New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 67
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Niek's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2010

    Default Square system, round game

    Several months ago a game slot opened up in my group, so I decided to run something. At the time the only systems I knew were D&D and GURPS, and as the entire group had gotten rather tired of how long it took to resolve anything in GURPS I defaulted to using D&D 3.5

    After a few sessions, it became apparent to me that D&D does not really fit the story and setting I have in mind at all. Magic and especially magic items are too high-power for the setting, combat is too all-or-nothing in its results, the class-based nature of the game discourages organic character growth in favor of planning a character's trajectory entirely ahead of time, and the system in general is too combat-centric for what I intend to do.

    Luckily, I have since become familiar with the FATE system, which is a much conducive to the narrativist-style game I want to run. The problem is, I'm in a group with mostly gamist-leaning players, one of whom is extremely enthusiastic about the mechanics of D&D specifically. Every time I have brought up the issue with them they have suggested I alter the setting to fit the game system, which in my mind is an entirely backwards way of doing things (not to mention it would require a total rewrite of all of my plans).

    Does anyone have any suggestions for how I can convince my group to transition to a system betting fitting the intended style of my game or, failing that, advice on running a narrativist game in the D&D system?

  2. - Top - End - #2
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Israel
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Square system, round game

    not sure if this would help, but here are some thoughts:
    - depending on the age and gaming experience of the players, and mostly their personalities, it might be very hard, or impossible to get them to switch their preferences. people like different things in games, and that's about it. in time people may learn to like other aspects of game, or be more open to other styles, but in general people tend to stick to their preferred style of play. my suggestion is to try to mix and match elements of the game to suit most moods. sometime it works, sometimes it doesn't.

    - D&D can be played sort of narratively (is that a word?) but it requires one (or a combination of) the following: like minded players, specific setting, and specific game mechanics. the players however are by far the most important part i think. still, there are some setting with low magic, deeper and more complicated cultures plots and the like, and more. as to rules- try looking up E6, it is said to keep the high magic at bay, it's quite simple, and moves some of the focus of the character towards roleplay (though this last point is argued)

    - Yora on this boards is developing a setting which you might like, with a set of rules that seem simple, variable, and fun. try looking her signature up.

    - all that said, my suggestion would be to tell the guys "look, i want to try something. we'll run a short adventure by Fate rules, it's character creation (aspects) are really cool, and you can stack them for cool effects. give me 3-5 sessions, and if you don't like it, we go back to D&D. what do you say?"
    get them to experiment, try the system at least. it's the best you can do.

    hope this helped.
    kol.

    1. Special projects:
    Campaign logs archive, Campaign planning log, Tactical mass combat Homebrew, A unique monsters compendium.
    2. My campaign logs:
    Three from a GM's POV, One from a player's POV. Very detailed, including design and GMing discussions.
    3. Various roleplay and real life musings and anecdotes:
    For those interested, from serious to funny!

    Thanks for reading!

  3. - Top - End - #3

    Default Re: Square system, round game

    Quote Originally Posted by Niek View Post
    The problem is, I'm in a group with mostly gamist-leaning players, one of whom is extremely enthusiastic about the mechanics of D&D specifically. Every time I have brought up the issue with them they have suggested I alter the setting to fit the game system, which in my mind is an entirely backwards way of doing things (not to mention it would require a total rewrite of all of my plans).

    Does anyone have any suggestions for how I can convince my group to transition to a system betting fitting the intended style of my game or, failing that, advice on running a narrativist game in the D&D system?
    Switching systems isn't going to change player personalities. You might be able to interest them in another game with a decent amount of crunch, but you sound like you won't be able to stop them from seeing things in terms of win conditions, and wanting GP/XP equivalents to keep score.

    And yes, D&D does hand the players too many tools to casually break plots/campaigns. Try to work around it where you can*, and if your players monkey wrench too much, don't think a system change will stop them.

    *(Idea: The fluff says that other planes are more magical places. If you can't cast spells above third level on the prime, sixth level on the ethereal/inner, and are uncapped on the astral/outer, that'd allow you low-level primes without taking away all the players' toys. Assuming you make it easy enough for them to take extraplanar excursions when the time is right.)

  4. - Top - End - #4
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tyndmyr's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Square system, round game

    Quote Originally Posted by Niek View Post
    Does anyone have any suggestions for how I can convince my group to transition to a system betting fitting the intended style of my game or, failing that, advice on running a narrativist game in the D&D system?
    Sometimes a given campaign doesn't match a given system. Then, you have three options.

    1. Swap systems. This requires talking everyone into it. I suggest leaving shiny new books around the table, and slowly building interest. This will not work on all player types. Some hate learning new things.

    2. Swap campaign to fit. Don't have to dump it entirely....but adjust the concept to work better with the system. In this case, it sounds like making the campaign higher magic and so on. This is generally the easiest solution, as it does not require convincing anyone other than yourself. Still, depending how invested you are in the campaign, it may not be desirable.

    3. Keep playing any way, and house rule things as they come up. This is included mostly for completeness, as it is roughly akin to solving the peg/hole issue by finding a sledgehammer.

    I like going with #2 myself, as mid campaign system swaps can be...problematic, and then, in the future, carefully selecting system on the basis of what campaign I've got planned. The good news is, you now know a lot more about which campaigns go with which systems! Also, getting people into a between-campaigns one shot with pregenned charsis a much easier way to convince them to give something a try.

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    kaomera's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2010

    Default Re: Square system, round game

    You're in pretty much the same situation I've found myself in lately, only one step ahead of where I was in that you've correctly identified the problem...

    I have to say I'm not sure running a more narrative version of D&D would work for this group, unfortunately. IMO, you need to put your foot down and state that you just don't want to run D&D. I know that technically you just don't want to deal with some of the standard clichés of D&D, but those are probably the exact reasons why some or even all of your players want to play D&D. You might possibly have better luck with your group than I did with mine (it all does depend on the players), but I think if you try to do something different with D&D you are likely to end up with a situation where the players are really putting all of their energy into fighting against and/or subverting your attempts to run a more narrative game.

    The players may or may not be willing to go for FATE, but IME if you give them any option to play D&D then those who want to play the standard clichés of D&D will simply attempt to do that, and any players who might be on board will likely find it easier to just go along with the other players... It's difficult if not impossible to take the same group and the same system and come up with different results, unless all of the players are really behind giving it a serious try.

  6. - Top - End - #6
    Titan in the Playground
     
    CarpeGuitarrem's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008

    Default Re: Square system, round game

    Hmm. Burning Wheel is a fantasy RPG that still has interesting crunch whilst introducing story and character elements into play. Character growth is certainly pretty organic, and magic is much lower-powered. It might be a great midway point to them, as it still has lots of crunch to fiddle with.

    Burning Wheel Gold is the latest version (preview .zip file is here), and here is the main post explaining BWG.
    Ludicrus Gaming: on games and story
    Quote Originally Posted by Saph
    Unless everyone's been lying to me and the next bunch of episodes are The Great Divide II, The Great Divide III, Return to the Great Divide, and Bride of the Great Divide, in which case I hate you all and I'm never touching Avatar again.

  7. - Top - End - #7
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2007

    Default Re: Square system, round game

    Burning Wheel has everything you want in this, really. Its heavy crunch with a good amount of narrative mechanics, high on tactical decisions (more so than D&D, in my opinion), has equal support for physical combat and social engagements, isn't class based, character advancement is organic (using skills improves them), magic items are rare and interesting but not more important/powerful than your actual character's skills, spellcasting has its place but isn't gamebreaking, and so on.

    And, I guess just tell them that. This game isn't your typical hippie lovefest like Primetime Adventures. You will have to make legitimately hard mechanical decisions. More than you ever did with D&D. The elegance of the game is that it will take your drive to play optimally and turn it into compelling storytelling whether you intended it to be that way or not.

    If you try to go in and play a "Kick down the door, kill the orcs because they look different than us, loot the bodies, get XP, and now lets go find bigger orcs" sort of game, you'll end up getting it, plus accidentally telling a much more awesome story on top of it. Just, effortlessly. It will just happen, independently of your group doing anything to make it happen.

    (If you actually try to tell an amazing story - good lord.)

    Its hard to explain. But, having been in a similar situation, I'm confident that if you can get your group to just stomach it for a session or two to get over their "OH MY GOD IT'S NOT D&D" attitude, it will make everyone happy and solve all your problems.

  8. - Top - End - #8
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Totally Guy's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Square system, round game

    I ran a Burning Wheel game last year for a blogger called Chatty DM. He's part of Critical Hits, the D&D blog that won the Ennie this year.

    After looking at some other games, Mouse Guard, Leverage and Apocalypse World he wrote about how to take the things he liked from them and incorporate them into the D&D games he ran.

    His advice on how he now runs D&D games can be found here.

    Unfortunately it's inadvisable to change the game system of an existing campaign when someone isn't bought into change. If you can set aside time for a one shot then players can try before they buy. Even the doubters have to say "Let's give this a fair shot." This is true whether it's FATE of any of those I mentioned.


    Edit: Most of us have made assumptions about what you want the game to do instead of being D&D. What do you see your game being about that the system isn't supporting?
    Last edited by Totally Guy; 2011-09-24 at 01:52 AM.
    Mannerism RPG An RPG in which your descriptions resolve your actions and sculpts your growth.

  9. - Top - End - #9
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Foggy Droughtland

    Default Re: Square system, round game

    D&D does not at all sound like the right system for what you want to do. You might want to try something like Destiny of Heroes: https://sites.google.com/site/argopu...ions/documents

    It's not hard to take a look at, since it's free to download.

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Niek's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2010

    Default Re: Square system, round game

    Quote Originally Posted by Totally Guy View Post
    I ran a Burning Wheel game last year for a blogger called Chatty DM. He's part of Critical Hits, the D&D blog that won the Ennie this year.

    After looking at some other games, Mouse Guard, Leverage and Apocalypse World he wrote about how to take the things he liked from them and incorporate them into the D&D games he ran.

    His advice on how he now runs D&D games can be found here.

    Unfortunately it's inadvisable to change the game system of an existing campaign when someone isn't bought into change. If you can set aside time for a one shot then players can try before they buy. Even the doubters have to say "Let's give this a fair shot." This is true whether it's FATE of any of those I mentioned.


    Edit: Most of us have made assumptions about what you want the game to do instead of being D&D. What do you see your game being about that the system isn't supporting?
    Thematically, the game is supposed to be largely about internal strength and things not being what they seem. The former goal is impeded by the heavy gear-dependence imposed by the system, and the latter by how the system forces characters into fixed roles and cripples anyone who tries to change the trajectory of their character's development mid-game. The combat-oriented nature of the game also makes it very difficult to have the players suffer any direct failures that don't result in character deaths, which puts me in a position of having to choose between short-changing the competence of NPCs and removing narrative tension, or risk losing the people who are supposed to be the main drivers of the plot (the PCs)
    Mechanically, the default economy assumed by the D&D system, wherein adventurers routinely carry around the net worth of entire towns on their person, thoroughly breaks my suspension of disbelief as a worldbuilder. It also feeds the players' sense of entitlement towards magical gear. The high power level of the magic system is also a problem, especially the availability of resurrection magic, since the ways in which death and the afterlife function in my setting are one of the two most important things about it (the other being divine politics). Also, in this setting all spellcasting is divine in nature either directly (clerical magic, shamanism) or indirectly (scholarly magic learned by solving riddles left by the god of knowledge). This makes it an external power source, something which, while useful, I do not want players to have as their sole source of ability. Within D&D however, if I take away the cleric or the wizard's magic they have little to no ability to achieve much anymore, since the system encourages hyper-specialization to such a degree.

  11. - Top - End - #11
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Totally Guy's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Square system, round game

    Yeah, those are pretty deeply imbedded properties of D&D which probably makes the advice I posted insufficient to handle you problem.

    I think you need to talk to the group about switching games using those tight few points as the fundamental problems that you have.

    Also read more games until you find one that really excites you that'll play the game that you want to play.
    Mannerism RPG An RPG in which your descriptions resolve your actions and sculpts your growth.

  12. - Top - End - #12
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Knaight's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2008

    Default Re: Square system, round game

    Quote Originally Posted by Totally Guy View Post
    Also read more games until you find one that really excites you that'll play the game that you want to play.
    The first post handled this. It was called FATE.
    I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums.

    I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that.
    -- ChubbyRain

    Current Design Project: Legacy, a game of masters and apprentices for two players and a GM.

  13. - Top - End - #13
    Orc in the Playground
     
    HalfOrcPirate

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Marburg, Germany
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Square system, round game

    It sounds like D&D is the wrong system for you, but the right system for your players. If you don't want to switch groups, you'll have to find a modus vivendi (which can also be letting someone else DM). Mechanics alone won't solve the problem of incompatible playing styles.
    IMHO the main appeal of D&D is "hacking" the system to build the character or concept you want in a mechanically sound way. It has rather inflexible rules, but lots of them (sometimes contradictory, sometimes multiple solutions for the same problem that only differ in technicalities). This puts it pretty far in the "gamist" corner of systems ("narrativism" is IMHO an attribute that can't be applied to systems, only to play styles - you can have a narrativist approach to D&D, but a pure gamist won't find it enjoyable - and a pure simulationist won't find D&D enjoyable anyway).
    Also, don't think too much about "your story", as this tends to lead to railroading. And while gamists usually don't care too much about railroading in a purely story-wise sense, they WILL be upset once you limit their mechanical choices without good reason or present them with "unfair" encounters.
    Spoiler
    Show


    Want a generic roleplaying system but find GURPS too complicated? Try GMS.

  14. - Top - End - #14
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Totally Guy's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Square system, round game

    Quote Originally Posted by Knaight View Post
    The first post handled this. It was called FATE.
    Oh yeah, I forgot about that.
    Mannerism RPG An RPG in which your descriptions resolve your actions and sculpts your growth.

  15. - Top - End - #15
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2007

    Default Re: Square system, round game

    I believe that with enough system familiarity on the DM's side, one can tweak D&D 3.5 to fit more setting ideas than one first thinks it possible.

  16. - Top - End - #16
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Totally Guy's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Square system, round game

    Quote Originally Posted by Cespenar View Post
    I believe that with enough system familiarity on the DM's side, one can tweak D&D 3.5 to fit more setting ideas than one first thinks it possible.
    I don't think this is a setting issue. It looks like the issue is what is happening during play.
    Mannerism RPG An RPG in which your descriptions resolve your actions and sculpts your growth.

  17. - Top - End - #17
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tyndmyr's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Square system, round game

    Quote Originally Posted by Totally Guy View Post
    I don't think this is a setting issue. It looks like the issue is what is happening during play.
    Agreed. A wild number of settings can exist in D&D, but gameplay in any of them tends be remarkably similar. Hell, you even see some bleed over in D&D modern because of the similarities. Some adventures in there sound a great deal like D&D games with renamed features.

    D&D is fantastic at certain types of games. If you want to crawl through a dungeon, kill monsters, and take off with the loot...it's a solid choice. It can dabble in other things as well, but the focus is mostly on that.

    If you want to run a non-combat, tense social investigatory game...D&D is not a particularly good choice. Oh, you can try to force it, but the system is fighting you, not helping. It's much more painful that it needs to be.

  18. - Top - End - #18
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Another_Poet's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    New Orleans and abroad
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Square system, round game

    Best advice I can give is to ask them to give you a three-session chance. Which means:

    1. Put the current game on pause,

    2. Run a mini-campaign on FATE over three sessions,

    3. See what they think.

    Maybe they'll like it enough to let you transition the long-term campaign over. If they don't, no amount of debate is going to change things.
    I just published my first novella, Lúnasa Days, a modern fantasy with a subtle, uncertain magic.

    You can grab it on Kindle or paperback.

    Proud to GM two Warhammer Adventures:


    Plays as Ulrich, Student of Law

  19. - Top - End - #19
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2007

    Default Re: Square system, round game

    Meh. I've been in enough D&D 3.5 games to know that its forte lies not with catering to dungeoncrawlers alone, but rather with its flexibility if you just are brave enough to tweak a couple of (or more) rules. But since the general idea seems to be suggesting new systems, I'll not argue further.
    Last edited by Cespenar; 2011-09-25 at 02:27 PM.

  20. - Top - End - #20
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Knaight's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2008

    Default Re: Square system, round game

    Quote Originally Posted by Cespenar View Post
    Meh. I've been in enough D&D 3.5 games to know that its forte lies not with catering to dungeoncrawlers alone, but rather with its flexibility if you just are brave enough to tweak a couple of (or more) rules. But since the general idea seems to be suggesting new systems, I'll not argue further.
    Have you played enough of other systems to see what they do for comparison? There are things D&D doesn't do as well as other systems, at least not without enough tweaking for it to be unrecognizable. D&D can't imitate Fiasco, and won't imitate FATE well.
    I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums.

    I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that.
    -- ChubbyRain

    Current Design Project: Legacy, a game of masters and apprentices for two players and a GM.

  21. - Top - End - #21
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Square system, round game

    Quote Originally Posted by Reluctance View Post
    Switching systems isn't going to change player personalities.
    No, but it will change the behaviours that the system rewards and punishes. Most people aren't so stupid as to carry on doing something that isn't being rewarded.
    Wushu Open Reloaded
    Actual Play: The Shadow of the Sun (Acrozatarim's WFRP campaign) as Pawel Hals and Mass: the Effecting - Transcendence as Russell Ortiz.
    Now running: Tyche's Favourites, a historical ACKS campaign set around Massalia 300BC.
    In Sanity We Trust Productions - our podcasting site where you can hear our dulcet tones, updated almost every week.

  22. - Top - End - #22
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    kaomera's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2010

    Default Re: Square system, round game

    I think that Knaight is arguing mechanics, whereas Cespenar is arguing results. System does matter, but so do the players. The problem with a purely "system matters" approach is that in discarding the (pointlessly disparaging) idea that "you aren't getting the results you want because you just aren't a good enough gamer" it also can tend to toss out the fact that how the players approach the game definitely does affect the outcome. Most system-matters games seem to approach this by punishing the "wrong" play style (usually indirectly). Which is fine as far as it goes - they're also (IME pretty universally) pretty upfront about what they're trying to do. The usual stumbling point will be players who are used to reading any instructions on how to use a game system as vague suggestions at best.

    3.5 (or whatever edition) D&D is actually far more useful for some players in running a story-based game (whether this is narativism or not I don't really know; g/n/s tends to break down when you're talking about actual systems / actual play) in that they do not want the system to have much direct impact on how they tell the story. I think this group seems to be diminishing, so perhaps that was simply a reaction to dealing with the desire for that type of game before there where systems that really handled it, mechanically.

    Anyway, back around to the OP, I think that while I agree with Cespenar that you can get the results you're looking for from 3.5, the willingness not just to accept rules tweaks, but to try a different mode of play at all, seems absent from these players (AFAICT). Just as the simplest example that I can come up with - awarding "story XP" doesn't help if the players are willing to forgo that XP because they find story stuff too much of a chore to bother with.

    The basic issue is that we game to have fun, and XP, FATE points, or whatever are strictly secondary (or at least should be - I have encountered players who have stuck it out with games they just weren't having fun with; heck, I've been that player once or twice...). No system is actually "sprinkled with magical pixie dust" to the extent that it actually produces great results regardless of the players.

  23. - Top - End - #23
    Banned
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2010

    Default Re: Square system, round game

    Quote Originally Posted by Niek View Post
    Thematically, the game is supposed to be largely about internal strength and things not being what they seem. The former goal is impeded by the heavy gear-dependence imposed by the system,
    So the characters have a lot of stuff? So what? Say they each have ten magic items, as long as they don't have 10 rings of wishing, then they won't have stuff for every conceivable thing that might happen. Try not to think of magic items as 'external', but more 'internal' parts of a character.


    Quote Originally Posted by Niek View Post
    and the latter by how the system forces characters into fixed roles and cripples anyone who tries to change the trajectory of their character's development mid-game.
    Not true. You can make a character any way you want too. When you say 'cripples' your sounding like a min/maxing roll player. There is nothing wrong with playing an archer with a dex of 11 or a wizard that is bad at casting spells.

    Quote Originally Posted by Niek View Post
    The combat-oriented nature of the game also makes it very difficult to have the players suffer any direct failures that don't result in character deaths, which puts me in a position of having to choose between short-changing the competence of NPCs and removing narrative tension, or risk losing the people who are supposed to be the main drivers of the plot (the PCs).
    Any drama needs to have loss and/or failure, or it's pointless. If the good guys can just blink and save the day, why bother playing?

    Other then death, you have three big failures to use in the game:

    1.Loss of stuff. Simple enough, the magic sword breaks or the ring falls into a volcano or such.
    2.Afflictions. Things such as curses and magical effects.
    3.Drama stuff. Sure they can kill Mr Bad, but if he kills princess Joy first, then it's a failure.



    Quote Originally Posted by Niek View Post
    Mechanically, the default economy assumed by the D&D system, wherein adventurers routinely carry around the net worth of entire towns on their person, thoroughly breaks my suspension of disbelief as a worldbuilder. It also feeds the players' sense of entitlement towards magical gear. The high power level of the magic system is also a problem, especially the availability of resurrection magic, since the ways in which death and the afterlife function in my setting are one of the two most important things about it (the other being divine politics). Also, in this setting all spellcasting is divine in nature either directly (clerical magic, shamanism) or indirectly (scholarly magic learned by solving riddles left by the god of knowledge). This makes it an external power source, something which, while useful, I do not want players to have as their sole source of ability. Within D&D however, if I take away the cleric or the wizard's magic they have little to no ability to achieve much anymore, since the system encourages hyper-specialization to such a degree.
    This is a common problem with many players, and most feel the answer is to go 'low magic'. The idea is that a 'gritty, dirty setting is better. But I have a better way to go.....go high magic. This very nicely balances things out. The characters might have tons of magic stuff, but so does everyone else. Even just giving the world common access to low level magic is great.

    Why not change the way raising the dead works? Sure the PH says 'snap your fingers' and your alive...but you can change that.

    And Divine Politics....make them more active in the world. My gods are, and it works out great.

  24. - Top - End - #24
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Kobold

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Central Kentucky
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Square system, round game

    Quote Originally Posted by bloodtide View Post
    Not true. You can make a character any way you want too. When you say 'cripples' your sounding like a min/maxing roll player. There is nothing wrong with playing an archer with a dex of 11 or a wizard that is bad at casting spells.
    In a heroic miniatures tactical battlemat game where survival hinges on competence at combat? Yes, yes there IS a problem with playing characters which can't pull their weight. 1.) Your character dies. Or you cause the party to die. 2.) Verisimilitude of the game setting breaks when, due to your 'PC Halo' the party keeps on traveling with you and giving you a full share of the loot, and doesn't kick you out, even though you are a liability to the party.

  25. - Top - End - #25
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Niek's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2010

    Default Re: Square system, round game

    Quote Originally Posted by bloodtide View Post
    So the characters have a lot of stuff? So what? Say they each have ten magic items, as long as they don't have 10 rings of wishing, then they won't have stuff for every conceivable thing that might happen. Try not to think of magic items as 'external', but more 'internal' parts of a character.
    I don't see how I can do so. Magic items are something someone has, not something they are. Anyone else could pick up those items and get the same effect out of them, so what about them makes the PCs so special?




    Not true. You can make a character any way you want too. When you say 'cripples' your sounding like a min/maxing roll player. There is nothing wrong with playing an archer with a dex of 11 or a wizard that is bad at casting spells.
    When half of the party are hardcore min/maxers, it becomes an issue. In this particular case, one of them was all set to begin playing a half-fey sorceress who I thought had a rather interesting backstory, but then changed his mind as soon as he heard that another player was going to be a druid (he ended up playing a human cleric, begging me to allow him to apply the favored weapon bonus from his War domain to greatswords despite his deity's favored weapon being a lance).



    Any drama needs to have loss and/or failure, or it's pointless. If the good guys can just blink and save the day, why bother playing?

    Other then death, you have three big failures to use in the game:

    1.Loss of stuff. Simple enough, the magic sword breaks or the ring falls into a volcano or such.
    2.Afflictions. Things such as curses and magical effects.
    3.Drama stuff. Sure they can kill Mr Bad, but if he kills princess Joy first, then it's a failure.
    1. A couple of the players are already frustrated with me over the perceived "weakness" of their magic items compared to those of others (I gave each character a special magic item at the end of their first adventure). Taking them away altogether is unlikely to help me there, and besides I have given each of the items some degree of quest-relevance that would be wasted if I took them away.
    2. D&D doesnt make it very easy to give a character any long-term afflictions that arent easily solvable via magic, especially since there is a cleric in the party.
    3. One of my main sources of frustration is how preoccupation with the mechanics is keeping the players from so much as remembering the names of quest NPCs. Part of the reason I want to switch to a system like FATE where the mechanics are more closely tied to the narrative is to force the party to care more.


    This is a common problem with many players, and most feel the answer is to go 'low magic'. The idea is that a 'gritty, dirty setting is better. But I have a better way to go.....go high magic. This very nicely balances things out. The characters might have tons of magic stuff, but so does everyone else. Even just giving the world common access to low level magic is great.

    Why not change the way raising the dead works? Sure the PH says 'snap your fingers' and your alive...but you can change that.

    And Divine Politics....make them more active in the world. My gods are, and it works out great.
    But doing such would require dramatic changes to the setting to account for the effect such high magic access would have on society.

  26. - Top - End - #26
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    kaomera's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2010

    Default Re: Square system, round game

    I think the example of a character who is bad at what they're supposed to do is just kind of a bad example. While you can certainly make an interesting character for which this holds true, I think that there's going to be something more significant that makes the character cool / interesting / dramatic; quite possibly that's going to be why the character is attempting a role they aren't really suited for in the first place.

    One of D&D strengths is that it doesn't really do anything to stop you from roleplaying any way you want to (well, possibly alignment), but that also means that it has nothing that really encourages anything particular. You can award "story XP" and such, but I've generally found that it's not really a serious incentive as much as just a "reward" for players who came to the table wanting the same things the DM did. And the problem with XP (and magic items, and any other power-ups) in D&D is that there has developed a real expectation of a particular rate of progress that IMO tends to be a really significant push towards seeing power acquisition as the major or even only significant measure of progress in the game. Characters don't tend to get played as if they had any desires or goals beyond that.

    Edit: you posted this while I was typing...
    Quote Originally Posted by Niek View Post
    3. One of my main sources of frustration is how preoccupation with the mechanics is keeping the players from so much as remembering the names of quest NPCs. Part of the reason I want to switch to a system like FATE where the mechanics are more closely tied to the narrative is to force the party to care more.
    I really hope this works out for you. Unfortunately it's been my experience that you really can't force players to care more about NPCs or the world or the story. What you can do is give them more room to care, and I think that ideally FATE does this: Since more of the story-stuff ends up getting on the character sheets, where the players not only have to but hopefully want to pay attention to it (they want FATE points, yes?), it becomes less of a chore to remember such stuff. Hopefully this leads to the players finding that they enjoy this style of game.
    Last edited by kaomera; 2011-09-25 at 08:39 PM. Reason: avoid double-posting

  27. - Top - End - #27
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Niek's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2010

    Default Re: Square system, round game

    Yeah, and the sheer rate at which characters advance in power under D&D completely breaks my immersion, as I cant help but think of them as mary sues when they can achieve in a few months what 99.9999% of the world takes decades to do.

  28. - Top - End - #28
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Square system, round game

    Might want to try and resolve why the group is trying to optimize so much. Did they try to do this before in GURPS? It sounds like this isn't an issue with making the game fit the campaign, but making your players fit the campaign. For whatever reason, they see "D&D" and think "We need to be optimized!"

    On the topic of magic items: They're a part of the character like a warriors sword is, and a mages spells are. Worst comes to worst, use a leveling items system and make their equipment literally part of them. The Fighter has his ancestral sword, some cool armor, and a couple of 'trinkets' that fit him in some way. It's fairly easy to create/price up new magic items using Pathfinder rules, not sure about 3.5 as I haven't looked in a while - one of my recent characters, as part of his gear, had a ring that let him use Cure Light Wounds 3/day, rather than disposable wands or potions or whatnot.

    Ninja Edit: Then slow it down. Less experience. Give them rewards in the form of LOOT loot - more disposable items, petty cash, and so on, rather than magic items, tons of gold, etc. Once again, cool trinkets are always interesting, and don't have to be potent or combat enhancing to be well liked and useful.
    Last edited by Darkone8752; 2011-09-25 at 08:42 PM.

  29. - Top - End - #29
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    kaomera's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2010

    Default Re: Square system, round game

    Quote Originally Posted by Niek View Post
    Yeah, and the sheer rate at which characters advance in power under D&D completely breaks my immersion, as I cant help but think of them as mary sues when they can achieve in a few months what 99.9999% of the world takes decades to do.
    That's (potentially) one of the big secrets of D&D: the players really are Mary-Sues. The kind of wish fulfillment that you can get with D&D doesn't always come up the same way in other games, although it's almost always there in some way. This really ought to be / is supposed to be a significant strength of the system, and for a lot of players (probably most / nearly all) it is.

  30. - Top - End - #30
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Niek's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2010

    Default Re: Square system, round game

    I know, but it rubs me the wrong way. I take it as an insult to all of the other people in the setting who don't happen to be controlled by players, since it leads the players to considering them dumb and useless, and I find it removes any sense of meaning from the power gain when it comes so easily. Mastering a skill or spell should be an achievement, not something that can be taken care of with a few weeks of dungeon crawling.
    Last edited by Niek; 2011-09-25 at 08:57 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •