.

Yet pretty much, they have already brought up those thoughts earlier in the thread.  Not every single one of my players has created an account here, only about five...but they have all read the conversations I've had with you guys over the years.

In fact, I start a lot of sessions with "on theRPGsite they talked about this item this week, and here's how we are going to apply this".  I take a lot away from this forum every day.

I'd hate for folks to think otherwise.

Quote from: Warthur;625822I think Blackhand and his group are being genuine - it's just that they have a very specific internal culture which 100% works for them but looks odd from outside, especially if the internal culture of your own gaming scene is very different. (For instance, they seem to be really against homebrew systems or deviating from RAW or improvising adventures on the fly, which runs directly against the preferences of more or less all the groups I've ever played with.)

You're correct in that assessment. It may be a very specific internal culture that we have, but we all agree this is the best way for our group to play. We have tried different styles of play, and for us as long as the rules are solid and aren't changed with the whims of the GM then we are happy. I said before and I'll say again, the mistakes our characters make in game should have consequences. We don't want our GMs to fudge the dice rolls or prevent us from learning from our mistakes. Not that we always learn! :D

Quote from: Imperator;625945That is what I think, and I seem to recall that he said that they are a wargames club and they play RPGs like they play wargames: by the book, impartial referee, etc. Of course, I understand why it can be weird for many gamers outside their club, and I have no problem with it, they seem to be rocking and perfectly happy with their games. I think I would be able to play in one of their games without a problem, as they seem to be pretty hardcore inmersionists. I dunno why everyone gets so upset.

You sir totally get it! I personally am of the mindset of to each his own. I don't like storytelling games so I don't want to play them. I likes me some rules! But if it works for another club/group I don't really care what anyone else does.

Quote from: Fiasco;626009Sorry dude, running Riund with 19 str characters who have double specialized with weapons is about as munchkin as you can get in 1E. Most of us around here don't like munchkins much like your group doesn't like female gamers.

The fact that ToE has chewed up your munchkins and spat them out makes it all the more amusing.

We aren't munchkins, and we don't mind female gamers at all. As a matter of fact we have had female gamers in the group, but they usually find other things to do or just end up not that interested after a while.

I don't think it is strange for a character to specialize in a weapon. As a matter of fact it makes a lot of sense. I could know how to use three or four weapons sort of well, or I take my time training and learning how to use one very well. Now I'm a sword master instead of just a fighter that can use a couple more weapons with no penalties.

And the 19 str is because we got lucky enough to roll an 18 and our race bonus was +1 str, but it wasn't actually 19 cause it restricted us to 18/75 which is close enough!

Quote from: gleichman;626016You and I *must* be wrong, or they lose value. Where you and I only claim that their style is something we dislike and don't respect- they claim that ours is impossible.

Last I check, you were the one claiming running a game in a consistent manner without miniatures or visual aids to track the movement of the characters was impossible. We'd be either lying, or delusional.

Or are you saying it is possible to play a consistent game without the aid of visual representations whatsoever and you somehow got it wrong this many times previously?

Quote from: Benoist;626060Last I check, you were the one claiming running a game in a consistent manner without miniatures or visual aids to track the movement of the characters was impossible. We'd be either lying, or delusional.

Or are you saying it is possible to play a consistent game without the aid of visual representations whatsoever and you somehow got it wrong this many times previously?

What exactly are you talking about?

Quote from: Benoist;626060Last I check, you were the one claiming running a game in a consistent manner without miniatures or visual aids to track the movement of the characters was impossible. We'd be either lying, or delusional.

Or are you saying it is possible to play a consistent game without the aid of visual representations whatsoever and you somehow got it wrong this many times previously?

No I stand by the original statement. Consistent and accurate resolution of complex conditions by the typical gamer is not possible without a map and minis (or their equal).

What is possible is for people to deny the reality of what they are doing, and to have fun doing things even if what they are doing is incorrect in the details. Thus games can be played that don't use maps and minis.

Quote from: jeff37923;625996And yet your group has still been dissolved due to your lack of DM skills.

Maybe you should stick to wargames?

If you mean that the player's group has split up, you are wrong. Blackhand's been talking about PCs, not players. Several players of his have commented here that they're happy with the game.

Quote from: One Horse Town;626021The way some people go on, you'd think Blackhand had come round to their house and forced them to game his way with a gun held to their head.

Yeah, it baffles me.

Quote from: Malphaeus;626034You're correct in that assessment. It may be a very specific internal culture that we have, but we all agree this is the best way for our group to play. We have tried different styles of play, and for us as long as the rules are solid and aren't changed with the whims of the GM then we are happy. I said before and I'll say again, the mistakes our characters make in game should have consequences. We don't want our GMs to fudge the dice rolls or prevent us from learning from our mistakes. Not that we always learn! :D

Sounds perfectly OK for me.

Well, we have this.

Quote from: gleichman;626016You and I *must* be wrong, or they lose value. Where you and I only claim that their style is something we dislike and don't respect- they claim that ours is impossible.

And then this.

Quote from: gleichman;626076Consistent and accurate resolution of complex conditions by the typical gamer is not possible without a map and minis (or their equal).

What is possible is for people to deny the reality of what they are doing, and to have fun doing things even if what they are doing is incorrect in the details. Thus games can be played that don't use maps and minis.

Who's telling whom their style is impossible to play as they claim they are playing it?

You are, Brian.

QED.

Quote from: Imperator;626089If you mean that the player's group has split up, you are wrong. Blackhand's been talking about PCs, not players. Several players of his have commented here that they're happy with the game.

I meant that the PC group had dissolved.

Quote from: jeff37923;626097I meant that the PC group had dissolved.

Well, in that case I don't think it has nothing to do with Blackhand's GMing skills. It seems that the players have created incompatible PCs and they are just roleplaying them.

Quote from: gleichman;626076No I stand by the original statement. Consistent and accurate resolution of complex conditions by the typical gamer is not possible without a map and minis (or their equal).

What is possible is for people to deny the reality of what they are doing, and to have fun doing things even if what they are doing is incorrect in the details. Thus games can be played that don't use maps and minis.

Quote from: Benoist;626093Who's telling whom their style is impossible to play as they claim they are playing it?

You are, Brian.

QED.

He didn't say you can't play that way, he is just pointing out that what you say happens sometimes can't be represented properly in a real physical sense; consistently.

Quote from: Imperator;626100Well, in that case I don't think it has nothing to do with Blackhand's GMing skills. It seems that the players have created incompatible PCs and they are just roleplaying them.

You do understand that I am trolling Blackhand over his inflexibility as a GM, right?

Quote from: Malphaeus;626105He didn't say you can't play that way, he is just pointing out that what you say happens sometimes can't be represented properly in a real physical sense; consistently.

I'm okay with that. If only he'd stop with the snide insinuations that I'm cognitively deficient and childish because I'm not bothered by the minor inconsistency that comes from mapless play.

Once again I'll remind everyone that Gliechman is the one who argued that if you ignored or changed rules in a game you are a BAD PERSON, as in MORALLY SUSPECT and possible contributing to the decline of society.

Really. He said that.

The man is a class one imbecile.

Blackhand just seems to have a bad case of one-true-wayism.

Quote from: Benoist;626093Who's telling whom their style is impossible to play as they claim they are playing it?

You are, Brian.

QED.

You were doing well being silent, now you're just confirming what a idiot you are.

I dont claim their *style* is impossible, only the superhuman mental ability that would be needed to make combat under it consistent and accurate. Much like I would object to someone claiming that playing role-playing games taught him the meaning of courage, or how to bounce bullets off his chest.

Quote from: gleichman;626116I dont claim their *style* is impossible, only the superhuman mental ability that would be needed to make combat under it consistent and accurate.

See? You're doing it again. Gaming without minis and maps can only result in inconsistent, inaccurate game play. It's just not possible to do it, unless you are endowed with superhuman mental abilities (such as you have, of course, since you can play chess blindfolded and whatnot).

Quote from: Piestrio;626111Once again I'll remind everyone that Gleichman is the one who argued that if you ignored or changed rules in a game you are a BAD PERSON, as in MORALLY SUSPECT and possible contributing to the decline of society.

But you can play that way you know? It's just that you are a bad person, morally suspect, and if, to boot, you play without miniatures and claim not to have any problems in regards to consistency or accuracy, it must mean you are either delusional, or lying. It must be the latter! You are morally suspect, after all.

Quote from: Benoist;626127(such as you have, of course, since you can play chess blindfolded and whatnot).

Playing blindfold chess isn't impossible, just very difficult (at least IME). Grandmasters often give demos (and much more impressive ones than I was ever capable of).

Of course I wouldn't believe a claim that there's a chess grandmaster here  without proof (I'd consider it unfounded bragging). And you are certainly free to believe that I was never capable of the feat as I offer no proof, I only listed at the time to point out that I knew personally how difficult the task is- and that's when restricted to a simple 8x8 2-D grid with very limited movement options.

I can't imagine attempting the task in something like a 30x50 grid with the 3-D terrain that I typically use in my rpgs.

Quote from: Piestrio;626111Blackhand just seems to have a bad case of one-true-wayism.

To be fair, it seems a lot of people on this board have the same ailment.

Quote from: Malphaeus;626137To be fair, it seems a lot of people on this board have the same ailment.

You'll get little in the way of argument from me there.

Quote from: One Horse Town;625881Welcome, Blackhand's group! :)

Thanks... Me, Blackhand, and a few others have been in the same gaming circle for well over 15+ years.

-BLACKHAND SPOILER ALERT-

When I was 15 years old I met Blackhand. We were both nerdy kids with an ear for metal music and an eye for good books. I hated him after a while because he always seemed to be a hardass and had a way of sounding like he was working overly hard to prove his point.

We became bitter nemisis with CCGs (MTGO mainly), Warhammer 40k, and just about anything that was playable and fantasy based. On top of all this, I admit I always looked foreward to being invited to game nights for D&D. He was a decent DM even as a teenager and was very anal over literal RAW conduct.

Over 16 years of friendship we have been roommates, co-workers, conspirators, and probably other dubious functions working togather. One thing has remained constant: Roleplay and Tabletop Warhammer. This is what we do every weekend, every week, of every month, of every year... and have been for a while. RAW is how we try to keep it, for in our experience the book is always right and the reason we even bought the book was to use the rulesets.

Im not bashing anyone on this board.... RPG gaming is a personal road for many to have traveled... meaning play types, house rules, and ammendments you played or used personally to make your games go smoother to the liking of all. Theres no shame there... But there is also no shame in our RAW and nose the the grindstone approach to things. The books always say so... and the last word of a rules lawyer is always a quote from the pages on our table.

You can see how we roll with updates weekly... every week of every year on ... //www.thewargate.blogspot.com ... and see our states of play. We are super active.

Game on and enjoy your hobby time, but please think twice before you sit and bash without really knowing who your talking about or what your talking about for that matter...

I just went back and read the start of the thread. I don't see any real problem with the way Blackhand is going about things.

We have house rules, but they are documented and freely available. We are also in a playtest state so everyone knows things are in flux, and we have a talk at the start of each session about what, if any changes are being made. However, aside from that I play as RAW as possible, and dice are out in the open. Every. Fucking. Roll.
 
I'm certain that Blackhand and I would disagree on many things realted to games, but I don't see any of them in this thread.

I just went back and read the start of the thread. I don't see any real problem with the way Blackhand is going about things.
We have house rules, but they are documented and freely available. We are also in a playtest state so everyone knows things are in flux, and we have a talk at the start of each session about what, if any changes are neing made. However, aside from that I play as RAW as possible, and dice are out in the open. Every. Fucking. Roll.
I'm certain that Blackhand and I would disagree on many things realted to games, but I don't see any of them inthis thread.


I also make the players come up with their own motivations for hanging together.

just read the thread... if y'all don't like your characters and want to roll up a new party, then go for it. seems the players are psyched. seems like you've got a good plan for a reboot.

and perhaps there is a lesson here for the players: when rolling up a PC, do it in the context of your collective goal for playing. if you all agree that the scenario is just a backdrop for interpersonal drama, then yeah, roll up that paladin while the other guy let's the finishing touches on his LE demon summoner.

 if you all agree that you want to play through a classic module and enjoy a specific classic system, then put together a party that reflects these goals.

so during the reboot meeting, I would ask for clarification as to your expectations .

Quote from: Looter Guy;626142Game on and enjoy your hobby time, but please think twice before you sit and bash without really knowing who your talking about or what your talking about for that matter...

That would be extremely hard, this whole site is dedicated to sitting back and bashing people who play make-believe in a different way than the 40 odd people who post on a consistent manner do.

Well, ive spent the last few mins getting caught up on the thread and i must say, I am really looking forward to the game on sunday, and ive learned alot from all of you. Imperator, I want to thank you for attempting to bring things back on track. for those of you who have spent valuable time and energy trying to stymie my DM black hand. Hah, you just make him work harder, if possible. Everytime you feebly attempt to hack at our clubs particular gaming philosophy, it just makes that weeks game more energized. We are all highly motivated gamers. The trolls just shovel coal into the engine. So really thank you. Benoist, you I want to thank the most, your bile filled comments, have truly inspired me to come at this with new focus. Every gnoll, bugbear, gelatinous cube will secretly wear your name. And my group will win, using the rules, as they were written. As the designers of the game intended, as the pioneers of the game we all claim to love intended. Because thats what our project is all about. Gaming is as near and dear to me, ive played in alot of different groups. But im not quite old enough to have experienced Dungeons and Dragons in its original form ,which directly evolved from WARGAMES. i think thats something that no one on this thread has brought up. The 1st edition is only a few steps removed from true tactical wargames, it is my and our clubs belief that this is how the game was intended to be played.

We arent talking about Vampire: The whatever, those games are titled the stroyteller system. That particular rule set is always form over function, Most modern rpgs always have that "just have fun if the rules dont suit you", paragraph, page or whatever. We dont physically rip that page out of the books, but we may as well. (Is that a rule, omg we play rules as written, fatal exception error, system reboot, lol). Anyways the point being that is our groups style, Deus ex Machina always feels dirty to us.

Now as to how we actually will fix our shortsighted character choices, I have some ideas. Some of these were adapted from some of the more helpful responses on this thread, so once again to those who are constructive. I SALUTE YOU!

1. It is not Blackhands place to restrict our alignment. We (the players) should have been policing this ourselves the whole time. If we had been more diligent in this regard, we might have pissed off the players who generated evil characters, but we wouldnt be at this motivation impasse. Any good aligned character who saw what was going on in the temple should feel motivated to destroy that abomination.

2. If someone else doesnt do it, i intend to play a representative of the Archcleric who recently arrived in Hommlet. My characters mission will be to seek good adventurers who will see the need to destroy the blight of the temple for its own sake. Not for riches, or fame, in fact our mission must be secret. We must not bring down greater evil to the temple prematurely. I will suggest to the characters that we will take a vow or mark, dedicating our selves  to utterly destroying the Temple. Our allegence to the Archcleric might give us access to other likeminded indivduals should any more of our number fall to the temples minions. The crux of the matter is that all of the players must under stand that only as a unified front will our few number be able to complete this task.

3. With this mind, I would suggest that the group as a whole tale a different approach to things like loot. We should hold the groups wealth in trust, for things like levelling. The sheer cost in gold just to level in this game is staggering, It just makes sense, and when we defeat the temple of course there will equal shares for all partys involved. magic items should always go to who ever can benefit the most from it, not neccessarily sold. (we usually are good about that bit.) But it all goes back to the team mentality, it usually comes very easily to our group. But the attrition rate took us all by surprise, only one player in our game is old enough to have played 1st ed when it was new. We did get divorced from the concept of character motivation, and we we short sighted in that we didnt think that we would all be on third generation characters. 1st ed is brutal (kinda wargame like in that regard, huh). So a little long term strategy and a fresh start are just what we need.

4. To those of you who dont seem to get it, the campaign has not failed. It does require a little restructuring. All of our previosu characters deaths on reinforce the need to destroy the Temple. I think its a delightful prelude to whats to come. Think of it basically two or three adventuring partys have went down and more or less not come up. (Or ran out figuratively and in some cases  literally screaming). Something must be done, word has tralvelled to the Dyvers and Greyhawk city. Something evil has stirred, foul references to Iuz, Lolth, and of course the enigmatic Elemental Eye have been seen. What a great opening for a group of dedicated defenders of good, to show up and destroy this temple once and for all.

To all the Wargaters, lets put our head together, and create a team of super heroes who actually like each other and let burn this bitch down!


ARE YOU WITH ME?

p.s. To the trolls st. johns wort is really great to help improve your overall mood. You take it three times daily, and sunshine really does improve your outlook. Try going outside, its a big exciting world out there. They have girls.

Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;625589You're right, it doesn't.  You can simply attack any target within 10 feet of you.  10 feet.  More than enough to get in a few ranks.

Quote from: Blackhand;625616I'm not sure where you got that number either.  When I represent combat on the board, the squares are 5' (that is, 1 map square = 4 tile squares).  That's melee range to me.

Nice house rule.  1" = 10 feet = melee range in RAW AD&D (read the combat section, it's quite illuminating).

QuoteIt's answers like this that make me absolutely certain no one here has even attempted to play AD&D 1e RaW.

That said, pairing or grouping combatants is very important when initiative scores are tied.  I can see where it would be very confusing if you didn't look at each pairing or grouping of combatants as a different combat.

Consider weapon speed factors, casting times and the general flow of the combat resolution sequence on page 61 of the DMG.

Remember that actions are declared before initiative is rolled.  If you look at ADDICT, you'll see what I mean, even if the word "paired" should have been "grouped" to cover more than one opponent on a single individual.

Funny, I played in a regular game with the creator of ADDICT for some time, works just fine in his game (and Dave is quite the stickler for BtB AD&D ).


In all seriousness, you act like a complete shitheel to the people that come in here and attempt to help you in good faith, and then accuse them of trolling.  You throw around this strawman nonsense, implying that we "insist AD&D can't be played RAW," when no one is saying that (I certainly don't have any trouble with it, I don't softball my games, the dice roll in front of the screen, and my players' characters are actually progressing) and you don't understand the rules very well yourself.  Moreover, you cling to this notion of RAW that ignores the actual rules in the book - specifically that the rules are guidelines, don't cover every subject, and that it's the DM's job to make the game his own.  Those ARE the rules of AD&D, as written.  What you're doing is... something else, entirely.

Quote from: jeff37923;626110You do understand that I am trolling Blackhand over his inflexibility as a GM, right?

Fair enough.

Quote from: Captain Video;626224Imperator, I want to thank you for attempting to bring things back on track.

You are welcome :) It's great to see a player so psyched about the game, hope you keep enjoying it :)

Quote1. It is not Blackhands place to restrict our alignment. We (the players) should have been policing this ourselves the whole time. If we had been more diligent in this regard, we might have pissed off the players who generated evil characters, but we wouldnt be at this motivation impasse. Any good aligned character who saw what was going on in the temple should feel motivated to destroy that abomination.

Yeah, I don't think it's the GM place to police that once everyone is clear on the adventure they are playing.

Quote4. To those of you who dont seem to get it, the campaign has not failed. It does require a little restructuring. All of our previosu characters deaths on reinforce the need to destroy the Temple. I think its a delightful prelude to whats to come. Think of it basically two or three adventuring partys have went down and more or less not come up. (Or ran out figuratively and in some cases  literally screaming). Something must be done, word has tralvelled to the Dyvers and Greyhawk city. Something evil has stirred, foul references to Iuz, Lolth, and of course the enigmatic Elemental Eye have been seen. What a great opening for a group of dedicated defenders of good, to show up and destroy this temple once and for all.

Certainly, in my Cthulhu games a TPK or near TPK has never demotivated my players.

Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;626234Nice house rule.  1" = 10 feet = melee range in RAW AD&D (read the combat section, it's quite illuminating).

I love how you continually spit stupidity and call me an asshole for it.

On page 10 of the DMG, under "Use of Miniature Figures With the Game", it tells us that the rule of thumb is similar to all our other games with 1" being representative of 6'.  That is, they recommend inch wide squares and they don't represent 10'.  That's what's written...what you are suggesting doesn't exist in the text.

I challenge you to provide the page reference where this is delineated.  The only time it talks about scale is in reference to movement and exploration, dealing with how the modules were set up at the time.  There is absolutely nothing stating that I can't represent a single 10' map square with four 5' squares - in fact I just showed you the reference where, if you read it, you'll figure out it's not a house rule.  Oh wait, we use 2 squares, not recommendation of 3 for a 10' wide corridor (1 square wide) - because the tiles and other items we have are set up this way.  It's also easier to measure if we're using the wargames board and not tiles.  In the same passage, it suggests that 1 figure to a square is correct by using the recommendation of 6' you can situate 3 characters in a rank.

There is no discussion in the combat section that states this is melee range, you're making shit up now thinking that I don't have all these books directly in front of me.  Now, the movement rules are actually on p. 102 of the PHB.  You can start your refresher course there.  Do it, before you post again.

If you can cite that passage you claim exists, I'll eat my words.  I often do when a player proves me wrong at the table - which happens all the time.   They use the books, however.  Conjecture and speculation are not allowed.

Also, to your suggestion that I don't know the rules very well...

Well, find and reference that passage you were talking about and we'll see how it goes from there.

Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;626234In all seriousness, you act like a complete shitheel to the people that come in here and attempt to help you in good faith, and then accuse them of trolling.  

If that's your take on this, your comprehension levels are lower than I thought.

Quote from: Captain Video;626224Benoist, you I want to thank the most, your bile filled comments, have truly inspired me to come at this with new focus. Every gnoll, bugbear, gelatinous cube will secretly wear your name. And my group will win, using the rules, as they were written. As the designers of the game intended, as the pioneers of the game we all claim to love intended. Because thats what our project is all about. Gaming is as near and dear to me, ive played in alot of different groups. But im not quite old enough to have experienced Dungeons and Dragons in its original form ,which directly evolved from WARGAMES. i think thats something that no one on this thread has brought up. The 1st edition is only a few steps removed from true tactical wargames, it is my and our clubs belief that this is how the game was intended to be played.

You are very welcome. I hope you have loads of fun killing gnolls, bugbears and gelatinous cubes. If them bearing my name makes it more fun, by all means, let's have at it, hack and slash away!

As for the original intent of the game, I dare say you might be a tad mistaken there. There wasn't an intent to adhere to the letter of the rules at all costs. Quite the contrary, actually: "It is the spirit of the game, not the letter of the rules, which is important" (DMG Afterword, page 230). And if the game did evolve from wargames, it evolved from the miniatures wargames of the time (and Diplomacy variants, Braunsteins, etc), which were a different animal than the hex and chit wargames. The nature of the rules, the role of the referee in the confrontations, the natural house ruling that occurred... this was much different from what you might recognize today as "tactical miniatures wargaming" in games like Warhammer 40K, D&D Skirmish games and the like, and that legacy of the late 60s early 70s is part of what made the Original D&D game what it is, and by extension, what made 1st edition what it is, the "Advanced game", as it were, as opposed to the RAW paradigm you describe.

You might enjoy reading Playing at the World, by Jon Peterson. (http://www.amazon.com/Playing-at-World-Jon-Peterson/dp/0615642047) It goes into the origins of the game, including wargames, Diplomacy variants, fiction influences, etc, and you'll see what I'm talking about here described in depth. It's a good read.

Quote from: One Horse Town;624895Yeah, i wouldn't give a fuck about that game either.

Certainly this would explain the gradual sway towards evil characters.

Welcome back, Kyle!

Quote from: Blackhand;624830This is not "Free Range Greyhawk" style play.  This is a focused scenario:  we are playing The Temple of Elemental Evil.

For focused play to work with frequent PC death and a megadungeon type environment, you need a hook that can bind them all together. Eg all the PCs could be members of the same organisation - a religious crusading order (St Cuthbert?), or agents for the Archcleric, or part of a mercenary guild hired to clear the Temple, etc.

Either this hook is provided by the GM, or created by the players in discussion at the start of the campaign. Either way, it will normally involve restrictions on Alignment and perhaps on race & class too.

This mess seems to have arisen because the group has fallen in between traditional Gygaxian 'Free Range Greyhawk' play, which is player-centric (each player typically has a stable of PCs each pursuing their own agenda, who come together for single-session delves into the megadungeon), and on the other hand Dragonlance style linear questing. You need to decide which you are doing.

Quote from: Captain Video;6262242. If someone else doesnt do it, i intend to play a representative of the Archcleric who recently arrived in Hommlet. My characters mission will be to seek good adventurers who will see the need to destroy the blight of the temple for its own sake. Not for riches, or fame, in fact our mission must be secret. We must not bring down greater evil to the temple prematurely. I will suggest to the characters that we will take a vow or mark, dedicating our selves  to utterly destroying the Temple. Our allegence to the Archcleric might give us access to other likeminded indivduals should any more of our number fall to the temples minions. The crux of the matter is that all of the players must under stand that only as a unified front will our few number be able to complete this task.

Yes, this is a good approach. If the GM wants directed play but won't provide a structure to support it, the players need to come up with something themselves. This is what you have done here, so good work.

Quote from: Piestrio;626111Once again I'll remind everyone that Gliechman is the one who argued that if you ignored or changed rules in a game you are a BAD PERSON, as in MORALLY SUSPECT and possible contributing to the decline of society.

Really. He said that.

The man is a class one imbecile.

I like how for him the very qualities that allowed man to climb out of the primordial muck and build great civilizations, outside-the-box thinking, is a horrifying and degenerate character flaw.

He really is a subhuman piece of shit, isn't he?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;628801He really is a subhuman piece of shit, isn't he?

RPGPundit

Follow me around in the threads and rant and rage little cartoon character.

Quote from: gleichman;628814Follow me around in the threads and rant and rage little cartoon character.

Well, you did tell him to "read [his] own forum".  Being appalled at gleichman is just one of the many benefits of being a regular reader around here.

Greyhawk Campaign Update (updated every week on Mondays) (http://thewargate.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_11.html)

The first encounter was beyond disastrous.

Manticore + Lightning Bolt = Cave In = Deaths.

Quote

Quote from: mcbobbo;625332So if you're doing everything right, and everyone is happy, what kind of circle jerk is this thread?

Quote from: One Horse Town;626021Why don't you get the players that have piped up here to post their thoughts on how to improve things - or, you know, cut out us middle-men and have the conversation face to face.

Yeaaah, that's kinda where I'm at too. And if this discussion was started in good faith simply out of curiosity to see what other people's opinions on the matter...yeah, I can't even finish that thought with a straight face.

Quote from: Fiasco;626014Blackhand loves it RAW but he doesn't allow women at his table. Beware your bedfellows, Gleichman.

There's nothing wrong with having 'man time'. It's one of the geek fallicies tha...

Quote from: Blackhand;481420All of this is appreciated, but I've done my time with women gamers.

Did you ever think that one of the reasons the flgs makes women uncomfortable is because there's nothing interesting for them and the nerds in there are wondering what she's doing there and who's girlfriend she is?

And I'm impressed at how concisely he's able to address every problematic stereotype in just two short sentences.

Quote from: One Horse Town;626021Likewise, you'd think that Blackhand and Gleichman are under some delusion (shared by many a Goon, i might add) that this forum is a person. The RPGsite thinks this and theRPGsite thinks that. They do this, they think that.

It's a culture, and therefore has a persona, of which you BTW are the epitome of.

Quote from: Blackhand;625811I really don't understand all the hate coming up from this.

Um, bullshit?

You've been here too long not to know what to expect here.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;629865It's a culture, and therefore has a persona, of which you BTW are the epitome of.

Thanks! I've never been an epitome before.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;629865And if this discussion was started in good faith simply out of curiosity to see what other people's opinions on the matter...yeah, I can't even finish that thought with a straight face.

So it's not cool to post threads in good faith out of curiosity to gauge opinion here on this board.

That really reduces it's usefulness and relevance to most people.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;629865You've been here too long not to know what to expect here.

I've been here too long to know what to expect here.

Quote from: RPGPundit;628801I like how for him the very qualities that allowed man to climb out of the primordial muck and build great civilizations, outside-the-box thinking, is a horrifying and degenerate character flaw.

He really is a subhuman piece of shit, isn't he?

RPGPundit

Is there a Gleichman FAQ or "best of Gleichman" compilation out there which gives citations for all this stuff?

Quote from: One Horse Town;629867I've never been an epitome before.

I think of you as more of an instantiation, myself.

A paragon of animals!

Someone stop me before I go into full Shakespeare mode...