TheRPGSite

QuoteDon't play D&D. Seriously. D&D's mechanics point you so hard at killing things, you will end up killing things 95% of the time.

Something like DungeonWorld, or Iron Heroes (a D&D 3.5 variant), will give you far better options towards NOT killing people and instead interacting with them beyond the sword. (source (http://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/1fn5e2/my_group_hates_combat_and_likes_more_story_how_do/cabzcye)

Poor Dr Rotwang was beside himself over this (http://xbowvsbuddha.blogspot.com/2013/06/oh-no-i-have-been-playing-d-wrong-for.html), though he did manage to sum it up pretty concisely: "THIS IS BULLSHIT."

The pink-tie'd one is correct. I have to wonder, were these people dropped on their heads in the baby ward or something?

So, how 'bout it, gamers? Is 95% of your time spent playing D&D devoted to killing things? How 'bout other roleplaying games? Which ones offer you far better options to killing things?

Iron Heroes is less about killing things than D&D?
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Well let's see.

In a supehero game you spend 95% of your time fighting, but no one ever dies.

In Call of Cthulhu you spend 95% of your time in a library only to go insane. Score!

In Ghostbusters you are more likely to get slimed than bloody.

It's 100% killing things at my table! Otherwise I start throwing dice at my players and calling them pussies.

What does he have against killing things? Now if he was talking about brazen displays of nipples that would be a different story...

It's really ironic that someone suggested a 3.5 variant as a replacement.  The OP in that reddit thread was talking about his Pathfinder players always shitting on NPCs and provoking combat.

In other words, this OP guy is blaming bad behavior at the gaming table on the game system and is looking to fix it via the game system.  His characters are CharOp whackjobs who like stroking themselves to the sounds of dice propelling their character builds through the opposition with no consequence whatsoever.  He's running the kind of adolescent powertrip game most of us got out of our system at 13.

This guy is a shit GM so he needs a safe hugbox where his players can't hurt him, a new school game is definitely in order.  One more for Dungeon World.

I would recommend RIFTS. That way the GM will be sure that no more than 98% of the game will be about combat. D&D has no such limit.

He could play GURPS. With one second combat rounds and enough books to consult for optional rules, nobody will enter combat because by the time you find out if your character lived or died, you don't care anymore.

In Mongoose Traveller, fighting to the death means, "Ref, print me up another character sheet!  I'm going to need one!"

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;660080He could play GURPS. With one second combat rounds and enough books to consult for optional rules, nobody will enter combat because by the time you find out if your character lived or died, you don't care anymore.

Spending an hour simulating the outcome of a one-second round is the height of realism.

On the other hand, I have filled out a Shadowrun character exactly once, and since a simple character idea like an electronics/demo specialist took about three times as much as my taxes, I was very-very careful not to get him killed.

Options beg decisions. Many options lead to slower decisions. I recall reading Arneson claiming that he designed the dungeon simply because the players kept arguing about what direction to go, and wandering off the fucking map. How to ensure they had only a few choices of direction and had to stay on the map? Put HUGE CHUNKS OF STONE IN THE WAY.

That way you can get on with the important stuff, like killing.

I'm happy for players to parley, it's just that they're so fucking bad at it. Just last night they were interrogating a captured bandit.
"What will be my fate?"
"You will be taken to town, where the thane will try you, and you'll be hanged. Now tell us where the second entrance to the hideout is."
"Why should I tell you? Will you free me with gold in my pocket so I don't have to return to the fury of my lord?"
"No, that would be wrong."
"Will you torture me?"
"No, that would be wrong."
"So my choices are to give you information and die, or not give you information and die?"
"..."

People don't play D&D because they're skilled diplomats.

Well, amazingly enough, I've found that D&D can indeed be played without fighting and killing all the time. The same as any other game. Its called role-playing, and people do it quite well without needing explicit and detailed rules for it. (If only combat was as workable and fair that way...)

Quote from: Black Vulmea;660031So, how 'bout it, gamers? Is 95% of your time spent playing D&D devoted to killing things? How 'bout other roleplaying games? Which ones offer you far better options to killing things?

Even in dungeon adventures (selected because they are the only thing likely to be a combat fest I run) , my groups seldom have anything like a 95% kill rate. Opponents generally run away, surrender, make a deal, are worked around because they appear to be too powerful, etc. at least as often as they get killed. Timewise, far less than 95% of play time in dungeon adventure is spent "killing things." Even in a combat-heavy dungeon session, I imagine my players would rebel if more than 50% of play time was combat.

95% ????

Ok, I suppose some game groups might enjoy non stop combat.

But not me.

Personally I prefer a rough estimate of 10% combat, 90% everything else that makes a campaign come to life.

Combat can be quite fun but 95% is way too much for me.

Some people seem to be unaware of the fact that D&D existed prior to WOTC. These people should either do a little research or keep thier mouth shut to stem the tide of shit spewing forth.

I would invite these buttmunchers to attempt killing things 95% of the time in an OD&D game. They would spend way more time rolling stats for new characters than playing the game.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;660031So, how 'bout it, gamers? Is 95% of your time spent playing D&D devoted to killing things? How 'bout other roleplaying games? Which ones offer you far better options to killing things?

I have never had a game with anything apporaching 95% combat. The one exception to this is the odd occassion when a long battle occured over one or two sessions, but even in these cases it wasn't 95%. Most D&D games I have played in will feature combat as an important component. I never really saw the combat grind until late 3E (where I started seeing lots of advice to build adventures around encounters---seemed that people were defining an adventure as a string of encounters connected by some kind of arch or quest). This was a style that didn't appeal to me. But even then, the encounters were not all assumed to be combat encounters.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;660094Some people seem to be unaware of the fact that D&D existed prior to WOTC. These people should either do a little research or keep thier mouth shut to stem the tide of shit spewing forth.

I would invite these buttmunchers to attempt killing things 95% of the time in an OD&D game. They would spend way more time rolling stats for new characters than playing the game.

True, unless the gm is in epic fail mode and has 1hd skeletons vs level 12 pc's all the time :)

You get out of a game what you put into it.

If you go in wanting combat, you'll get combat.  If you go in wanting RP, you'll get RP.

As I recall, the majority of the time in our old AD&D games was spent not in combat, but in either exploring or loot counting.  In fact, when we were kids, combat was merely the means to getting all sorts of interesting loot.  Combat wasn't the focus, loot was.

I play AD&D.  95% of the time we try to actively avoid combat if we can, or failing that, hope for morale heck failures.  

;)

Gotta agree with Dr. Rotwang, at least provisionally.

My last D&D 3.5 campaign was mostly about role-playing. There was a lot of combat, but it was all plot-driven. (IOW, we fought battles that advanced our characters' goals, not just a bunch of "random encounter" bullshit."

The 4E campaign that followed it was very similar, contrary to most of the "opinions" I've seen expressed about 4E: it was more role-playing than combat.

The 4E campaign I'm currently playing in probably fits the popular image of 4E more closely: it's mostly combat (killing stuff 95% of the time) and not so much role-playing. Different gaming group, different play style.

I liked my old gaming group's play style, but them's the breaks.

This is just symptomatic of the rampant stupidity prevalent in the rpg community: "If rules don't exist for social interaction, the game does not support social interaction!" And yet, these same people try to distance themselves from wargaming as much as possible. Which is it? If you say rpgs are not wargames, then you can't simply take the RAW as "everything possible in the game".

AD&D has rules for combat, spell casting, rolling stats and making characters. It's debatable if the rules for combat actually exist as there are two contradictory examples given, one in the PHB and the other in the DMG. Regardless, SOMEHOW, all the AD&D games I've ever run or played in were replete with social interaction and "roleplaying". So the question: do "indie gamers" just have a beef with D&D and use every opportunity to diss it, while simultaneously promoting other games that are based on D&D? It's eerily similar to the arguments I hear for listening to certain bands...ignore that old, outdated shit and listen to this new shit that's extremely derivative of the shit I hate.

Quote from: Reddit"Most people....aren't [smart, capable, and able to do a lot of the things that make for a fun roleplaying game]. ... They need the rules, story, choices, to support them and their less creative, dynamic friends, into actually having the roleplaying experience you can pull out of anything. ...Players who are extremely capable can do anything. Those who are not, they need, crave and appreciate rulesets that match their desired game."!

Aside from sheer ignorance, this is the heart of the problem, IMO: the assumption that players are bad and that the GM by default sucks, is incompetent, wants to get on a power trip over the PCs, etc. That there's no such thing as trust or collaboration between the participants of the game, that they are incapable of creating the worlds of THEIR imaginations, to quote the old TSR one-liner, that there is something fundamentally broken about the way they communicate across the game table.

When you are assuming that you are talking to smart and competent individuals who know better than you do what's good for their games and how to get what they want out of them, that they are able to collaborate and talk to one another, you can free yourself from that bullshit and unlock the real potential of role playing games.

That's my belief, in any case.

QuoteDon't play D&D. Seriously. D&D's mechanics point you so hard at killing things, you will end up killing things 95% of the time.

I think you all are interpreting the "95%" bit wrong. I think he's talking about sessions - as in in 95% of your sessions, you'll end up killing things. Not that I agree with that, but it makes a lot more sense than spending 95% of your playing time killing things.

However, if that gets in the way of the war and righteous indignation, feel free to ignore this.

-clash

Quote from: Brad;660113This is just symptomatic of the rampant stupidity prevalent in the rpg community: "If rules don't exist for social interaction, the game does not support social interaction!" And yet, these same people try to distance themselves from wargaming as much as possible. Which is it? If you say rpgs are not wargames, then you can't simply take the RAW as "everything possible in the game".

AD&D has rules for combat, spell casting, rolling stats and making characters. It's debatable if the rules for combat actually exist as there are two contradictory examples given, one in the PHB and the other in the DMG. Regardless, SOMEHOW, all the AD&D games I've ever run or played in were replete with social interaction and "roleplaying". So the question: do "indie gamers" just have a beef with D&D and use every opportunity to diss it, while simultaneously promoting other games that are based on D&D? It's eerily similar to the arguments I hear for listening to certain bands...ignore that old, outdated shit and listen to this new shit that's extremely derivative of the shit I hate.

True; I also have somehow managed to enjoy roleplay and social interaction conduct rules for doing so.

How is that possible!!!

Opinion:

DnD mechanics do not point in the direction of killing things.

DnD mechanics do offer the tools needed when killing is required.

Quote from: Bill;660120True; I also have somehow managed to enjoy roleplay and social interaction conduct rules for doing so.

How is that possible!!!

It's not, you're just wrong. Please play something else so you can fully enjoy your fun.

Quote from: Brad;660124It's not, you're just wrong. Please play something else so you can fully enjoy your fun.

Ok, back to Starfleet battle using advanced squadleader for boarding party combat.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;660031So, how 'bout it, gamers? Is 95% of your time spent playing D&D devoted to killing things?

Nope. Not close in any version of D&D I've played.

From my memory, I'd say that our 1e campaigns (25 years ago) consisted of about 50-75% combat. The 3.x campaigns were in the same range. (Though, we packed a lot more combats in 1e sessions than 3.x sessions).

4e campaigns peaked a little higher but probably maintained the same average. We had some sessions where combat ate up an entire 4 hour session, and some that took 2 hours to resolve. Combats didn't occur every session, but when they did they regularly took hours.

QuoteHow 'bout other roleplaying games? Which ones offer you far better options to killing things?

Call of Cthulhu has given me great options for killing characters. ;)

Quote from: RedditSomething like DungeonWorld, or Iron Heroes (a D&D 3.5 variant), will give you far better options towards NOT killing people and instead interacting with them beyond the sword.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtUgtX3ncTk for more on this.

BTW this video is worth watching too (it's on topic, and explains where the dude on Reddit is coming from). These guys are funny and decent at communication, but substance-wise it's pretty much an epic fail throughout, as far as I'm concerned.

Quote from: flyingmice;660117I think you all are interpreting the "95%" bit wrong. I think he's talking about sessions - as in in 95% of your sessions, you'll end up killing things. Not that I agree with that, but it makes a lot more sense than spending 95% of your playing time killing things.

However, if that gets in the way of the war and righteous indignation, feel free to ignore this.

-clash

Either interpretation makes huge assumptions about playstyles. The whole mess is simply funnier due to the suggestion of using D&D spinoff games as a solution to the issue.

Its simply another case of someone who games with unimaginative lumps assuming that everyone else does too.

Quote from: flyingmice;660117I think you all are interpreting the "95%" bit wrong. I think he's talking about sessions - as in in 95% of your sessions, you'll end up killing things. Not that I agree with that, but it makes a lot more sense than spending 95% of your playing time killing things.

However, if that gets in the way of the war and righteous indignation, feel free to ignore this.

-clash

That's my take on it.

And fact is, I bet 95 per cent of D&D sessions do have some combat in them.

Most D&D-playing time in my experience (apart from 4e) involves the characters walking or talking.

The walking is not treated in much detail (it's just that there are so many decisions even at a gross level).

The talking is treated in considerable detail, but more time is spent on actual talk than on abstractions (most of the key AD&D formal rules being summarized in a single-page of tables listing about 90 factors).

Quote from: flyingmice;660117I think you all are interpreting the "95%" bit wrong. I think he's talking about sessions - as in in 95% of your sessions, you'll end up killing things. Not that I agree with that, but it makes a lot more sense than spending 95% of your playing time killing things.

However, if that gets in the way of the war and righteous indignation, feel free to ignore this.

Yeah, that's how I interpreted it, too.  In the source thread, the quoted poster clarified:

QuoteThat's why I said 95%. Because for every group having combat once every 3 sessions, there are 19 having 2-3 a session.

I might quibble about the numbers, but we all know that 98% of all statistics are pulled out of thin air.  I think the assessment is partly on-target in that D&D published material do have a focus on adventures that include killing.  However, the idea that you would get away from this with Iron Heroes or Dungeon World is nonsense.

Having at least one deadly fight in 19 out of 20 sessions? Sure, sounds closer than 6 in 20.

It's explicitly a game of swords and sorcery, though! If you want some sort of non-violent soap opera or romantic comedy or whatever, then yeah, D&D might be not your cup of tea.

This should not take genius-level figuring. Raven, Swordmistress of Chaos? D&D. Practical Magic? Maybe not.

So, guy makes outrageous claim, advises we play different, equally violent games to fix it, and insists that we watch an hour long podcast before discussing it?
 
Dr. Rotwang is still my hero.

In the grim future of the RPG hobby, players will starve to death for want of rules telling them how to eat between gaming sessions.

Quote from: jhkim;660150I might quibble about the numbers, but we all know that 98% of all statistics are pulled out of thin air.  I think the assessment is partly on-target in that D&D published material do have a focus on adventures that include killing.  However, the idea that you would get away from this with Iron Heroes or Dungeon World is nonsense.

Agreed. That last is purest bullshit. If you go into playing D&D with the intent to have a lot of fighting, you'll get your 95% of sessions containing fighting. But changing to the listed games without changing the intent will do nothing different. OTOH, playing D&D without that intent will yield a very different percentage of bloody sessions. The determining factor is always the intent of the group, not the rules.

-clash

Quote from: Nicephorus;660159Dr. Rotwang is still my hero.

Doc R has always been my hero. :D

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;660165Agreed. That last is purest bullshit. If you go into playing D&D with the intent to have a lot of fighting, you'll get your 95% of sessions containing fighting. But changing to the listed games without changing the intent will do nothing different. OTOH, playing D&D without that intent will yield a very different percentage of bloody sessions. The determining factor is always the intent of the group, not the rules.

Well, I haven't watched the video yet so I'm not endorsing anything said there.  Mainly I think that Iron Heroes and Dungeon World have a similar focus on killing.  

However, I do think that changing games often has an influence on the style of the group - especially if the game designs are quite different.  Say, if the same group picks up Prince Valiant and plays it - there are likely to be changes to their intent from their D&D game even if they didn't have an explicit discussion of "Hey, let's change our intent for this game."  

So I agree intent is a key determining factor, but rules and materials can influence (though not determine) intent.

I don't know about 95% of our time, but I would say that for 4e, a disproportionate amount of time was spent in combat, and that was because combats were taking too long at one point.  We eventually fixed that and got our combats down to 20 minutes or less, but for a while there it was too much time.  Once we fixed it, then I'd say combat was about half the time?

For 1e, and 3e, and BECMI, I'd say it was less time spent on combat than in 4e.  Probably less than 50% of the time in combat, unless the game happened to be online, in which case more than 50% was in combat due to that forum being better for combat and not as good for role playing (form lack of face to face contact).

Quote from: Chairman Meow;660161In the grim future of the RPG hobby, players will starve to death for want of rules telling them how to eat between gaming sessions.

This a very real danger.

Quote from: jhkim;660179Well, I haven't watched the video yet so I'm not endorsing anything said there.  Mainly I think that Iron Heroes and Dungeon World have a similar focus on killing.  

However, I do think that changing games often has an influence on the style of the group - especially if the game designs are quite different.  Say, if the same group picks up Prince Valiant and plays it - there are likely to be changes to their intent from their D&D game even if they didn't have an explicit discussion of "Hey, let's change our intent for this game."  

So I agree intent is a key determining factor, but rules and materials can influence (though not determine) intent.

Hey, John! I'm the guy with the switchable-resolution-mechanics system, remember? I've switched mechanics in the middle of a session to test the system, and it makes a big difference in feel, and that means people play it differently! Consider that whole question as a proven fact.

From the Reddit:

"I think you're thinking everyone is like you. I think you're likely smart, capable, and able to do a lot of the things that make for a fun roleplaying game.
Most people....aren't. They need that rules support. Sure you and Jason Morningstar (and many other people I know of) could make Savage Worlds into an emo Vampire :TheMasquerade clone, or BattleTech into an RPG about ballet when playing, but not everyone can.
They need the rules, story, choices, to support them and their less creative, dynamic friends, into actually having the roleplaying experience you can pull out of anything."

Ok, maybe most people aren't "smart, capable, and able to do a lot of the things that make for a fun roleplaying game."

Then why would you play with them? When you meet someone like that kick them in the kidney, have lunch, and move on with your life--don't sit down and write a game that enables their boringness. And for god's sake don't write one.

Recently, in my AD&D2E campaign, the PCs had to deal with a giant that was troubling travellers on the road. They acted as go-between for the giant and the local lord and negotiated a job for the giant, in the lord's employ, to protect travellers on the road. They had a giant-sized tabard made in the lord's livery, the giant was proud.

Quote from: Orpheo;660217Recently, in my AD&D2E campaign, the PCs had to deal with a giant that was troubling travellers on the road. They acted as go-between for the giant and the local lord and negotiated a job for the giant, in the lord's employ, to protect travellers on the road. They had a giant-sized tabard made in the lord's livery, the giant was proud.

Yep! I had similar things happen while I ran AD&D for two decades. There is nothing inevitable about D&D being all about the murderhobos. Your group's intent about what you want and expect from a game have an enormous influence on how your game is played.

-clash

Quote from: Zak S;660211From the Reddit:

"I think you're thinking everyone is like you. I think you're likely smart, capable, and able to do a lot of the things that make for a fun roleplaying game.
Most people....aren't. They need that rules support. Sure you and Jason Morningstar (and many other people I know of) could make Savage Worlds into an emo Vampire :TheMasquerade clone, or BattleTech into an RPG about ballet when playing, but not everyone can.
They need the rules, story, choices, to support them and their less creative, dynamic friends, into actually having the roleplaying experience you can pull out of anything."

Ok, maybe most people aren't "smart, capable, and able to do a lot of the things that make for a fun roleplaying game."

Then why would you play with them? When you meet someone like that kick them in the kidney, have lunch, and move on with your life--don't sit down and write a game that enables their boringness. And for god's sake don't write one.

I don't know. My players are all smarter, quicker, better looking, and younger than I. I only manage to keep up with wily tricks and immense experience. :D

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;660221I don't know. My players are all smarter, quicker, better looking, and younger than I. I only manage to keep up with wily tricks and immense experience. :D

-clash

Old Age and Treachery defeats Youth and Strength.

Quote from: Bill;660232Old Age and Treachery defeats Youth and Strength.

Pretty much! Although more 'staves off disaster from' more than 'defeats' :D

-clash

Best advice I can give: regardless of what you play ignore anything posted about pen and paper RPGs that comes from websites whose primary focus is social justice rather than gaming.  This means Something Awful, Reddit and RPG.net are right out.  There's your "95%" - you've now shut out 95% of stupid opinions about RPGs of any genre.

(http://somethingsensitive.com/Smileys/default/uVDo1.png)

Quote from: thedungeondelver;660307Best advice I can give: regardless of what you play ignore anything posted about pen and paper RPGs that comes from websites whose primary focus is social justice rather than gaming.  This means Something Awful, Reddit and RPG.net are right out.  There's your "95%" - you've now shut out 95% of stupid opinions about RPGs of any genre.

(http://somethingsensitive.com/Smileys/default/uVDo1.png)

Solid advice.  QFTMFT.  Ron is the man!

Quote from: Orpheo;660217Recently, in my AD&D2E campaign, the PCs had to deal with a giant that was troubling travellers on the road. They acted as go-between for the giant and the local lord and negotiated a job for the giant, in the lord's employ, to protect travellers on the road. They had a giant-sized tabard made in the lord's livery, the giant was proud.

*mind blown* Impossible! How can you where there's no rules for "diplomancy" to make NPCs genuflect to your almight TN roll?!

Reddit, lol. Someone who has an accoun there can throw my Words of Wisdom (TM) to that poor sod.

With that out of the way.

Technically speaking, D&D rules do encourage combat (yes yes, I know, XP for treasure - but let's face it, vast majority of players haven't heard about that one before they played SJG Munchikin for a first time), since you get your precious XPs for killing things. So the best thing to change things here, is to adopt XP based on accomplishments/actions model - so not only killing things is rewarded, but also roleplaying, performing tasks, doing important things and making your mark on the world.

The rules certain influence and help a playstyle, but they will not enforce it, unless those rules are really heavy and treated as RAW.

That 95% is obviously a hyperbole, so let's not act as if we don't get the joke

Quote from: CRKrueger;660069It's really ironic that someone suggested a 3.5 variant as a replacement.  The OP in that reddit thread was talking about his Pathfinder players always shitting on NPCs and provoking combat.

In other words, this OP guy is blaming bad behavior at the gaming table on the game system and is looking to fix it via the game system.  His characters are CharOp whackjobs who like stroking themselves to the sounds of dice propelling their character builds through the opposition with no consequence whatsoever.  He's running the kind of adolescent powertrip game most of us got out of our system at 13.

This guy is a shit GM so he needs a safe hugbox where his players can't hurt him, a new school game is definitely in order.  One more for Dungeon World.

You nailed it, CRKruger. There are few issues that this GM needs to consider, outside of changing mechanics.

1) First of all, if this is CharOp issue indeed, then you need to level the field. Either put on the Viking Hat and start banning overpowered supplements, or in fact, go entirely to the supplements and mechanics you feel comfortable and proficient with. That's why I, for one, ban things outside of basic 3e, would I be hit with an anvil and want to run a campaign in it (just kidding, I ran a few 3e games that were awesome fun). If your players are CharOpers, either change the mechanic to one without such bizarre CharOp, or become one yourself. If they construct characters that take out King John McEvil with one blow, you need to learn how to construct those villains to not be such.

One could say that this is one of the "dirty tricks" of GMs. In a way, training to be a GM is a lot like training police according to Vimes of Discworld fame. First you show the GMs how to be good, open, sandbox GMs who create fun environments for their players to play with. You teach them that if they want to tie a story in, how to try and go for an organic feel to it, and leave the decision to the players ultimately, rather than try to railroad/illusion it. You teach them that players have a right to have fun, and not to be dicks.

But after that's done, you need also to tell them a few dirty secrets. How to kick a problematic player out of the group. How to handle overpowered characters without breaking sandbox (too much). How to burn the fucking barge, if everyone's on board with Enemy Within but one guy wants to play River Trader Simulator 1459 right now, rather than later.

And how to fight CharOp fire with CharOp fire. Just ask the players that do it - it's not that hard to learn the basics of it, if you really need. Or to have your builds done for you. A good GM must have a decent dose of Clintness in his veins.

(http://geektyrant.com/storage/2011-post-images/eastwood.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1330445507568)
There's also an option of changing players, but this only is applicable if those people aren't your buddies generally, that is, gaming is the only thing you have in common. Otherwise it's better to just talk what you want out of an RPG.

2) The other keystone of the problem is here:

Quote(even thou majority of the time they call the npc a cock and abuse them)

I'm going to go a bit anecdotal here.

First of all, as a GM you must understand the realism of social interactions, so to speak. By that I mean, that it is often common for people to treat other people in a disregarding manner, because of social position or a position of temporary power - but also people will often suck up to those in power. This is often an important piece of advice given in settings or such RPGs as Warhammer for one - your social status matters.

When your PCs enter the bar, don't expect them to go "Good sir bartender, please give us a mug of your finest if you desire", unless they are really that kind of person. Most people will just go up to the bar, order, then go to drink. That's the average/commoner social strata, so to speak, where D&D characters are supposed to start for the most part. On the other hand, a mid - level party, say 5 - 6th level, will usually be dressed up to toe in fine armour, with weapons bearing signs of frequent use, their wizard having this maddened gleam of someone who burned 20 orcs with one fireball in his eye.

Such people entering a tavern are an equivalent of Hell's Angels walking in. You don't want them in your bar, but you sure as hell will be too scared to give them any lip - so you serve them. If they will start murmuring something about a discount, you'll probably give one to them, because it's cheaper than paying for new furniture, dentist, or Raise Dead spell if things go particularly nasty. Such characters shouldn't be expected to go "Please kind bartender sir, may we have your services" - because they know that nobody'll give them lip. Of course, they may also not be Hell's Angels, a bunch of nice guys more than willing to pay what they need, or even throw a party to the patrons, but the point is, you have a group of pretty tough bastards walking into your bar, so most people, out of respect for sanctity of their skin, will mind their own business.

Now, this relation can  also go beyond that advance and degrade. If the player is from a race being considered lesser/subhuman in the setting, or if they are from a disrespected profession, it's possible that bartender'll go "We don't serve your kind around here", especially if he can count on supporter of his bouncers/customers in a brawl against such a group.

On the other end of the spectrum - when Tony Soprano or Godfather walks into a bar, the bartender comes rushing and starts offering them free drinks, both out of fear and respect. A 10th level character in old D&D would have his own castle or an equivalent. You see such a guy moving in, you clear  the tavern, bow as lowly as you can, and start telling him what excellent food for a feast you have - just like what happened when a lord would come into a tavern in medieval times. The tavern's owner would spare no time kicking out the commoners, because he knows the lord pays damn good - not to mention can torch his tavern, if he's terribly displeased.

And so, this applies to a vast majority of social interactions. Of course, you may come across more "socially conscious" blacksmith or merchant here and there, who may enjoy shaking down those bloody nobles/mercenaries for additional coins, but even those people will usually do so in environments where they know those "bloody mercenaries" won't just stick a sword into them and take their goods anyway.

However, there are also important NPCs in their own right. And there are players, who get their jollies of telling King Richard the Dragonslayer to go fuck himself when he asks them to bow, while being first level nobodies. And in such a situation, the (novice/lighthearted) GM is faced with a dilemma - on one hand, I shouldn't kill PCs just like that (let's face it, first level PC fighting against 10 - 12th level king and his elite bodyguards is pretty much a longer version of saying "You're dead"). On the other hand, he's really earned it...

Of course, the way to save your face in such a situation, is for the King to indeed grab that PC and hang him - or just smash his face to pieces right where he stands, then snap his fingers for servants to clean the mess up. Alternatively, pause the game, speak to the players, then continue if they understand that they aren't acting at all "socially conscious" within setting's boundaries. If you let that player/PC off, you are sending a terrible message - you are being a pushover. Such a player, being a bastard, is very likely to then push to the limit, to see how much he can get away with. He'll start playing the GM not the game.


If you want your PCs to respect the NPCs, you also need to present those NPCs in such a matter that they command respect. If you have a mob boss that PCs are supposed to fear, you can't just say "This is Tony Scarface, mob boss. Fear him". You need to describe the character, and put him into such a surroundings and situation, that PCs will respect him not because he's having a Very Important NPC marker over his head, but because he's such a lifelike badass it's natural to respect him. First impressions are paramount. It's not a bad idea to set up the first interaction with a character you want to be seen as a bad ass, in a certain way. Personally I love to use Darth Vader as a good example here (and also part of the reason why prequels had such "meh" villains). Because what's the first scene we see Darth Vader in? We see first the lower parts of some cumbersome, scary blac armour coming from the smoke. He walks through the carnage of a fresh battle, unfazed in slightest, commanding presence just oozing from him. He proceeds to order around those tough - looking space soldiers, then he grabs a nearby human figure and begins to torture and kill the poor man, while pretending that he even bothers to listen to what he has to say. Vader knows already why he's on the ship, the interrogation is only part of the torture as he calmly kills a human being with one hand then discards it like a rag puppet, then proceeds to order his armor - clad soldiers in calm tone, as if he just finished dinner.

Now, RPGs being a much more interactive medium, you may say "But surely players would move in to intervene" - or they may simply not wish to watch the scene at all. In case 2, nothing to be done (this again depends on circumstances - in RPGs, such a scene as Vader committed, would occur with players tied and gagged as his prisoners, for example). In case 1, this is again a case of common sense. A first level character, or even a 4 - 5th charging at Vader will die, simple as that, if they don't have a cunning plan. Especially given that a bunch of stormtroopers is still standing around him, and seeing as they were kind of busy fighting them up at this point and are probably hiding in some wall or something...yeah. One of the more important issues when dealing with games where, at some points, PCs become much, much more resistant than they were (like D&D for example or Savage Worlds - in BR and RQ and Warhammer it also happens, but not to a such large degree), is to introduce the villain in such a manner early - or on an appropriate scale. 10th level PCs need proper Demon Lords/Princes or Ancient Dracoliches/Red Dragon That Ate Entire Dwarven Hold to fear and that's also fine - after all, they are badasses themselves.

To give a more D&D example, let's say that your players - 2 to 3rd level group - are travelling to a village, which is currently being pillaged by archvillain of the area, so you decide it's a good moment to introduce him to the players. So when they come into the village, they see it's burning, with orcs rounding up few last survivors to the middle of the square. A lot of orcs.

Now, players being semi - intelligent,  they go into full stealthy and scout mode, to see what happens. They see a guy in obsidian black armour covered in red burning runes, with 2d6 Hell Hounds at his heels (should they happen to visit said villain in his throne room, the Hell Hounds would be replaced by d4 Succubuses/Incubuses, in form of truly beautiful people preening at his legs, who would shift to their true form should combat erupt, of course) and about fifty orcs around him, including a dozen also in obsidian black plate armour. On the back of our Black Knight rests a blade with gleaming blue/red runes, and one can almost swear they see red flickers in the helmet slots. So the villain proceeds to grab first of the villagers from the crowd, puts his hand on his forehead, and then the players can witness some white, ghostly form coming out of the forehead, as the poor farmer screams at the top of his lungs...until it's all over in a matter of seconds, and his corpse's thrown on the nearby burning pile.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQf20qdG30URzrEtxtMlK4bvfYJ3m1cinMpUc4QSQk9e0frR4kX3g)
Cliche? Yes. But it sets the villain just right into the setting, and in a situation in which even party's zealous paladin will grind his teeth and bid fight for another day, or perhaps try a diversion/sacrifice himself to save farmers - but rather won't count on victory. Presentation is key. And remember - do not go with a lengthy description. Go with a vivid, lifelike, but quickly paced one. Those things are happening disturbingly quickly, especially if nobody sends an arrow into a head of one of the orcs. The Dark Lord isn't there to entertain player characters with his dark deeds, he has his business, and he's going about it at his normal pace.

This also works for non - villainous characters. To use that name of King Richard the Dragonslayer - as players enter his castle, they walk through the row of beast's heads handing on the walls, including the dragon that gave Robert his nickname (or dragons, depending on ubiquity of those in the setting). They see a stern man with a steel gaze sitting on the throne, his jewel - encrusted dragonslaying sword resting against armrest. The throne itself is surrounded by 4 men in plate armour that appear to be his Royal Guard,  and 10 more of them are waiting in the shadow of the throne room itself, who are watching the blades at players' belts very, very carefully. At the left of the king, an elderly wizard in robes signifying him as High Mage stands, ready to disperse advice, whispering something that causes King's brows to furrow as PCs enter the throne room. Courtiers, as well as petitioners get out of PCs way. He waits until the characters bow, then he asks them what do they want and to not waste his time.

Now, I'm going to throw a little anecdote here before I continue.

I was recently playing a mini - campaign in Warhammer 2e. The GM wasn't a veteran nor a newbie, a decent guy I shared a few drinks with and his groups, pal so to speak. The campaign was railroady as hell, but the fun was decent, and we were promised a good old sandbox from 3rd session onwards (it was a lie but nevermind, the campaign ended 3 games later and "closed" so no big deal).

And indeed, during the course of that campaign, I admit I did a terrible thing. I discovered the GM a pushover (when a guy tells me "Well I wasn't targetting you to make sure you wouldn't die" when we're playing Warhammer...). The players felt secure enough that people used Fate Points to do such things as rescue their horses - I was baffled at first, but then, as it turned out, nobody ever lost a Fate Point outside such situations. And we had at least 1 combat per session, with things like vampires and orc Warbosses (the problem there was that we always fought like, 1 vampire/Warboss....and Warhammer fully attests, that outside of dragons and Greater Demons, nec Hercules contra plures). However, not being a dick, I kept to my guns and did not push the GM - I kept roleplaying my character as I did, rather than start doing kickflips in faces of Templars of White Wolf to see how far I can get away with.

Now see, I'm playing a veteran Dwarven Mercenary in full glory - 56 WS, 2 attacks, 5 Toughness, chainmail, axe and whooping 17 in People's Skills (I forgot how it is in English). I'm rude, prone to drinking and prone to a fight, and everyone knows that, as I take lip from nobody and will smash teeth against the tree of someone daring to try and kill a wizard I was hired to protect, just to send a message to the rest of his wizard - hating buddies at the camp. I'll stand up to defend my contract, and it doesn't matter whether it's some piss poor peasant or an Imperial Witch Hunter, they better prepare for an axe in the head before  they get her.

Anyway, during the 3rd session, we need to find some guy to give us informations. He's described as a "middle drone" of criminal world, someone who has a major drug problem it seems. We go to the seedy tavern where he's sitting, and there he is, a skinny guy accompanied by 2 thugs with clubs. Bear in mind - the GM is not particularly describing them a lot here. They are just 2 typical goons with clubs, so I'm getting a message that they are a classic hired help. So this druggie, after getting the drugs for a bribe, starts giving us lip how he doesn't trust us and that we're supposed to go and do something bad to the City Watch to prove we're not part of it. Again, let me rephrase - we're all dressed in good mercenary armour, and I'm basically a walking 4 feet tall ball of hatred and muscle, and this guy's giving me lip. So without much thinking, I go and bribe 2 nearby City Watchmen who are observing his table to go and take a walk...then draw an axe and start walking towards the druggie. His thugs jump us, and without much surprise, they are quickly on the floor and dying (the GM doesn't bother with morale rules, obviously). In ways that put modern police to shame, within 10 seconds of finishing the fight, we hear people running our way and scream of "City watch's coming" outside the windows (:rolleyes:. I was once almost beaten up in the centre of my city, and it took police about 5 minutes to arrive...and that was modern police we're talking about, cars and quick communication. I argued that, admittedly however I did bribe off the City Watchmen, and it turns out that they decided to screw me over the bribe and found a patrol in slums within a minute. Anyway, that's really the tip of the iceberg of this anecdote)

Now, at this point, suddenly an OOC argument breaks out between me, the GM and one player. The player says that I broke his plan and character concept - alright, that one I admit, wasn't entirely cool by me, but on the other hand, the guys problem was that I disrupted his relations with a crime friend of his, and I don't see beating up one druggie as a serious problem. Now, the GM has much more serious bomb - this guy is actually an important mobster, and I just screwed over a major NPC. I was then accused of constantly beating up NPCs and being overall aggressive towards them.

First of all, as I said to the GM - alright, so what. I'm ready for the consequences, if he's such a supermobster, let them come. The character I'm playing isn't very sensible and both I and he know it. Secondly - I admit, I wasn't a very charismatic character...but I also had the lowest Charisma score in the party, and I was a dwarf. I didn't go around beating up homeless, I did not go around calling the lord of the castle cock - I admit, I did scream at the lord, but it was about breaking the laws of hospitability by allowing the Witch Hunter to  try and capture the wizard I was protecting. When I was in company of my fellow dwarves however, I turned into a classic "merry dwarf amongst dwarves" kind though, and in fact part of the reason why we were trying to get that information in the first place, was me trying to save my dwarven buddy librarian. And thirdly and most importantly to this post, I asked him how the hell was I actually even supposed to know this guy was an important mobster. He was describing as some druggie client by other Very Important Mobster, and he was in presence of 2 guys who were looking like cardboard petty bandits cut - outs...who went down in second round of the combat, and whom I could've taken out by myself (and truth be told I did, since the other dwarf in the party had bad rolls - the wizard helped to capture the guy though with a sleep spell). In the end, it ended with bad taste, but the campaign ended soon after (I wasn't kicked out, for the note :P. I came back to finish the campaign, though my character kicked itself out now by stealing all the loot. Admittedly, other PCs were intent on freeing this insane demonologue and helping him getting rid of his demons, so being a dwarf and having my advice to keep him tied ignored, I decided this was the moment that working with Chaos overcomes my contract) so not a big deal.

However...this is how I'd handle this whole situation, and it's relevant to this issue none the less.

First of all, I don't tell the players that the guy just buys drugs from me. I tell them who he works for, that he's a pretty big fish in town and they shouldn't mess about with him.

Then, as the players enter the tavern, I don't just say that they see a shady guy with two thugs. No, I go a bit deeper. First of all, it's not two guys but four and the boss, playing cards, and they aren't having clubs with them, oh no. Two of them are chainmail clad, scarred, two meters tall blonde Norscans who are drinking from beer mugs the size of a bucket,bastard swords hanging from their belts. The other one is this Arab - looking fellow, covered in jewels from head to toe, playing with a mean looking, notched yatagan. And the fourth one is a one - eyed dwarf with a bandoleer of daggers and throwing knives stretching across his leather armour. And the boss of those four may be a scrawny looking drug - liking dude, but you can see some crazy look in his sleep deprived eyes. You can tell that this guy may not look like much, but his sarcastic smile and eyes of a murderer tell you that he's not someone you should mess around with. A good respectful scrawny man warrior:

(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS8aWV5gNFUqp7lzM9mzUv-5O_wj3pAERoUs50MzhWkaKBCbboO)

I can tell you this much - should I come across someone like that, I'd choose my words very, very carefully, even as a trigger - happy dwarf. And I actually know this from practice. In my (sadly defunct now) AD&D campaign, PCs were taken to a brother slash mob tavern pretty early on in the game, about level 2, by a veteran thief they rescued from prison. And when they went inside to meet a local mobster called Scar, I did describe him and put him in the setting, like I just described above. He was sitting at the table, with 5 other thugs, everyone looking mean as hell, with blades at their belts, dreadlocks and leather armours (the action was taking place in Stygia, a mix between ancient Egypt, Arab Egypt and Egypt through the lenses of REH and Lovecraft), and what happens as players approach the table? He stabs someone who was trying to cheat at cards in the hand, Bill the Butcher style.

The players didn't give him any lip, and he, out of respect for the man they saved, didn't give any to them. And as they worked together, that mutual respect indeed grew.

Whew, this is quite a lengthy post, but onwards to the end:

Quotei dont know how to stretch a story out whilst avoiding any possible form of confrontation

The truth is, the best approach is...not to even attempt to do so. Doing so has a name in GMing, and it's called railroading and illusionism. Conflict is what drives the sandbox, and that means that also your Supercool NPC may get killed before he gets to say more than three lines of text. This works two ways however - if the PCs are about playing murderhobos, the Law & Order will catch up to them sooner or later. Ultimately, unless they aren't tired of changing characters ever 2 - 3 sessions (and we assume that they can't just CharOp them in such a way that they are untouchable), they will learn basics of human interaction, both RL and in game.

The first principle when you are designing a setting/adventure/sandbox, is - don't get attached to monsters or NPCs. They may die. They may die and nobody will even care, outside of their close ones who will weep and slowly move on with their lives Freddy Friendly Farmer may be brutally killed, because we're playing Warhammer/RQ Vikings and we've been starving for the past three days, and we were so desperate and paranoid we didn't even think to intimidate Freddy first, choosing to kill him to be more safe than sorry.

But there are also those occasions, in which killing someone is far from the end, even if they were just a random peasant #47

Four IG years later, as we're now running our caravan company,  and our shipments are going missing. As we put on again our armours and ride out to investigate, we come face to face with a pretty woman, whose gang of ruthless mercenaries intends to kill us. Turns out that farmer had a 14 year old daughter who loved him so much, she dedicated her life to training and tracking us down.

Are you not entertained? What more story do you want?

Confrontation is the story.

Quotehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtUgtX3ncTk

2 minutes in and he's talking game design and the importance of implementing behaviours via mechanics, after going on a spiel about indie RPGs. Yeah I wonder what are this guys favourite games. (http://somethingsensitive.com/Smileys/default/adam.png)

There are a few slivers worth of interest and learning there, but buried deeply under storygaming metagaming crap. Not to mention defining RPGs in a way  that's basically a definition of storygames. EDIT: Nope sorry it's shit, it's a public Forgewank. 40 minutes of bashing DnD and praising Forge's theorywank and mistaking half of storygames for RPGs. I want that time back.(http://somethingsensitive.com/Smileys/default/clint.png)

A most excellent and useful post, Rincewind. This is the kind of thing that should be in GM advice chapters in rpgs.

That video is really, really bad.

The icing on the Forge Wankery is that they compare all those RPGs to D&D, a game whose areas of true expertise are right in the name. If they'd try to take the potshots they are taking against BRP, D6 or even Warhammer, half of those arguments'd evaporate right on the spot, the other half would be a stretch the size of distance between D&D 4e and old school.

I'd also like to notice the gem in the middle of the video, when someone tries to ask a question, and they dismiss it saying that they won't be taking any questions.

Hm. Not taking any questions while uttering controversial statements on a public forum, relegating those questions to non - public e - mails or comments on their webpage, where they are moderated? (http://somethingsensitive.com/Smileys/default/freud.png)

The Jehova Witness angle holds more and more sense. They aren't discussing game styles. They are preaching.

All in all, their attitude that "games should enforce certain roleplaying, and good mechanics will grab that roleplaying out of you without you even trying to roleplay", alongside arguments how we're not good roleplayers and that good roleplaying should come from the game itself, not just you, prove again that Forgers don't understand human interactions.

I've played with groups that were 95% combat and groups that were 95% roleplay and I've got to say both were fun in their own way. The only groups that I've found to not be fun are when the DM is making the game 95% roleplay and the characters want 95% combat or vice versa.

I think it is all about understanding what everyone wants out of the game and finding a compromise

Earthly Walker

Quote from: Opaopajr;660362*mind blown* Impossible! How can you where there's no rules for "diplomancy" to make NPCs genuflect to your almight TN roll?!

Wait...how much xp and loot did they lose!!!!!

What was the skill DC to pwn the giant!!!



But seriously, that is what I call an awesome event in a game!

I vastly prefer that style over murderhobism.

Cool post, Rincewind.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;660437A most excellent and useful post, Rincewind. This is the kind of thing that should be in GM advice chapters in rpgs.

Quote from: Benoist;660540Cool post, Rincewind.

Agreed! :)

One of my best buddies is the kind of guy who tells the King of France to go fuck himself at 1st level.  I was running a 3e GURPS Celtic game and his character was a king.  There were nine party members who encountered an old dragon on a misty isle.  What did he do?  He mouthed off to the dragon of course!  Naturally, the dragon warned him to hold his tongue, but, of course, he mouthed off to the dragon even more so and wouldn't let up.

Finally, the dragon cast a mass hold spell and caught all nine party members in it.  While they were all being held, the dragon told the king that he must pay for his insolence.  The dragon then bites the heads off three of the characters at random (but not the king because he must watch).  Three characters died because of his inability to put himself aside and play his character's mind in that situation.

There was a bard in that group (who survived the dragon attack) and he wrote a satire of the event.  When the king and group returned home, the bard told his tale and spun his satire for the court and people.  The king lost his crown as a result of that satire and his actions that day at the dragon's cave.

Was it a dick move to randomly kill three other characters for his stupidity?  Probably, but I was just done with his bullshit in this regard and drew a line in the sand in my game.

Quote from: Drohem;660549Agreed! :)

One of my best buddies is the kind of guy who tells the King of France to go fuck himself at 1st level.  I was running a 3e GURPS Celtic game and his character was a king.  There were nine party members who encountered an old dragon on a misty isle.  What did he do?  He mouthed off to the dragon of course!  Naturally, the dragon warned him to hold his tongue, but, of course, he mouthed off to the dragon even more so and wouldn't let up.

Finally, the dragon cast a mass hold spell and caught all nine party members in it.  While they were all being held, the dragon told the king that he must pay for his insolence.  The dragon then bites the heads off three of the characters at random (but not the king because he must watch).  Three characters died because of his inability to put himself aside and play his character's mind in that situation.

There was a bard in that group (who survived the dragon attack) and he wrote a satire of the event.  When the king and group returned home, the bard told his tale and spun his satire for the court and people.  The king lost his crown as a result of that satire and his actions that day at the dragon's cave.

Was it a dick move to randomly kill three other characters for his stupidity?  Probably, but I was just done with his bullshit in this regard and drew a line in the sand in my game.

Hehe.  Did the guy at least take disadvantage points for the traits that got his companions killed?

Quote from: Drohem;660549Agreed! :)

One of my best buddies is the kind of guy who tells the King of France to go fuck himself at 1st level.  I was running a 3e GURPS Celtic game and his character was a king.  There were nine party members who encountered an old dragon on a misty isle.  What did he do?  He mouthed off to the dragon of course!  Naturally, the dragon warned him to hold his tongue, but, of course, he mouthed off to the dragon even more so and wouldn't let up.

Finally, the dragon cast a mass hold spell and caught all nine party members in it.  While they were all being held, the dragon told the king that he must pay for his insolence.  The dragon then bites the heads off three of the characters at random (but not the king because he must watch).  Three characters died because of his inability to put himself aside and play his character's mind in that situation.

There was a bard in that group (who survived the dragon attack) and he wrote a satire of the event.  When the king and group returned home, the bard told his tale and spun his satire for the court and people.  The king lost his crown as a result of that satire and his actions that day at the dragon's cave.

Was it a dick move to randomly kill three other characters for his stupidity?  Probably, but I was just done with his bullshit in this regard and drew a line in the sand in my game.

Why did you not just have the dragon kill him?

Quote from: Exploderwizard;660556Hehe.  Did the guy at least take disadvantage points for the traits that got his companions killed?

No, but he did lose his Advantage of social status of being a king.

Quote from: Bill;660557Why did you not just have the dragon kill him?

I felt it would be more fitting from an in-game perspective; the dragon wanted him to live with the consequences of his actions.

Quote from: Drohem;660549Agreed! :)

One of my best buddies is the kind of guy who tells the King of France to go fuck himself at 1st level.  I was running a 3e GURPS Celtic game and his character was a king.  There were nine party members who encountered an old dragon on a misty isle.  What did he do?  He mouthed off to the dragon of course!  Naturally, the dragon warned him to hold his tongue, but, of course, he mouthed off to the dragon even more so and wouldn't let up.

Finally, the dragon cast a mass hold spell and caught all nine party members in it.  While they were all being held, the dragon told the king that he must pay for his insolence.  The dragon then bites the heads off three of the characters at random (but not the king because he must watch).  Three characters died because of his inability to put himself aside and play his character's mind in that situation.

There was a bard in that group (who survived the dragon attack) and he wrote a satire of the event.  When the king and group returned home, the bard told his tale and spun his satire for the court and people.  The king lost his crown as a result of that satire and his actions that day at the dragon's cave.

Was it a dick move to randomly kill three other characters for his stupidity?  Probably, but I was just done with his bullshit in this regard and drew a line in the sand in my game.

I'll call this one Full Metal Jacket GMing ;). A neat though nasty trick indeed - personally I've learned of such training/punishment methods before FMJ, from a series of books on Russian army. Never quite had the guts to use it at my table, I'll admit, but I pondered such a move. It's really a good team spirit building move, because after the initial ribbing, anger and sourness, the guilty is a bit more considerate, and the rest stays a bit edgy and ready to suppress him.

Quote from: Bill;660557Why did you not just have the dragon kill him?

It's an old trick, at least as old as Prussian 18th century armies. You punish everyone but the transgressor in the squadron...and later, at lights out, you order for the screams from the tent/room to be ignored. Unless they get too loud, of course. Alternatively - come on, surely you saw FMJ.

That, and it made sense for a dragon to use such a horrible mental torture.

Someone bronze Rincewind's post!  Good stuff.

Quote from: EarthlyWalker;660504I think it is all about understanding what everyone wants out of the game and finding a compromise

Welcome to the adult swim.

Quote from: Drohem;660558No, but he did lose his Advantage of social status of being a king.



I felt it would be more fitting from an in-game perspective; the dragon wanted him to live with the consequences of his actions.

I am curious if the player made a new character that could hold his tongue? :)

Quote from: Rincewind1;660559I'll call this one Full Metal Jacket GMing ;). A neat though nasty trick indeed - personally I've learned of such training/punishment methods before FMJ, from a series of books on Russian army. Never quite had the guts to use it at my table, I'll admit, but I pondered such a move. It's really a good team spirit building move, because after the initial ribbing, anger and sourness, the guilty is a bit more considerate, and the rest stays a bit edgy and ready to suppress him.


It's an old trick, at least as old as Prussian 18th century armies. You punish everyone but the transgressor in the squadron...and later, at lights out, you order for the screams from the tent/room to be ignored. Unless they get too loud, of course. Alternatively - come on, surely you saw FMJ.

That, and it made sense for a dragon to use such a horrible mental torture.

I get the concept but am not convinced it is ideal at the gaming table :)

Quote from: Bill;660571I get the concept but am not convinced it is ideal at the gaming table :)

It's not. It's a dirty  mind trick, down to the very bones, as you're utilising some crowd mentality stuff here. But since I assume this was getting on Drohem's nerves, sometimes you need to hit a problematic player with heavy cannons. Especially perhaps if, in general, he's a cool guy and a good friend, and you enjoy not just playing but just hanging out together, so you want him to stop being such a poppycock so everyone can enjoy the game.

Do you remember his interaction with that dragon, Drohem? I am interested what a guy who starts as high as king on the latter could say :D. I mean, you would expect certain high level of smug from a king.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;660437A most excellent and useful post, Rincewind. This is the kind of thing that should be in GM advice chapters in rpgs.

Quote from: Benoist;660540Cool post, Rincewind.

Quote from: Drohem;660549Agreed! :)

Quote from: thedungeondelver;660562Someone bronze Rincewind's post!  Good stuff.

Ditto. Great post. Lots of food for thought.

Quote from: Bill;660570I am curious if the player made a new character that could hold his tongue? :)

I have known and played RPGs with my friend since 1985 and, to the best of my knowledge, he has never made a character who can hold his tongue. LOL!

His king character in this particular game continued in the campaign, and eventually won back his kingship through heroic deeds and atonement for his foolishness with the dragon.

Quote from: Rincewind1;660574It's not. It's a dirty  mind trick, down to the very bones, as you're utilising some crowd mentality stuff here. But since I assume this was getting on Drohem's nerves, sometimes you need to hit a problematic player with heavy cannons. Especially perhaps if, in general, he's a cool guy and a good friend, and you enjoy not just playing but just hanging out together, so you want him to stop being such a poppycock so everyone can enjoy the game.

Nailed it! :)

Quote from: Rincewind1;660574Do you remember his interaction with that dragon, Drohem? I am interested what a guy who starts as high as king on the latter could say :D. I mean, you would expect certain high level of smug from a king.

Yes... the characters sailed into the Other World and landed on the Isle of the Dragon.  He was an ancient red dragon.  In the GURPS game system, dragons are no joke.  The dragon was smart and had many spells.

The king character's smugness as a king is precisely what landed him in hot water.  He failed to properly address the dragon, and he failed at basic Celtic social etiquette.  He was pompous and full of himself, and failed to recognize when humility would best serve the situation- and three of his Warriors (other PCs) paid the price in blood for it.

Ha, Drohem, your anecdote reminds me of the time my character forced a Dragon (thru horrid insults and threats no less) to fight him, wich it finally did.

My character and his buddy butchered the Dragon.

Then its mom turned up.

The PCs all survived by bravely running away but our army got eaten and since it was the third time my character botched the whole "Imperial officer" thing the party decided to depart the Empire. :D

This sorta thing tended to happen a lot...

Quote from: Drohem;660549I was running a 3e GURPS Celtic game and his character was a king.  There were nine party members who encountered an old dragon on a misty isle.  What did he do?  He mouthed off to the dragon of course!  Naturally, the dragon warned him to hold his tongue, but, of course, he mouthed off to the dragon even more so and wouldn't let up.

Finally, the dragon cast a mass hold spell and caught all nine party members in it.  While they were all being held, the dragon told the king that he must pay for his insolence.  The dragon then bites the heads off three of the characters at random (but not the king because he must watch).  Three characters died because of his inability to put himself aside and play his character's mind in that situation.

Quote from: Drohem;660586The king character's smugness as a king is precisely what landed him in hot water.  He failed to properly address the dragon, and he failed at basic Celtic social etiquette.  He was pompous and full of himself, and failed to recognize when humility would best serve the situation- and three of his Warriors (other PCs) paid the price in blood for it.

Drohem - there's what looks like an inconsistency here.  In the first quoted post above, you implied that the player was failing to role-play his character (i.e. "his inability to put himself aside").  However, in the latter quoted post, you say that the character was smug, pompous, and full of himself - which implies that the player was correctly playing his character.  Which is it - i.e. was the player playing his character well?

Quote from: jhkim;660664Drohem - there's what looks like an inconsistency here.  In the first quoted post above, you implied that the player was failing to role-play his character (i.e. "his inability to put himself aside").  However, in the latter quoted post, you say that the character was smug, pompous, and full of himself - which implies that the player was correctly playing his character.  Which is it - i.e. was the player playing his character well?

Being a terrible bastard to a dragon falls short of roleplaying, unless your character has 3 Int and Wisdom.

Quote from: Drohem;660586The king character's smugness as a king is precisely what landed him in hot water.  He failed to properly address the dragon, and he failed at basic Celtic social etiquette.  He was pompous and full of himself, and failed to recognize when humility would best serve the situation- and three of his Warriors (other PCs) paid the price in blood for it.

Deprotagonized sparrow! :rant:

Quote from: Rincewind1;660665Being a terrible bastard to a dragon falls short of roleplaying, unless your character has 3 Int and Wisdom.

Or is a badass and knows it. :D

Wew, finally got a half hour free to read that post. Nice one Rince.

Swine.

Interpreting the comment to mean that 95% of encounters will result in a fight I find that high-balling it, but not by much.  I'm not sure if this is a feature or a bug though.

One of the DMs I played a good deal under in 2e was bag into age of sail a lot of his adventures and campaigns had that theme and resulted in a lot more parley than a more traditional dungeon-centric campaign.

I feel like Iron Heroes does result in a lot more non-combat interaction as well despite being a d20 3e variant, because it's more heavily focused on clashing swords with other warriors who hail from the similar cultures, which isn't really the default style of conflict in more traditional D&D play.

A huge portion of potential encounters in D&D are with "monsters" which often either aren't interested in conversation with PCs, the PCs have no reason to converse with the monster peacefully especially if they were good aligned, or in many scenarios you are fighting literally bloodthirsty beasts or mindless antagonists that can't be negotiated with.

D&D didn't get the murderhobos reputation from nowhere.  Again though, perhaps a feature rather than a bug.  The group that I usually DM for would probably be intolerant of a campaign that wasn't centered around combating enemies and I don't feel that they are generally unrepresentative of TRPG players.  I'd say that people here reporting that they almost never engage in combat and just sneak around monsters to steal treasure and always try diplomacy first when dealing with man-eating giants is abnormal.  

It also belies a certain bias towards that particular mode of play on both the part of the players and the DM.  I'd say the recidivism rate of giants is about 100%, so there's basically no chance that the PCs putting an oversized tabard on a giant interested in interloping in human lands would not result in a missed opportunity to have saved lives when their now tabard-clad giant friend starts acting like a giant again in the near future.

The DM would basically have to hand the PCs a win by making this giant "special" instead of being a sadistic Hills Have Eyes cannibalistic freak.  The monster as written, given an alignment and portrayed in say Against the Giants is definitely meant to be slain, or run off by good heroes in any scenario where it isn't necessary to avoid them.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;660082In Mongoose Traveller, fighting to the death means, "Ref, print me up another character sheet!  I'm going to need one!"

I can do you one better, don't play Star Trek with this group, one phaser shot on Disintegrate means new character! :jaw-dropping:

Quote from: jhkim;660664Drohem - there's what looks like an inconsistency here.  In the first quoted post above, you implied that the player was failing to role-play his character (i.e. "his inability to put himself aside").  However, in the latter quoted post, you say that the character was smug, pompous, and full of himself - which implies that the player was correctly playing his character.  Which is it - i.e. was the player playing his character well?

There's no inconsistency here.  The Player was playing himself instead of the character.  No, he was not playing his character well as it relates to someone (i.e., the character) who actually lives in that place, time, and setting.  He was playing himself as a 20th Century dude, with a Punk attitude, in the skin of an Irish King meeting a powerful creature of legend and the Other World.

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;660789I'd say the recidivism rate of giants is about 100%, so there's basically no chance that the PCs putting an oversized tabard on a giant interested in interloping in human lands would not result in a missed opportunity to have saved lives when their now tabard-clad giant friend starts acting like a giant again in the near future.

The DM would basically have to hand the PCs a win by making this giant "special" instead of being a sadistic Hills Have Eyes cannibalistic freak.

"Fi, fi, fo, fum! Grod paid 10 gold per an-num! Got benefits and two weeks vacation, too, plus microwave and fridge in lunch room.  You still eat that sheep?"

Quote from: daniel_ream;660952"Fi, fi, fo, fum! Grod paid 10 gold per an-num! Got benefits and two weeks vacation, too, plus microwave and fridge in lunch room.  You still eat that sheep?"

Not every setting is a Shadowrun.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;660031So, how 'bout it, gamers? Is 95% of your time spent playing D&D devoted to killing things?

I find pretty well exactly 95%* of game sessions involve combat, in which almost always the PCs kill something/somebody. Of course not all or 95% of game time is spent in combat - actually game time spent in combat varies by game system but varies from about 15-20% in Moldvay/Mentzer Basic (& clones) to about 50-60% in 4e D&D.

*My Loudwater campaign I blog the sessions - 43 sessions so far of which I believe 2 have had no real combat. That's pretty normal IME.

Only game session I ever played that approached 95% combat was the one time I tried 4e; that the combats were pretty dull didn't help.

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;660789It also belies a certain bias towards that particular mode of play on both the part of the players and the DM.  I'd say the recidivism rate of giants is about 100%, so there's basically no chance that the PCs putting an oversized tabard on a giant interested in interloping in human lands would not result in a missed opportunity to have saved lives when their now tabard-clad giant friend starts acting like a giant again in the near future.

The DM would basically have to hand the PCs a win by making this giant "special" instead of being a sadistic Hills Have Eyes cannibalistic freak.  The monster as written, given an alignment and portrayed in say Against the Giants is definitely meant to be slain, or run off by good heroes in any scenario where it isn't necessary to avoid them.

By no means is the giant a "special", misunderstood, gentle soul that just wants to be loved. Their encounter with the giant didn't end in kum bah yah round the campfire.  Initially, they killed the giant's dogs and provoked him, negotiations took place with hands on hilts. The giant is compensated with a monthly shipment of food and provisions in return for protecting the lands. The tabard was a gesture. The giant was proud.

Maybe the giant will revert to his old ways. Maybe the PCs should have killed him while they had the chance. (Now, there's an idea for a future adventure.) Maybe the giant is just smart enough to realise that being delivered a monthly shipment of food is easier than having to find it himself; if he avoids biting the hand that feeds he can satiate his hunger for violence against the many other threats to the land. Maybe the PCs should kill everything that they meet, you know, just in case. Maybe sometimes avoiding combat is in everyone's interests, then nobody dies, monster nor PC.

My players are no more biased towards parley 95% of the time than they are towards combat 95% of the time. They deal with situations as they feel the situation requires.

I've DMed for groups of players that did charge into combat at every opportunity, they eventually get TPKed. That was playing editions of D&D where every "encounter" must be "balanced". Playing AD&D with my current group, the first time any of us have played AD&D in many years, the players have recognised that adventuring is a dangerous business and that "encounters" are never "balanced".

I'd say that in games where the players expect to resolve with combat all of the time that the DM would basically have to hand the PCs a win by carefully balancing each encounter so that the players know that by the nth encounter it's time to take a long rest, regenerate their dailies and spend their curing splurges so they don't die in encounter n+1. Especially if the DM is running the monsters by the RAW. If not, he'd be cheating, right?

Quote from: Orpheo;661143snip

You are setting up a false dichotomy between "always heedlessly charging into combat" and playing it smart or something.  The alternative to fighting the giant in your scenario is simply not fighting the giant.  Regardless, a party that always curbstomps monsters with no worry in the world is probably being pitched softballs in some way by the DM, and that most often includes playing monsters less lethally than they should reasonably be.  

Which is basically the exact same kind of thing as the goofy, lovable giant, and an aristocracy that is for some reason fine publicly cowering and paying tribute to it lest it continue to terrorize their subjects.

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;661160You are setting up a false dichotomy between "always heedlessly charging into combat" and playing it smart or something.  The alternative to fighting the giant in your scenario is simply not fighting the giant.

No. It is you that has simplified it so.

QuoteWhich is basically the exact same kind of thing as the goofy, lovable giant, and an aristocracy that is for some reason fine publicly cowering and paying tribute to it lest it continue to terrorize their subjects.

Come now, now you're just imagining how the encounter with the giant went, and how the giant was played based on your real-world preconceptions, the disney movies you've been watching, what you call the "monster as written" (take out your 2e Monstrous Manual and look up Verbeeg) and what you have prejudged to be the play style of my group. Yes, the giant receives compensation but "for service" and the campaign world will have its own doubters that will call this arrangement appeasement or tribute and put pressure on the lord. Otherwise, the peace that it brings may be worth the compromise to the people. "We don't negotiate with terrorists" isn't a doctrine that the PCs were made to start with, besides, it is much easier not to negotiate with terrorists when you are the giant.

I've had lots of D&D games where we've killed things 0% of the time.

When playing D&D over the years, our percentage was closer to 85%. It was only when we played D&D in other settings (like Elizabethan England), that the number dropped to much lower.

In Nippon!, Fantasy Chambara Movie Japan, (or when we were playing Bushido) we did a good bit of killing.  It took up about 20% of our game time (4-5 hour session, 1 hour of combat for most nights).

For most games, Combat or Tactical moments seem to take up, much of the time.  There is a 90 to 1 expansion of time once the tactical stuff comes out,  so one minute of combat usually takes about 90 minutes of time. (This number can be multiplied by 2 for every 6 players.)  This was usually not focused on killing.  In most games, it is subduing, capturing, or running away/chasing things.  (Super Heroic and Psionic/Horror games)

Now, most of the time, when we encountered people or things, there was usually conversation/diplomacy. Mostly, we are just kicking about in civilized places following conventional social rules.  It is only when things go south or we knew things were not right that we opted for anything else.  Weapons (or powers) were pulled only when we had to OR when we knew they were "Black Hats" and just needed stopping.

Quote from: MoonHunter;661442There is a 90 to 1 expansion of time once the tactical stuff comes out,  so one minute of combat usually takes about 90 minutes of time.

That's insane.

Perhaps they're sculpting the dice for each roll.

That roughly averages, or is faster than, my 3e/PF experience. One round is six seconds, therefore ten rounds is one minute combat. Given that I'd get 8 or so turns (one turn per round) in a three-hour game battle with 5 players that's about right -- or faster.

Needless to say that I think there's a better way to play.

So long just for a few combat rounds. Fuck, if DMs like this were directors, every movie would be Ishtar.

It's the endless bickering over how many obscure modifiers stack, and then citation and checking of references. It's excruciating.

I'm almost at the point where I want to run a reactionary campaign where player characters get nothing more than a dirty cotton tunic and a pointy stick (1d2 damage, bring your own coin).

Quote from: Opaopajr;661497It's the endless bickering over how many obscure modifiers stack, and then citation and checking of references. It's excruciating.

I posted this over on dragonsfoot yesterday, it applies for you, too.

As DM, you need to be the boss. It's all about confidence.

Every evening before the game session, look at yourself in the mirror, and recite this: "I am the Game Master, I master the game, the game does not master me. Players are my bitches. I wear the Viking Hat!"

Important phrases to use at appropriate times in the game session.

"No, don't be stupid." This one is especially useful during character generation, since you should set the right tone from the beginning. Players know they should not play a ninja in an Arthurian age game, but they'll try it anyway because they are Unique Special Snowflakes who are happy to sink the ship of your campaign so long as they're the captain with everyone looking at them as it's going down.
"I wanna be a drowlesbianstripperninja, lol."
"No, don't be stupid."
"I wanna be a chaotic evil anti-paladian/assassin of Iuz!"
"No, don't be stupid."
"I moon the King!"
"No, don't be stupid."
It's a powerful and useful phrase.

"Shut the fuck up and roll the dice." This is appropriate after lengthy rules arguments. Note that rules discussions are fine. Rules arguments should not be permitted.
"My cleric has a sword because medieval priests had swords so that is realistic."
"Very well, then your cleric has no spells, and is just a shitty fighter. That's realistic."
"No that's not fair! But Jim's wizard has magic!"
"Jim is not insisting on his wizard carrying a sword."
"No fair! No fair!"
"Shut the fuck up and roll the dice."

"Okay, you spend the round D&D - dithering and ducking." This is useful when the player wants to take half an hour to decide their character's action. I've always felt that some tactical discussion is fine. Part of being a "fighter" is a knowledge of tactics. The fighter character will likely have a better tactical grasp than the typical player. In the absence of a skill system where we add +1 to initiative of fighters or the like, the way to simulate tactical knowledge is to allow some discussion in the group about what to do. But this can get excessive, with someone's first level thief agonising over whether to draw their dagger and run in to backstab or sit back with sling, etc. Excessive decision time can be easily dealt with by having them lose their action this turn.

These are all things you need to do from the beginning with any new group. You will lose some players, but they were going to be a pain in the arse anyway so are no real loss, but in fact a gain. Once you establish that you are the game's MASTER, and that you wear the Viking Hat, things go much more smoothly.

It's either that or bend them over the table and hump their hams.

Oh God, I wouldn't DM 3e/PF unless someone paid me! My viking hat is firmly plastered to my skull and I have none of my youthful enthusiasm left for petty bickering.

(edit: I'd end up running a totalitarian/authoritarian 3e/PF game; special snowflakes would be melted everywhere. restricted races, restricted classes, restricted multi-classing, slowed to a crawl XP progression, 3d6 stat gen, etc. That and I'd like to run "single class challenge" where everyone in the party has to play the same class.)

I'm just hanging out with my friends, enjoying their company, supporting the Local Family Game Store, and eating their snacks.

(but your advice is still good for those out there.*
*except perhaps for humping their hams. ;) )

Better a firm and fair DM of a shit game system than a wussy inconsistent indecisive DM of a good system.

Take over. It is the duty of the competent to lead.

Heh, my friend is learning. He puts all this effort into world creation and campaign ideas and stuff and I just love to see his enthusiasm for this stuff. I haven't the heart to boot him aside and GM his game. Besides, some of his ideas are fun.

I already run my own games, but it's taking a hiatus for this group in particular. They were enthusiastic for their own ideas after awhile, and how can I say no? Besides, one has to learn the hard way that Monty Haul, and Lax GMing in general, brings its own problems. I can say it, explain it, but really one often needs to experience it.

I'm not so much of a GM sergeant as a GM schoolmarm. The (new GM) kids need to grow from their own play on the playground. However a GM boot camp is not a wholly off-base idea...

It's important to remember the roots of our hobby. Dungeons were invented as adventuring locales by Dave Arneson. Why? Because his players kept wandering off the fucking map.

"Sorry guys but there are GIANT FUCKING STONE WALLS stopping you from going anywhere but forward or backwards."

Right from the beginning of the hobby GMs had to find ways to stop players doing hours of dithering simply to end up doing stupid shit.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;661509It's important to remember the roots of our hobby. Dungeons were invented as adventuring locales by Dave Arneson. Why? Because his players kept wandering off the fucking map.

"Sorry guys but there are GIANT FUCKING STONE WALLS stopping you from going anywhere but forward or backwards."

Right from the beginning of the hobby GMs had to find ways to stop players doing hours of dithering simply to end up doing stupid shit.

If anyone else did this, we'd be calling upon his inability to adapt to players' decisions :P. Of course, there's this and there's deliberate leaving off the map as soon as you see it, to piss the GM off.

Quote from: Opaopajr;661507Heh, my friend is learning. He puts all this effort into world creation and campaign ideas and stuff and I just love to see his enthusiasm for this stuff. I haven't the heart to boot him aside and GM his game. Besides, some of his ideas are fun.

I already run my own games, but it's taking a hiatus for this group in particular. They were enthusiastic for their own ideas after awhile, and how can I say no? Besides, one has to learn the hard way that Monty Haul, and Lax GMing in general, brings its own problems. I can say it, explain it, but really one often needs to experience it.

I'm not so much of a GM sergeant as a GM schoolmarm. The (new GM) kids need to grow from their own play on the playground. However a GM boot camp is not a wholly off-base idea...

Part of a problem is, that every GM needs to develop a style of his own. And well, on the other hand, there are just people who enjoy railroads/illusionism - I've met a few playing recently.

Then again, they were veteran WoDers... (http://somethingsensitive.com/Smileys/default/freud.png)

But yeah, teaching via practice is not a bad idea. People tend to pick up the GMing styles of people they first played with, and had tremendous fun.

Quote from: JamesV;660077I would recommend RIFTS. That way the GM will be sure that no more than 98% of the game will be about combat. D&D has no such limit.

Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner!

Its rather weird for me as the range of combat to roleplaying can vary drastically.

Wednesday--50 Fathoms Savage Worlds 50% combat. 2 round of a fight against octopons, a giant octopus, and an octopon mage. The rest of the session was spent roleplaying. One conflict was resolved by intimidation via 18 lbs. cannon and followed by parley with a bit of bribery.

Saturday--Birthday Shaintar/Savage Worlds one shot session. 95% combat with 5% exploring tunnels, disarming traps, and some roleplaying. Intentional though on my part. I used the bennies flow from players to GM rule. There was three encounters, three traps, and a bunch of treasure at the end. Session lasted 3.5 hours, a little over the 3 hours I had intended it to last.

Sunday 0% combat, Earthdawn. The only enemies to appear were bandits that were intimidated into running away, recognizing the Archer's mystic aim mark. The group spotted a For Dei army unit heading toward Taolin, and pushed to warn the Tiet Dei town. Now next time might lean much more towards combat, since it'll start with For Dei attacking Taolin.

I've had sessions that lasted 12 hours with near 95% combat and I've had sessions that were 100% roleplaying with 0 combat.  

Your group will tend to have a preference for either violence or to use other means such as intimidation, bribery, and roleplaying to avoid encounters.

It becomes more critical in a game like Earthdawn to develop these skills, as combats tend to be 15 minutes at a minimum and usually average an hour, with longer fights taking up the whole session (sometimes not even intentionally on your part as Game Master, as the rolls can go against the players sometimes).  Savage Worlds subtlety discourages combat through its sheer lethality although the battle speed is very quick.  

DnD through its gobs of hit points can discourage the need for roleplaying because the group feels it can steamroll every obstacle with violence. I guess I like the ADnD Pools of Radiance counter approach to that. So you think you can steal from the people of Phlan? Watch as I steamroll you with infinite guards out for your blood. Also hope you like camping in the woods, because this is the only safe town in miles. Consequences can really change the attitude of the players. I guess I really love Pools of Radiance for both allowing the action of ripping off the shop, and showing the town's extreme reaction. I had never even seen the like on any other game on the NES.  If you go around the game world committing crimes and act like psychopaths, don't expect any help from anyone, as almost everyone is gonna hate and fear you, thinking they might be the next victim of murder or theft.  

This might be one of the major reasons I like Earthdawn and Savage Worlds. The lethality of the bonus dice means any damage roll has the potential to be your last breath and it discourages combat compared to the set damage of DnD which can give high level characters an arrogant feeling of being invulnerable to low level enemies.

Quote from: slayride35;661651Its rather weird for me as the range of combat to roleplaying can vary drastically.

Wednesday--50 Fathoms Savage Worlds 50% combat. 2 round of a fight against octopons, a giant octopus, and an octopon mage. The rest of the session was spent roleplaying. One conflict was resolved by intimidation via 18 lbs. cannon and followed by parley with a bit of bribery.

Saturday--Birthday Shaintar/Savage Worlds one shot session. 95% combat with 5% exploring tunnels, disarming traps, and some roleplaying. Intentional though on my part. I used the bennies flow from players to GM rule. There was three encounters, three traps, and a bunch of treasure at the end. Session lasted 3.5 hours, a little over the 3 hours I had intended it to last.

Sunday 0% combat, Earthdawn. The only enemies to appear were bandits that were intimidated into running away, recognizing the Archer's mystic aim mark. The group spotted a For Dei army unit heading toward Taolin, and pushed to warn the Tiet Dei town. Now next time might lean much more towards combat, since it'll start with For Dei attacking Taolin.

I've had sessions that lasted 12 hours with near 95% combat and I've had sessions that were 100% roleplaying with 0 combat.  

Your group will tend to have a preference for either violence or to use other means such as intimidation, bribery, and roleplaying to avoid encounters.

It becomes more critical in a game like Earthdawn to develop these skills, as combats tend to be 15 minutes at a minimum and usually average an hour, with longer fights taking up the whole session (sometimes not even intentionally on your part as Game Master, as the rolls can go against the players sometimes).  Savage Worlds subtlety discourages combat through its sheer lethality although the battle speed is very quick.  

DnD through its gobs of hit points can discourage the need for roleplaying because the group feels it can steamroll every obstacle with violence. I guess I like the ADnD Pools of Radiance counter approach to that. So you think you can steal from the people of Phlan? Watch as I steamroll you with infinite guards out for your blood. Also hope you like camping in the woods, because this is the only safe town in miles. Consequences can really change the attitude of the players. I guess I really love Pools of Radiance for both allowing the action of ripping off the shop, and showing the town's extreme reaction. I had never even seen the like on any other game on the NES.  If you go around the game world committing crimes and act like psychopaths, don't expect any help from anyone, as almost everyone is gonna hate and fear you, thinking they might be the next victim of murder or theft.  

This might be one of the major reasons I like Earthdawn and Savage Worlds. The lethality of the bonus dice means any damage roll has the potential to be your last breath and it discourages combat compared to the set damage of DnD which can give high level characters an arrogant feeling of being invulnerable to low level enemies.

If a group of dnd players thinks they can steamroll enemies, make the enemies deadlier.

Often I warn the players (logically through events and observations in play) that an enemy is really really deadly.

If they still make a poorly planned frontal assault....they get wrecked.

I have observed a few players over the years that seem to think player characters are part of a secret society assured of being stronger than their enemies.

combat 95% of the time? The guy who said this must have been thinking of 4e...

Quote from: RPGPundit;661908combat 95% of the time? The guy who said this must have been thinking of 4e...

How else can you fit in the 10 combat encounters in between Full Rest?

105% combat :)






Does ANYONE do 10 combats in a row? I sure don't, but I think that is the 'rule' in 4E.

I can't do ten combats in a row. Its just exhausting and time consumptive. Even my Shaintar/Savage Worlds game only had three encounters as a sort of DnD homage since that was the theme, and we expected some people who had never roleplayed before to be involved, which is why it was fight focused (since rolling dice and killing stuff tends to be easy enough for new players). And I still feel like I should have discarded the second fight there even.  

We even quit Descent on like level 4 because even the dungeon crawling board game was too consumptive with its endless fights with the Game Master (Overlord) able to spawn monsters each turn in spaces which we didn't have Line of Sight towards. Clear a room only for monsters to inexplicable spawn right behind you.  Great game but an hour a room was what it was averaging.

Quote from: Bill;661958How else can you fit in the 10 combat encounters in between Full Rest?

105% combat :)






Does ANYONE do 10 combats in a row? I sure don't, but I think that is the 'rule' in 4E.

Given from what I heard about how long it takes to run ONE combat in 4e, wouldn't that take like, weeks of gaming?

Quote from: RPGPundit;661908combat 95% of the time? The guy who said this must have been thinking of 4e...

That's my thought as well. 4e battles can go on for several hours. Several sessions actually. And I'm not talking epic "PCs fight army of demons" stuff here, I'm talking "PCs vs a dozen hobgoblins". Argh!

We got our 4e fights down to 20 minutes for a typical battle, 30 for a longer one.  But, there was a time where it took up to 1.5 hours, at first, when we were still learning the system and it was a complicated battle.  But multiple sessions for one battle? Never, not even at our worst.

Quote from: RPGPundit;662149Given from what I heard about how long it takes to run ONE combat in 4e, wouldn't that take like, weeks of gaming?

It sure can if you let it.

I have quite a bit of 4e experience at this point in time.

Ran a weekly game for 2 years, 6 hour sessions. Plus a few other campaigns of various lengths sinse 4e was first released. As a result, I have done a ton of combat encounters with 4e.

So, my assessment is that a combat can take forever if the gm is doing it wrong, and the players are 'slow/unprepared'

With experienced players, and experienced dm, the big combats took 1-2 hours depending on complexity.

I have experienced lengthy endless 'bang your head on the table' 4+ hour combats in 4e games as a player, but not as a gm.

Quote from: Bill;661958Does ANYONE do 10 combats in a row? I sure don't, but I think that is the 'rule' in 4E.

10 at-level encounters to level up. The game expects more like 3-4 encounters per Extended Rest. Still too many IMO, IMCs it averages more like 1.5, maybe 2.

Quote from: S'mon;66229010 at-level encounters to level up. The game expects more like 3-4 encounters per Extended Rest. Still too many IMO, IMCs it averages more like 1.5, maybe 2.

Not really related, but..

I don't do 'at level' encounters...waaaaaaaay too easy.

I kinda prefer the ol' "one day, your 5th-7th level dudes Are running away from giants, the next they're defeating an army of orcs" kinda deal...

I heard you're just always killing orcs anyways...

lol yeah a lot of our DnD days were spent killing kobolds and goblins and orcs. The rare campaign got up to the epic levels. That's where we got to kill gods (usually Tiamat, two kills for my characters versus her for some reason...) and actually stomp on some real enemies.

I really love the ADnD Gold box PC games. They still remain one of my best ADnD experiences despite being a video game, because you got to play Levels 1-5, then 6-10, then 11-15, and finally 16-20 in installments and keep your characters from previous games in the series over the four part game. I remember there being a lot of orcs in Phlan but also a lot of giants (hill, fire, if I remember correctly in the first one with frosts coming in a later one in the series).