Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Ogre4Hire 04-13-05, 07:12 PM	Just wondering what types of campaigns people prefer. I personally prefer combat based encounters, since I've noticed that skill based encounters tend to involve only one or two players while the rest of the party just waits around, while combat encounters typically involve everyone.
wordserpent 04-13-05, 07:21 PM	I try to have a little of everything in my games. It really depends on what the PC's are playing. If the group is full of warriors, I'll throw a lot of beasties their way. I used to run a 2nd edition game where everyone played a fighter specialized in the longsword. It was ridiculous. I threw a lot of skeletons at them and lots of problem-solving and RP events too and they hated it. They just wanted to kill stuff.
q'afuu 04-13-05, 07:25 PM	My players usually make for a varied party. Limiting a campaign by focusing on either would leave some of them unsatisfied. Hence, I make sure to have both in equal measure. It's possible to approach combat encounters from a skill perspective and players with a little imagination can get involved in skill-based challenges despite not having much in the way of skill ranks to fall back on, so nobody has to get bored while dealing with either anyway.
LukiLoki 04-13-05, 07:33 PM	One of my ambitions is to run an espionage/intrigue mini-campaign. Our group plays hack n slash, pretty much exclusively. Beyond the objection you raise about full participation, one thing that always occurs to me when I contemplate a skill-heavy adventure is that it just seems "fragile" from the point of view of the PCs. What I mean by this is that a well-rounded party in a combat encounter has so many different tricks and tactics they can use, that it usually doesn't come down to "who can do this one specific thing" so much as "we'll find a way." But with Diplomacy, stealth, or any other suspenseful situation where skill use is the way out, it just seems like one bad roll and it's all over. The rogue (spy) is discovered and executed, or the paladin (diplomat) is barred from the negotiation, or what have you, and the adventure is over. Y'know what I mean?
Ogre4Hire 04-13-05, 07:41 PM	Totally. In the campaign I've been playing in since July (which unfortunately just got shelved until further notice because the DM's just got so much going on he doesn't have time), the rogue had decided to build a total diplomacy/bluff based character. He was great at convincing people to let us into the castle or getting some false invitations to the Duke's ball, but other than that he was pretty much a flat tire, and while he was working my fighter was typically stuck standing around doing nothing (I had a few ranks in Intimidate, but the way the situations typically worked it wouldn't have helped out). Oh well. I was mostly curious since I'm about to start DMing on Friday (been talking about it for a long time, now I'm actually going to do it).
wordserpent 04-13-05, 09:27 PM	Having situation that require skill rolls doesn't necessarily have to end the adventure on a roll of "1". As a DM you can bend the rules a bit. If a player comes up with a particulary ingenious bluff for example just have it automatically suceed. It would have to be really ingenious though...I'm talking Ulysses style bluffing. As for failed skill rolls, give the player a second chance if he or she fails. Consider the sneaking rogue: A rogue is trying to sneak into a castle and a pair of guards comes by. Rogue: (Rolls a "1" for her hide in shadows and move silently check) Guard 1: Hey Jim. Did you hear that? Guard 2: Yeah I think it came from over there. (the guards start to walk in the rogues direction) Rogue: (perform check: 18)"Reeeeow!" (makes a catlike Noise and rustles some bushes). Guard 2: ( Wisdom check: 5. FAILED) Aw, it's just a cat. C'mon lets get some chow, I'm hungry. As you can see there are infinite possibilities. making the adventure run more like a story than a series of skill checks helps keeps things moving too.
Flakster 04-13-05, 10:29 PM	My group enjoys a mix of Roleplay/Combat. I really love throwing in challenging things where the party will have to spend a lot of time roleplaying/planning/recon to find out more about a location/mission, then execute. Of course, I make it worth their whiles, providing many monsters for the lots of expness.
weasel fierce 04-14-05, 01:59 AM	I try to use the golden rule that a good adventure should include: At least 1 fight At least 1 pure roleplay scene At least 1 puzzle or trick Generally works fine, and gives everyone a bit of everything, which is good. Variying the adventures also helps restrain overspecialized characters.
Kalanth 04-14-05, 04:01 AM	Its really what the players dictate that make up the game. With my games (When I DM), I like to throw a good amount of RP encounters at the players, and balance those out with combat situations as well. When it comes to combat, I do what I can to overwhelm the do gooders with confusing and puzzle esque battles. A combat where you are fighting on a precariously balanced disk where it will fall if to many are in one place, thats fun to me. I don't want things to be to normal in combat, I want it to feel like combat, if you catch my meaning. As a player, I want a lot of combat. I love cutting down the enemies and seeing their faces as I slaughter the masses. . . . What can I say, I am special. :)
weasel fierce 04-14-05, 04:04 AM	I agree that letting the players dictate things a fair bit, is a good idea. However, I generally try to mix it up a little. If I know they like to fight, I'll make it combat heavy BUT there'll be a few challenges that require thinking or roleplaying, to make them be a little more carefull.
Syrus The Red 04-14-05, 10:40 AM	I usually run games that are 80% RP and 30% Fighting with skillchecks cluttering both fields. Our games usually run moderatelly fast with plenty of time to discuss tactics and ideas appropriate to the situation. After the game I usually take suggestions about the game we just played (i.e. How was the combat? Did it suck when you failed that listen check? ect.) after the game before everyone leaves and ask for ideas to make the game better or more memorable. They seem to like the Role-Playing aspect better than the combat, but there have been times where all they want to do is gut some random group of orcs. If you are a DM ask your players for suggestions. If you are a player make sure your suggestions are heard. I personally love getting lost in the realm Role-Playing. Good Luck.
Ogre4Hire 04-14-05, 12:40 PM	Having situation that require skill rolls doesn't necessarily have to end the adventure on a roll of "1". As a DM you can bend the rules a bit. If a player comes up with a particulary ingenious bluff for example just have it automatically suceed. It would have to be really ingenious though...I'm talking Ulysses style bluffing. I'm sort of opposed to this in that it favors players who are really good at thinking on the fly and penalizes players who aren't. Player: I'm going to walk brazenly up to the guard, demand to be let in while waving this badge we got from our last encounter... DM: That's what you'd like to do. Okay, hotshot, make your bluff check.
CzarGarrett 04-14-05, 12:51 PM	I prefer a good mix of the two. Sure, I definately want to get down and dirty with a bunch of ogres and then slit their stomachs open. But I also want the chance to smooth talk the local lord into providing mounts for my party, or convince the BBEG that he's doing a ritual wrong and I can help him, before I drop kick him in the head into a pool of lava.
q'afuu 04-14-05, 01:25 PM	I'm sort of opposed to this in that it favors players who are really good at thinking on the fly and penalizes players who aren't. I don't think it does so in an unfair way. Especially since the DM can give a hint or two if he thinks the player can use one (maybe on the condition that an Int or Wis check is passed). If the party is heard despite their efforts to move silently, but the wizard casts a silenced illusion to distract suspicious guards, what are you going to do? Disallow it because other players might not have thought of that? That doesn't sound right to me. If a player doesn't know what to do when you ask him his next action, and you feel the *character* would be savvy enough to think of something, call for an easy Int (quick thinking) or Wis (intuition/hunch/divine intervention) check and if it succeeds, give a non-specific suggestion of something that might be worth a try ("maybe you could try to create a diversion, like that other time when you did that ambush?").
Ogre4Hire 04-14-05, 01:43 PM	No, I said that I wasn't going to let people automatically suceed on charisma based skill checks just because the player is really good at thinking up stuff. On the Silenced illusion question: I wouldn't disallow it (unless I decided that Inititive rolls were in order, in which case the Wizard would have to wait his turn), but I wouldn't allow it to automatically succeed in distracting the guards, either.