Post/Author/DateTime	Post
control freak 07-05-07, 02:46 PM	as a player i have seen this very few times, but usualy only on stupidly incorrectly CRed monsters (im looking at you dominion/ pits) and tipicaly if the dm thinks its a stupid monster he will do all of the DMs favor he is legaly allowed to do but to my knowlage its much better as many of the templates that break monsters are just stupid and the DM doesnt want to TPK because the author thought that it would be "funny" to see a mob or a "shadow something or rather" in any event what do you all think of DM softballing personaly i think it is fine provided its only in situations described above such as stupid monsters, and broken traps i dont think it should occure often but if mods get as hard as some we have then DM softballing will become more relivant and more frequent
bitznarf 07-05-07, 03:02 PM	Might I suggest some punctuation?
MatteBlack 07-05-07, 03:32 PM	In general I think it probably balances out the LG universe against PC unfriendly DM actions in other areas or times. I think death and consequences should be part of D&D but, I'll never fault a DM for pulling his punch as long as he's not playing favorites.
Mattastrophic 07-05-07, 03:43 PM	I used to do it myself, but then I saw the effects of DM softballing as I climbed the APLs. Really poor players continuing to climb the APL chain, and tactical stupidity that should've been filtered out at APL 6. Also, as a DM, I realized that softballing throws the curve out of whack and is really bad for the campaign as a whole. Also, death, after you experience it, really isn't that bad. So you burn a few gold and drop a level for about three to four modules, whoopdee-doo. Not the end of the world. Plus, I've run plenty of "TPK" encounters that are faaaarrr from TPKs in practice. If they were, I would have quite a few TPKs under my belt, wouldn't I? But I don't. -Matt
control freak 07-05-07, 03:53 PM	the "far from TPKS" in practice depend SOULY on party composition in dominion for our party we had a REALLY strong party and DM softballing and still came REALLY close to a TPK i think that theres no problem with deaths in greyhawk, i just dont like perma deaths because they do discourage players (ie deaths at low levels or deaths where you turn to ash or become undead) deaths even perma deaths arent terrible but i would hate a perma death because of a writer WAYYY under CRing a monster
Mattastrophic 07-05-07, 04:06 PM	the "far from TPKS" in practice depend SOULY on party composition in dominion for our party we had a REALLY strong party and DM softballing and still came REALLY close to a TPK i think that theres no problem with deaths in greyhawk, i just dont like perma deaths because they do discourage players (ie deaths at low levels or deaths where you turn to ash or become undead) deaths even perma deaths arent terrible but i would hate a perma death because of a writer WAYYY under CRing a monster I keep hearing about Dominion... gahh, I can hardly wait to play it now. And it's definitely not solely dependent on party composition; initiative rolls, hostile DMs, or just the way the dice fall swing things as well. You're absolutely correct about permadeaths, Resurrection-required deaths at low levels, and I'll even add "deaths that rob you of all your stuff," which are the worst because they might as well be a permadeath for a mid- to high-level character. After dealing with one permadeath, one I blame on an antagonistic DM, I've since realized that permadeath should just go away. There are plenty of ways to kill PCs without having to resort to making it permanent. -Matt
control freak 07-05-07, 04:11 PM	oh i forgot about those thanks for the reminder i have a good story about that a friend of mine playing a dwarven high damage hitter (level 4 i think) just got his mitheral full plate for half price, and when he saw a team member being kocked out (playing the same type of dwarf) to be enslaved he proceeded to roll back to back 20s and 10,10,9 on damage and tells him "you owe me one" later that adventure the same thing happens accept that he rolls slightly lower damage and as for dominion, i recommend you play it with a strong party but thats just me :D youll see what i mean when you play it
JJeff 07-05-07, 09:22 PM	I usually softball when I run my games and the monsters are just too wrong. Like Empowered CL 15 traps at APL2 and min-max-ed BBEGs. The only time my players die is when they make their own tactical mistakes; like when the fighters move away and give me a clear path to the wizard or when they leave their friends to die in a death grip of an assasin vine whiel they run away... As for Dominions... Well.... opening doors and immediately closing doors when you see what you do not like inside and running and the GM allowing whetever was inside to not chase is always good...
control freak 07-05-07, 09:39 PM	personaly i compleatly agree, they should die based on them screwing up, not based on an author on a power trip or trying to be a powergamer but with no PC restrictions
magebeast 07-06-07, 12:09 AM	personaly i compleatly agree, they should die based on them screwing up, not based on an author on a power trip or trying to be a powergamer but with no PC restrictions Crits happen, and sometimes you just die.
LGMoses 07-06-07, 02:37 AM	Crits do happen.
Cardinal Teplin 07-06-07, 09:06 AM	Softballing generally annoys me. It happens at times when the DM thinks the party won't be able to handle the situation, but the DM is not in the best position to be able to tell what the party can and can not handle. In general I find that softballing happens most often when it's unecessary, and just messes up the mod. There are a few exceptions to this - Situations where running away is impossible, situations where inexperienced players will have their characters die through no fault of their own, situations where the difficulty is the result of the mishandling of a rules mechanics, or situations where the encounter is not only unreasonable, but downright illegal. The last is difficult to judge until after the game, so I'm fairly tolerent of softballing, but in general I'd rather it happened to me less often.
KShaver 07-06-07, 10:14 AM	DMs should be looking at the module and the fights ahead of time. If one fight is just that crazy overkill then the GM needs to double check it. If its still crazy overkill then maybe theres a way around it. If softballing absolutely has to be done, then do it without the players knowledge, and be consistent about it. Changing a creatures attack and damage values in the middle of a fight will be obvious to most players (if you roll in front of the players, which I do, and the players appreciate it). Make the changes ahead of time, or come up with some alternatives (That blackguard NPC might stomp the the PCs and then send them packing, with the promise to never meddle in his affairs again). The worst thing that can happen is the players know you're softballing, such as when they see your rolls change, or when the creature starts deliberately wasting actions. ^I'm not advocating softballing, just suggestion that if it has to be done, do it discreetly, because... ...For many one of the biggest rewards of completing a tough module is the sense of accomplishment. Softballing just leaves a bad taste in the players mouths, and irritating feeling in the back of thier minds, et cetera... I can name a number of times I've seen a GM softball a fight when the players had it well in hand, and all I can do is shake my head.
control freak 07-06-07, 12:23 PM	or situations where the encounter is not only unreasonable, but downright illegal. like a CR 11 with beinificial terrain time of day and surprize round being labled a EL 9? :P
Galvin 07-06-07, 12:37 PM	once there was an APL4 table, the combat starts around 200ish feet apart, they have surprise, and all 3 mobs are supposed to drop fireballs, had the DM done this, and had we all made every save, everyone in the group except one would have died.
delewobmesid 07-06-07, 12:47 PM	I don't softball, my dice do...
amnuxoll 07-06-07, 02:07 PM	Might I suggest some punctuation? Dude! Don't complain. His spelling here is 200% better than previous posts. ;)
bitznarf 07-06-07, 02:17 PM	..
amnuxoll 07-06-07, 02:18 PM	Softballing has been a particularly tough issue for me. Personally, I hate to see a PC die (whether it's my PC or not). The whole Raise Dead thing feels like cheating to me. So, as a DM I have a strong pull to do this. But I also acknowledge that PC death is a critical part of this game. There have be incidents where I've softballed and it's been apparent that by doing so I've hurt the experience for the players. As a result, I've had to force myself to not pull punches where they should not be pulled. It's not easy, especially when it's my friends and/or a mod that I have written! I'm not perfect and I have failed to resist the urge to softball from time to time. But I am getting better. I believe there is a sweet spot where you can kill a PC and it's all good. I also think as a general rule two good reasons for softballing are: 1. A new player in an unlucky situation. If your first LG PC dies dies before you hit 3rd level then you're not coming back to the campaign. That serves nobody. 2. A table forced to play up on an overpowered mod (or with a four-player table) due to extenuating circumstances that could not be helped. 3. Tough intro mods (which should not exist to begin with IMHO) :AMN:
cycloptic_squirrel 07-07-07, 03:25 AM	Death is never an easy event for me, on either side of the screen. In general, I'm against softballing as the practice leads to the realization that there's no real danger of loss. Some of the most thrilling experiences I've had occurred where TPK or perma-death was a very real possibility. If I was with a DM who I knew would softball when things got difficult would take away the edge. It also takes away the chance for things to end well through sheer luck or tenacity or that backup scroll/favor/tactic you hoped you would never have to use. I once judged a regional finale at a con; I warned the table beforehand that it was very difficult, running is a valid tactic, and they better bring their A game. In two different combats I thought a TPK was imminent, but resisted the urge to softball. In the first, 2-3 very useful favors were expended and they got through with only one death. The final combat looked impossible until it was brought to a reasonable level through a natural twenty on a waraxe that had been bless weapon oiled pre-combat. After almost running, the party stayed and survived by buffing up the non-battle cleric who took down the last daemon and a lucky listen check by the scout against the invisible spellcaster. I pushed that party to the absolute limit and I think everyone had a better experience for it. There was once a fight where we were fighting a huge beast that was going to town on us. There were calls for retreats as well as calls to stick it out, but after the beast ripped through an animal companion and another PC it was pretty obvious that retreat was unavoidable. Half the party would not leave their comrade behind, I told them to go and I swore I'd take care of it. Even though I was low on hp, I five footed to the downed character, picked her up (thus drawing an AoO that thankfully only popped a mirror image), drew a scroll via swift response, and cast invisibility. During the retreat to an area that the beast couldn't follow, another party member fell to the pursuing creature. Using swift fly, I reached the entrance at the same time as the others at which time there was a declaration of a suicidal body retrieval attempt. I swore again to take care of it and that they should take the first PC to safety. Dropping the body, I cast enlarge person on myself while the beast, realizing he couldn't reach the rest of the party, moved to the other body and didn't seem to do anything. I double moved to the body, the rest of the party retreated to safety, and oddly the beast did nothing. I picked up the body, thus triggering the beast's readied attack, which luckily missed. The DM allowed me to wrap the fallen PC in my cloak, as I moved as long as I was committing my other hand to do so (the first hand holding the PC). The beast moved near me and attacked a square that were not mine and I retreated to safety. At APL 6, I was pushed to my absolute limit and that was to successfully fail to defeat the beast. Was certainly more memorable than somehow killing him because he somehow missed with most his attacks repeatedly. I think it comes down to the fact that most fights, at least someone can get away if they choose to; there's also those situations where the party can agree that the fight is too much for them and retreat. Softballing encourages people to stay and give it a try if it's dicey. Most TPKs or near-TPKs I've seen could have been avoided if the party had simply accepted defeat and/or retreated. It's not the DM who chooses death, it's the party that says, "Victory of bust!". Not every party should be able to defeat all missions.
_metz_ 07-07-07, 04:35 AM	I used to do it myself, but then I saw the effects of DM softballing as I climbed the APLs. Really poor players continuing to climb the APL chain, and tactical stupidity that should've been filtered out at APL 6. Hear Hear. I feel that as many have said, when its NOT the PCs fault, they shouldn't be outright killed . That being said, 'crit happens'.
Southernskies 07-07-07, 08:18 AM	once there was an APL4 table, the combat starts around 200ish feet apart, they have surprise, and all 3 mobs are supposed to drop fireballs, had the DM done this, and had we all made every save, everyone in the group except one would have died. If that was 3 "mobs" casting fireballs (as in the creature template), it should never have made it through editing. DMG2 pg 61 Mobs "... Abilities: A mob's abilities are the same as the base creature, except that its Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores drop to 10. ..."
pedr 07-07-07, 09:52 AM	'Mob' is MMORPG slang for 'mobile object', generally meaning computer-controlled creature. It's a pretty inappropriate slang word to bring across to D&D, particularly as we have a 'mob' (as in 'mobile vulgus', latin for 'fickle crowd') as a D&D rules item, but both meanings are going to be used, it seems, leading to potential confusion.
_metz_ 07-07-07, 10:56 AM	'Mob' is MMORPG slang for 'mobile object', generally meaning computer-controlled creature. It's a pretty inappropriate slang word to bring across to D&D, particularly as we have a 'mob' (as in 'mobile vulgus', latin for 'fickle crowd') as a D&D rules item, but both meanings are going to be used, it seems, leading to potential confusion. Well if people fail to use English, then they deserve confusion.To the original poster, please leave inappropriate slang elsewhere. Not all of us play MMORPGs. When I sit in a room pretending to be an elf, I like to have company and interpersonal relations. Whilst many do like such games, do not assume that because we play D&D that we play WoW, etc.
Mattastrophic 07-07-07, 01:24 PM	And if anyone dares to use the word "toon," I will slap you silly. -Matt
ShinAkuma2 07-07-07, 02:27 PM	"Toon" is military slang...Not quite the same stigma as MMORPGs there.
Eric Anondson 07-07-07, 05:56 PM	It's not like tabletop RPGers don't have their own indecipherable slang. If only we could end the use of "gish" for fighting-spellcasters who aren't githyanki. :rant:
katrick 07-08-07, 11:43 AM	I can see from these posts that players cannot distinguish effectively between the DM doing his/her job and the obscuring difference between play styles. Hardballing(a very underused term, and softballing) are judgement derisive terms used to define the DM ... AFTER the game. Both of these terms are never heard during a game, when the DM is doing everything in their power to make the game enjoyable for everyone. Most Char's never run, even when it's hinted at so strongly you can smell it! And to begin the argument about pulling punches to save cash against a Raise Dead, just leads to the old maxim about screaming loud enough and long enough that eventually someone will give in (just so that you stop screaming) Truly it's a bad Dm that lets his party know that he's being a wee Jessie! katrick
clannagh 07-08-07, 08:01 PM	I don't think we softball locally .. we had yet another TPK just yesterday. But by the same token we have one group of 10 to 12 year olds that play as a party and they never make it as far as level 3. Eventually they will probably give up and go play something else.
control freak 07-09-07, 11:20 AM	thats funny a group of really young kids lol good luck there so screwed (snickers a little) id love to DM dominion for them, but they would never reach level 4-5 (laughs diobolicaly)
solbergb 07-09-07, 12:42 PM	I can see from these posts that players cannot distinguish effectively between the DM doing his/her job and the obscuring difference between play styles. Hardballing(a very underused term, and softballing) are judgement derisive terms used to define the DM ... AFTER the game. Both of these terms are never heard during a game, when the DM is doing everything in their power to make the game enjoyable for everyone. Unfortunately that isn't really true. Both DM's being unusually vindictive (ignoring rules that advantage the PC's, having bad guys behave bizzarely because it increases the odds of a PC death instead of trying to win the fight or escape) and DM's being unusually soft (suddenly doing damage that exactly puts people at -9 with secret die rolls, adding rules about "you don't die till a round after you hit neg10" or having intelligent monsters start acting like they're under a confusion spell and attacking randomly) - these behaviors are noticed at the time and are not appreciated by players. But they usually keep their mouths shut because in the vindictive case they don't want the DM to get even nastier, and in the softball case, they don't want to be seen as advocating for a PC death. Either way though, they're not happy campers.
gomeztoo 07-09-07, 01:31 PM	But they usually keep their mouths shut because in the vindictive case they don't want the DM to get even nastier, and in the softball case, they don't want to be seen as advocating for a PC death. Either way though, they're not happy campers. I had one DM who refused to roll damage for a crit with a charging lance, intsead placing the PC at -9. The PC in question was an obnoxious lout (the PC, not the player), who had aggrevated the NPC into the charge. (it could be said that the NPC could also have decided to not attack like a rabid dog... but that's another discussion). Anyway, everyone felt that damage should be rolled (especially the player of the PC), but the DM refused. Eventually, my PC saved the PC (because that's what she does), butw e all did feel that this was - a stupid and unnecessary combat, AND - a dumb and extreme way of softballing We finished the mod, with the DM dropping hints all over when monsters were only on a few hp, etc. He simply didn't want to kill PCs (or endanger them too much, even). Now, I personally don't like killing PCs as a DM. And I don't like my PCs to die. But how the dice fall, that's how they fall. You ahve to accept that, as a DM and a player.
CrystalBlue 07-09-07, 01:39 PM	For those of you that know me, you already know how I run games and know if you want to play at my table or not. For the rest of you...HI! I'm Josh Schultz, I live in Highfolk...and I don't kill players. Ever. Why? Because it's unfair. More and more, I see EL's being incorrectly calculated and authors giving me the lame excuse that "Well, running is always a tactical option". These same authors throw in 3 encounters that all are around APL+3 with little to no rest time between each encounter. That's called a regional or core special, not a normal regional module. Because of the semi-unpredictable nature of party composition in LG, I see no reason why every table shouldn't be able to at least achieve minor victory in a game. But you're right...we should kill characters and not let them have everything. You're right, it does cheapen the game when you walk over everything like a steamroller. I should know...when I see level 8 and 9 characters walking tables of APL 12+, I know that it cheapens the game. I've been in parties where my cleric sits on the sidelines doing NOTHING! I know what you guys are talking about and I feel the same way. But...you know... you know what should happen then? The EL's of the encounters should be reduced. There are a lot of new players out there or players that just want to have fun. Why should they be 'filtered out' just because you want that Balor at APL 6? Or because you like the masochistic encounters that put you in a 3 round time limit without weapons and against a monster of APL+2 EL or be perma-deathed. This is an elitist point of view and I'm sick of it. It needs to stop. Now. I give my players a good run for their money and I've only been told once that I cheapened the game by asking how many hit points someone had before I dealt damage to them. Everyone likes the games that I run and until I start to have people get up and walk away from my tables, I will not try my hardest to kill a character. It's wrong, it's mean, and it's not the spirit of the game. It's just another way a DM can enlarge their ego and put you, as a player, down because you're not up to his professional level of play. This is a game. People deserve to have fun and let loose. Stop worrying them about getting their character killed every time they pick up a sword and look for adventure. The module has everything one needs to potentially kill a character. It's a judges job to keep the players having fun and not feeling like they're out of their league when they're playing. So, if you're coming to Conflict this year, I'll be more then happy to give you and your friends a great time when I run them through the Shadowdark or the premiers or even the interactive. They're always a lot of fun and very challenging. But if you think I'm gonna let you TPK the party just because you think your character needs to die to prove something, then please get up and request a new judge from the con organizer. I'll be hurt, but I'll get over it.
Cardinal Teplin 07-09-07, 01:49 PM	I had a DM who informed us at the beginning of the encounter that the encounter had a flaw, and that if we followed his plan it would be a cakewalk. We tried taking the fight straight, but he kept on at us to follow his plan, citing all the CR and EL values of the encounter and dropping hints about the powers the enemy had. Eventually the party agreed to follow his plan, and he immediately called the encounter, saying we'd win easily. He's a really nice guy, and doubtless a good player, but I really dread seeing him on the other side of that screen.
MatteBlack 07-09-07, 01:51 PM	So, if you're coming to Conflict this year, I'll be more then happy to give you and your friends a great time when I run them through the Shadowdark or the premiers or even the interactive. They're always a lot of fun and very challenging. But if you think I'm gonna let you TPK the party just because you think your character needs to die to prove something, then please get up and request a new judge from the con organizer. I'll be hurt, but I'll get over it. Hey, I'd happily switch seats with ya for a DM with that mindset.
control freak 07-09-07, 03:28 PM	theres only 3 situations death should ever occur and alot of people agree with me 1: player was doing something stupid, so stupid even he knows its stupid (not a tank walking up to a misCRed monster and getting grapple deathed but something like taking on the whole city gaurd to break some one out) 2: low level Crits and only very rarely 3: the PC is playing up more then 2 levels (or even just 2 levels in some cases such as specials) or playing a difficult mod far up
bitznarf 07-09-07, 04:16 PM	Count me as one of those who disagree with you control_freak. Death happens. It is a part of the game. Blown saves, lucky attack rolls and the like can all cause deaths. Crits can also cause death at high levels, and well they should. Bad tactics and poor party co-ordination can also cause deaths, and so they should. One other area where deaths don't really bother me: sub-iconic PCs. If an experienced player makes a sub-iconic PC, I have no sympathy. Off hand the only reasons I can think of to softball an encounter are because of lack of *player* experience or incorrectly calculated ELs, an EL 10/11 encounter masquerading as a EL9 at APL6 for example.
Drezden 07-09-07, 05:33 PM	I completely disagee. The game is one of chance - sometimes the dice just move against you and you die. That's just the way it goes. I also don't try to "re-write" or "re-calculate" a mod - if the mod has been approved and happens to be particularly deadly - which happens quite frequently with mods in my area - I run it that way. Part of the fun of the game is overcoming tough challenges. Besides, with the plethora of over the cap gold out there - almost all of the deaths that I have had as a DM were able to get a steep discount on the Raise Dead cost. Many of them - especially at higher level - were free. I almost never softball. The only exception being for very low level tables (APL2 or 4). Daren theres only 3 situations death should ever occur and alot of people agree with me 1: player was doing something stupid, so stupid even he knows its stupid (not a tank walking up to a misCRed monster and getting grapple deathed but something like taking on the whole city gaurd to break some one out) 2: low level Crits and only very rarely 3: the PC is playing up more then 2 levels (or even just 2 levels in some cases such as specials) or playing a difficult mod far up
control freak 07-09-07, 06:21 PM	i guess i should have 1 more thing on the list 4: terrible rolls in general
Some_call_me_Tim 07-09-07, 09:01 PM	I like the quote from the DMG (p. 18): A good rule of thumb is that a character shouldn't die a trivial way because of some fluke of the dice unless he or she was doing something really stupid at the time. I definitely don't go out of my way to kill PCs. Especially with over-powered NPCs and encounters. However, you do something bone-headed and get in trouble don't look for me to save you. You play up because you think your latest build is too-uber, don't look for breaks. But if you are stuck with the Wiz2 at the APL 4 table because it was the only seat open, I am not going to be targeting you with the big guns just because I can. I've only killed two PCs as a judge. One charged ahead and got surrounded and pummeled to death. The other was warned by the BBEG to let him pass with the McGuffin or die and I even described the crackling black energy surrounding his hand. The PC tried to stop him and failed his save vs. slay living. The first is an example of a PC doing something stupid, and the later was a little fool-hardy, but at least it wasn't a trivial death. I hated my only PC death. Ambushed by a chuul, paralyzed the first round, and masticated unto death. I wasn't doing anything stupid nor doing something heroic. One bad roll was all I got. It just sucked and I wouldn't want to do that to any other player.
clannagh 07-09-07, 09:23 PM	To be totally honest .. my main negative reaction to potential death of one of my PC's at a table and the reason i go looking for "get out of jail" favors to escape it is that a level loss often mucks up the APL's of already planned future games, especially at a con. Generally in the calm light of day afterwards I realise that longterm the occasional non permanent death just gives my PC more chances at good access, a bump above the gold curve (even without a free raise dead at levels over 6) and a slightly longer play history. At the table however it can be very stressful. What is annoying is permadeath from TPK's and so forth or death of a fun to play low level character that has good prospects but cant afford a raise.
Haro 07-09-07, 10:19 PM	I actually had to count to 10 before making the decision to respond to this, so as to better avoid a flame war. <exhale> :) I don't kill players. Ever. Why? Because it's unfair. More and more, I see EL's being incorrectly calculated and authors giving me the lame excuse that "Well, running is always a tactical option". These same authors throw in 3 encounters that all are around APL+3 with little to no rest time between each encounter. That's called a regional or core special, not a normal regional module. Because of the semi-unpredictable nature of party composition in LG, I see no reason why every table shouldn't be able to at least achieve minor victory in a game. Unfair that PCs die? Why run the combats at all then for Pete's sake? Why not just play home games if LG is so unfair? I object strongly to your professed style of judging. Why? Because it breeds players that then go onto other tables and get party members killed as they have no real concept of risk - since regardless of what they do at your tables, they will never die. Is that something that ever occurred to you? That there is a collateral damage to adopting this stance? In my experience, it is the judges that refuse to kill PCs that are responsible for the most death, it just doesn't happen at their tables. As far as incorrectly calculated ELs, I believe that is one of the bigger myths in LG. The problem is that the exceedingly rare cases that a stuff up has been made allows it to be perpetuated. If there is a problem with calculation of ELs and the level of threat to a party, it is a core rules issue and not one intrinsic to LG. Everyone likes the games that I run and until I start to have people get up and walk away from my tables, I will not try my hardest to kill a character. It's wrong, it's mean, and it's not the spirit of the game. It's just another way a DM can enlarge their ego and put you, as a player, down because you're not up to his professional level of play. I feel for you that your local area/region is filled with DMs that get off on killing characters. In my 200 ARs or so, I have never seen or heard of one behave in such a way in Australia. As for being mean and not in the spirit of the game, it only reinforces that you would likely be a great DM in a home game, where you can set your own rules and not have a flow on effect to the rest of the campaign. I certainly don’t believe that the chance of failure takes away the enjoyment of the game, however, removing the element of risk certainly does. This is a game. People deserve to have fun and let loose. Stop worrying them about getting their character killed every time they pick up a sword and look for adventure. The module has everything one needs to potentially kill a character. It's a judges job to keep the players having fun and not feeling like they're out of their league when they're playing. Again, why is it that character death = no fun? Death can be heroic, and the stories of those deaths are the ones that get told over and over again, rather than the time someone did 200 damage on a crit etc. It appears to me (and correct me if I am wrong) but was there an experience you had early in your LG career that caused such a strong reaction? You constantly refer to DMs as bloodthirsty, ego driven madmen who will stop at nothing to kill PCs for their own enjoyment. Similarly, you refer to modules as some kind of instrument of death to be wielded. References to player’s skill level and being out of their league at a table abound. The reality of my LG gaming experience could not be farther from yours it seems. But if you think I'm gonna let you TPK the party just because you think your character needs to die to prove something, then please get up and request a new judge from the con organizer. Again, characters don’t ‘need’ to die, what’s all that about? Your broadbrush comments on the motivations of the player base makes me feel like a two dimensional cardboard cutout. None of this would matter if there weren’t wider ramifications than what goes on at your table. Other posters have already mentioned the effect softballing has on a player’s skill level and I would certainly agree with them. :)
control freak 07-09-07, 11:50 PM	As far as incorrectly calculated ELs, I believe that is one of the bigger myths in LG. The problem is that the exceedingly rare cases that a stuff up has been made allows it to be perpetuated. If there is a problem with calculation of ELs and the level of threat to a party, it is a core rules issue and not one intrinsic to LG. i know of at least 2 current mods tthat have encounters FAR over the approriate ECL which compleatly are hard but not as broken as some other encounters i know of APL 6 7th level wiz firing off a scorching ray, well thats not that bad in grapple, he spont silences, stillls, maximizes, and empowers it on the monk grappling him of almost equal level, he proceeds to crit 2 times 24d6 mazimized... is 144 damage, at level 6 you could have a con of 20+ and you would probably still be dead (save delay death and we saved him after because we had a suped up healer) our DM allowed it simply because the mod spesificaly said he novas his spont meta magics to kill the PC that is the greatest threat to him at higher APLs he novas them on better spells and chains it (shakes my head) how could any one survive (at APL 8) chained, spont max, spont emp tripel raying rays, it would simply own the party the feats that are closed to PCs only are more deadly then writers who have decided to under CR monsters (IM LOOKING AT YOU DOMINION!) and not counting terrain the feats i look at and glare uneearingly at are the spont metamagics because you will probably only see them once and then they will die after, and a few other feats that are broken to add to bad guys only (ie undead feats and evil feats) personaly i will never as a DM use spont max, emp, quicken, EVER the silence, and still, and other ones are fine... as they dont NUKE the damage in an attempt to 1 hit a PC, i dont mind the actual maximize and empower feats those are fun and fine, they deal more damage but it honestly isnt that bad (as its HARD to go quicken,max, empower if not impossible on a single spell after all theres a reason they take spell levels) encounter level leathalness comes from 1 shot feats, have you ever seen a NPC with extra rage? thats because they dont have any thing to worry about other then those 2-4 rounds of combat (tipicaly its short in greyhawk) imoh thats what needs to be fundumentaly fixed in greyhawk
lunarfish 07-10-07, 01:46 AM	Haro, while I do not agree with CrystalBlue's opinions regarding PC deaths, I will say in his defense that his home region is Highfolk, and that has probably strongly influenced his opinions on PC deaths in LG. And in the interest of full disclosure, I will agree with one statement made above: In my opinion, character death = no fun. I've had a total of 7 character deaths over the lifetimes of 7 characters, and I've never enjoyed any of them, either before, during, or after.
ithardin 07-10-07, 03:03 AM	I would have considered myself a fairly lenient judge until this last weekend. In three tables of the same mod (one APL6, one APL4, one APL2) 5 PCs died. I changed the target of an attack at the APL2 table or there would have been a 6th death (a 10yr. old girl who was playing LG for the second time). I had warned the players that this module was one "you better bring your A game." Driving home from the game day I felt like a big jerk. But I realized that if the players learned from this experience (that charging the bad guy is not always the best maneuver) then it was okay. I was once told "a good DM doesn't kill you, he almost kills you."
_metz_ 07-10-07, 03:57 AM	If it wasn't for some quick use of favours, I would have killed several players last weekend also. I used to be a bit more lenient, but I quickly came to realise that this created three problems: 1. The players were learning bad habits/doing silly things. 2. Players started to expect it, and thought I was picking on them when it didn't happen. 3. Players were having issues with other DMs. I promptly stopped doing such things, and immediately some players felt the mods were much tougher, whilst others felt they were improved drastically. I know am pretty by the book, however I am still a firm believer that if I roll 8 20s in a row, or its NO fault of the PCs (seriously broken encounter) then whilst a death may still occur, I don't like it. I also don't like to exploit unbalanced parties. Hence I am not a fan of broken encounters, and personally feel that a well built character won't be taken out by crits very often. On the other side I am a very strong believer of the sphincter or 'clenching' factor. Players need to feel they are challenged, and feel that if they stuff up or fail to do what they are expected than they _will_ die.
Ramacass 07-10-07, 07:47 AM	Count me as one of those who disagree with you control_freak. Death happens. It is a part of the game. Blown saves, lucky attack rolls and the like can all cause deaths. Crits can also cause death at high levels, and well they should. Bad tactics and poor party co-ordination can also cause deaths, and so they should. One other area where deaths don't really bother me: sub-iconic PCs. If an experienced player makes a sub-iconic PC, I have no sympathy. Off hand the only reasons I can think of to softball an encounter are because of lack of *player* experience or incorrectly calculated ELs, an EL 10/11 encounter masquerading as a EL9 at APL6 for example. Agreed, 100%. The times I softball 1-inexperienced players or low level characters whose death would most likely deter players from LG 2-incorrectly calculated EL If I ever feel that the DM is softballing it really ruins the experience for me
CrystalBlue 07-10-07, 08:29 AM	I don't want you people to get the wrong impression. I don't softball PC's. I've dropped my share of casters and barbariens alike. I go all out when the tactics call for it and I use a monsters abilities to their utmost in combat. I know the rules and I run a challanging and fun game. But if you need to know why I have this view of LG? I live in Highfolk and frequent the Shieldlands. My main character started off in Sour Grapes. If you know the author of the mod or the mod in general, you know why I have a little tendancy to hate death of any sort. Mods like Sour Grapes, a certain year 5 Highfolk with a templated huge legendary paragon slime with combat reflexes in a 20ft X 20ft room. Racial Enemies. This is why I have a problem with character death. Play these games as an average, fun-seeking player and you'll see why I have a huge problem. And my judges in the area are the type to toy with you like a cat with a mouse. It's not fair, funny, and only amuses the judge. I have nothing wrong with these people personally, but in D&D, they act as though they're some elite players who know all of the right moves at the right time for everything. And you're just a child to them. Forget the part about making great charactes, trying to play well, or doing something heroic. To them, breaking mods and making PC's at the table feel hopeless and powerless is what being a judge and elite player is all about. When I tell you it's an elitist point of view, I'm not just trying to flame you. I'm not trying to **** you off. It is. Come to Highfolk, play in a few games, get your characters perma-deathed. Then you'll see how much fun it is to die. If I have to die, I want it to be fighting to the death, toe to toe with an enemy, giving it my all. Not being steamrolled by encounters of EL +3 and greater that are DMed to increase the EL by 1 or 2. Whether you agree with my rational or not, that's what it is. I'm not trying to **** you off. I'm trying to show you that death in LG, and in D&D in general, is not fun with the types of mods and judges I have to put up with.
MatteBlack 07-10-07, 09:47 AM	I have certainly met DMs looking for blood or or exacting vengeance for having a rule error pointed out. I have often met DMs who have bent the rules to the point of stress cracks to let unlucky characters slide by with there lives. I'd like for the situation to be one where there are fair challenges, real consequences and consistent DMing but, until mod scaling and DM bloodlust improve, I am fine with some softballing going on to balance things a bit.
solbergb 07-10-07, 09:55 AM	There is a difference between not playing an adversarial DM style and softballing. Frankly what Crystal just described leads me to believe that some "No characters must die" GM's are overreacting and going too far in the other direction. It's very simple really. Don't be a jerk when DMing. Play the mod the way it and the actual game rules say it should be played, modified by player actions and capabilities. Roll all dice in the open, so when bad stuff happens, nobody thinks you're being a jerk, and when good stuff happens, nobody thinks you're softballing. and my own personal trick..... Root for the players, while GMing the monsters to the best of their capabilities. I actually do feel bad when I roll that double-20 with the greataxe. Let it show. I'm sometimes transparent about targeting decisions too, so players don't feel I'm being arbirtrary or softball....eg. "well lets see, Joe the Squishie did 2 hitpoints to the Sea Cat while Grog-the-playing-down-tank did 24 points. The Sea Cat will open up on Grog." or "The wizard is yelling "Get this damn monk off me" and the cleric is his minion so the cleric tries a hold person on the monk" or "Hm, one guy in full plate tower shield (L4 fighter playing up) and one guy in a courtier outfit (L8 cork-monk playing down). He'll shock-trooper charge the guy in the courtier outfit hoping to drop him and cleave into the tower shield guy...." I think the funniest thing along those lines I did once was "Ok, barbarian-in-the-wizard's-face roll a will save. He's casting suggestion "attack the (evil) cleric over there instead!" Everyone was like "well, that's a pretty reasonable suggestion" The idea being that the cleric had much better AC and hitpoints and would likely survive till the two of them tag-teamed his hitpoints down to where a death touch would work. The cleric was prety mad, but hey, chaotic evil sometimes bites you....and the tactic DID almost work. I think the fact that it becomes clear that I want the PC's to find a way to succeed, but I run the monsters ruthlessly (but to the limits of their intelligence and knowledge about the players) and openly tends to lead to trust and mature acceptance when things go wrong, accomplishment when things go right. Other DM's have other strategies. But I think going overboard to say "nobody dies at my table" is every bit as bad as chortling with glee every time you rack up another body count (and slanting things in such a way as to rack up an unusually high PC body count)
CrystalBlue 07-10-07, 01:36 PM	I guess when I say this, you should also know that at the tables I play at, one PC death usually means a TPK for the party. And that's usually because you have paladins and other players that role-play a code of conduct that doesn't allow them to run from a fight or one that forces them to save a downed party member. It gets frustrating when you know you're bad off enough that you have to run, but when people start going down left and right, you never know if your enemies are going to follow you. And sometimes running means that the mod is over. I've played plenty of games that, if you run, you either run out of time or you lose VIP or VIO that's crucial to winning the mod. Sure, give the PC's a chance to fail...but don't completely ruin a 4 hour time slot by making them run or TPKing them in the first 30 minutes. Bottom line, this game is about having fun. And as I said, I've never had anyone really argue with me or dislike the way that I ran things except for one game way back last year at Conflict. And that's only because I wanted to keep the flow of the game and not look up a character ability and debate it's meaning and usage against an enemy power that was going to become moot in a few turns anyways. I run my games so players have fun. And if someone wants me to just give them the damage and not tell them what they're at, then fine. I'll ablige. But I'm not going to be a jerk and charge the person playing down with low Con just because I can. And I really like my streak of no kills. Most people keep tallies of their kills so they can tell everyone how great of a judge they are. I just keep the 0 in my mind to let me know that this game is about having fun and not punishing PC's because the raging Storm Giant just critted for the fourth time in a row. (Oh...and PS...please don't get mad at me. I was ranting because of where I live and who I play with, not because I dislike anyone here ^.^;; )
bitznarf 07-10-07, 01:57 PM	I guess when I say this, you should also know that at the tables I play at, one PC death usually means a TPK for the party. And that's usually because you have paladins and other players that role-play a code of conduct that doesn't allow them to run from a fight or one that forces them to save a downed party member. That would be their choice then wouldn't it? But I'm not going to be a jerk and charge the person playing down with low Con just because I can. Umm... there is a difference between not softballing and being a jerk. You've got a false dilemma going there. Most people keep tallies of their kills so they can tell everyone how great of a judge they are. I don't know about 'most people', but none of the DMs in my area ('my area' being Grande Prairie and Edmonton in this case) consider PCs deaths to be a measure of DM ability. DM luck perhaps, but not DM ability. If you are only talking about other DMs in 'your area' or 'your group' please say so. ...this game is about having fun and not punishing PC's because the raging Storm Giant just critted for the fourth time in a row. 'Punishing' the PCs? How is a crit 'punishment'? So the dice fell that way. So be it. Unless a vindictive DM is capable of setting the dice, the dice are random and in no way 'punish' the PCs. It just happens.
control freak 07-10-07, 02:32 PM	personaly i would use DMs favor to negate multi critting in a row, unless it has a crit range... (quaduple crits on a great ax after the second one i just said to myself, ok 20s will auto hit but ill make them 19s because i would HATE to TPK because the DM rolled too dang good) i agree with him, that in some way, DMs rolling up 10+ 20s is a TPK (it doesnt matter how good you are if you are critted 5+ times in a row the encounter is over you are dead even with a mear plus 4-6 to damage crit times 3 for 3d12+15 kills you and thats on NON decked out NPCs) im fine with random crits, as just that random crits (granted if they have a threat range ill keep critting because they were designed to have a crit range and crit less leathaly then a great ax, or a enlarged entroponotic scythe which if you crit on 4 in a row dead PCs happen) i had only 1 time i was ever really sad that it was actualy 7 20s in a row a Dwarven defender with upper 40s and then lower 50s after buffs i had to roll 20s to crit him and 20s to conferm, 7 in a row and every one of them got past his fortification armor(rolled 98,94,79, 100) i was shoked i thought that the reaper would just keep pounding away missing every attack, but i ended up bringing him to a meager 1 wisdom after all the criticals were finished! (thank god i didnt conferm one or he would have been dead) and personaly i will always have NPCs go after the PC of thier same type, save clerics because it seems normal unless they have a strong distaste for some thing
solbergb 07-10-07, 09:52 PM	I guess when I say this, you should also know that at the tables I play at, one PC death usually means a TPK for the party. And that's usually because you have paladins and other players that role-play a code of conduct that doesn't allow them to run from a fight or one that forces them to save a downed party member. I find this kind of cascading failure due to death to be pretty rare. Nearly every death I've seen has been in a battle where the death didn't make much difference to the outcome and indeed, the main tension in the fight was whether or not the party could keep everybody alive, not whether the party as a whole would succeed. (a notable exception was a case where the DM got hot dice when we tried a risky tactic and the party had ALMOST enough resilience, but someone talked my wife's cleric out of taking flame strike that day and the BBEG's last few hp were NOT taken away with a "sure thing" spell but instead victim of a "ray miss touch AC 8" situation..the BBEG killed two people in the extra round it was granted) I've seen the situation you describe, and it is usually LIVE people who cause the cascade-to-TPK, due to rescuers getting chopped up - either it is somebody who charges when everyone else runs, or it is a situation with multiple incapacitated people (usually not bleeding out, just confused or dazed or something) and the rest trying to hold it together until folks recovered or whatever. Disgengaging in D&D can be tricky, I've only pulled it off a couple times wihtout resorting to things like "we dim door/teleport all out" and mainly because my characters had things they could to to push the process along. As a rule though, you can tell when an encounter is going the wrong way. You're taking significant damage/incapacitation, the enemy isn't. The time to disengage is before people stop dropping. If you leave it until too late, you get unrecoverable deaths, or the TPK death spiral as folks who should be breaking contact return to get mashed.
Donald_Cannith 07-10-07, 10:46 PM	I hads to softball in a certain keoland module because it would have TPKed in the first round(using an Empowered Scorching ray i nsteasd of an empowered fireball. Also Dominions, neasrly resulted in two separate TPKs. There was really nothing the players could do about them.(of course thats what a party of 4th levels get taking on an APL 6, they got three of four extremely lucky breaks) As a side note, as a DM you can softball simply by using bad tactics for 1 round. Oftn that will even the odds.
control freak 07-10-07, 10:51 PM	heh i know 2 of those breaks and 4th level PCs in dominion should have gotten slaughted no matter how power gamerie you were (although we had a 4th level wizard, who absolutely got lucky, nothing saved vs glitter dust kinda funny
Drezden 07-10-07, 10:52 PM	I have to admit that withdrawing or recovery of bodies IS one area where I will softball. I have judged some really tough Keoland and Sheldomar mods with parties that were in over their head - when 1-3 died and the rest of the party was not even close to winning - I let the others run away without chasing them down. I let the bodies be recovered later. BTW - when I say "in over their head" - I don't mean poor party or poor players. Some of the Keoland/Sheldomar mods I have played/run were just very, very tough. Some of the interactives I have played/judged at were way harder than Core Specials. I won't try to "correct" these encounters or softball them - it cheapens the experience for the parties that do defeat them - but I will call the dogs off when the party hits the "give up" button. Daren
control freak 07-10-07, 11:12 PM	as for the suddens i just decide to not use them unless the mod tells you to nova them off (which one mod did which kind of ticked me off, the PCs still nearly died but woulda been a TPK because he would drop the clerics, so i decided to do what the mod said "use them all at once" well i did, but on a magic missile (laughs evily)) but DM softballing in general i think should only take deadly ness of the encouter down by 1 or 1/2 heres what i consider the levels of battle difficulty and there should not be reduced same with DM hard balling upping it 1: automatic TPK unless you run before opponents init comes up, use tons of favors to escape dead, or with dead bodys (theres very few of these but i know of one in a current mod) 2: some one will die most likely without good rolls but the party should with some luck be able to beat the encounter 3: some one might die if dice fall against them and may just die from bad tactics but if played right only bad rolls could possibly kill a PC(this type of encounter is what i dont mind killing a PC in Because tipicaly bad tactics need to die so that they can make better PCs) 4: the encounter is ment to drain resorces not much more death comes from EXTREAMLY stupid tactics or random double/triple crits 5: the encounter is a joke ment to go tward story line (like a CR 1/2 in APL 10) theres probably a mid point between each of these and that or one catagory up or down is the only things DMs should be able to do and in many cases not even a full catagory up (add more if you feel needed) but personaly i would softball any battle listed in the top catagory as the PCs would still feel like they were screwed and that they should probably not fight this fight
ShinAkuma2 07-11-07, 12:05 AM	I admit I softball sometimes...I usually hate myself for it. A lot of times, however, my dice softball for me. Seriously, I'm beginning to think my d20s are actually numbered 1-7 three times (minus one extra 7). I think that's why my group likes it when I run mods...>_>
clannagh 07-11-07, 12:29 AM	I admit I softball sometimes...I usually hate myself for it. A lot of times, however, my dice softball for me. Seriously, I'm beginning to think my d20s are actually numbered 1-7 three times (minus one extra 7). I think that's why my group likes it when I run mods...>_> I get that .. though mainly on the monsters initiative rolls. Generally the whole party gets to go before my monsters .. my tables are one of the few situations where being a rogue is actually effective in LG :)
Donald_Cannith 07-11-07, 01:24 AM	Well the dominion party had a 5th level cleric and a 5th level wizard but mostly were 4th. Luckily the cleric used dispel magic in a veyr timely fashion and rolled high and the wizard used tashas and got ultra lucky(nsatural 1) and allowed the big damage fighter to clean up in a battle that should have killed them.
just_be_glad_now 07-11-07, 03:16 AM	Some thoughts: First, on the nature of difficulties in encounters: A little under a year ago I decided to investigate all the encounters in the mods I've played or judged that I had marked as the party experiencing difficulties, and the vast majority of difficulties I experienced in fights fell into one of the following three scenarios: 1. Large portion of the party is incapacited by some area of effect (either damage or battlefield control). This is the potentially most dangerous of the three as far as losing characters permanently or TPKing, imo, but is also the most avoidable. My little investigation found that over 50% fell into this category. Interestingly, the most difficult of these proved to be those with a low chance of affecting people but bad rolls got more people than statistically expected. This is consistant with the hypothesis of reasonable CRs as the better chance of the effect working, the more of the CR is imbedded in it and the worse the creature must be without it. Backed with this knowledge, I've adapted to placing my PC 30' or more from the core mass of any party that likes to clump up. People look at me strangely from time to time, but it's consistantly helped. 2. Mod or DM encourages what I would broadly define as kamikaze tactics: a baddie that makes tactical decisions not based on even a credible pretense of trying to survive or win the fight, but instead on landing a kill before going down. This includes things such as the tactics mandate or spiteful dm that leads with a disintegrate instead of a sensible battlefield control or area effect spell that is tactically appropriate for battling several enemies. Most of the time, equipping people with scythes fits here, as it's an inferior weapon to even a greatsword 97% or so of the time and thus it is hard to believe someone would fight for their life with it. Even the periodic assassin encounter fits here, because lone rogues are just really weak encounters in general. Obviously, this type of encounter racks up kills, but the party rarely feels threatened. Indeed, the kills it generates are typically viewed as "cheesy" with good reason. My experience places this effect a bit under 30% of the encounters. 3. The party lacks a particular ability necessary for fighting the encounter. People often place healing and undead turning here, but in my experience, lack of a necessary battlefield control effect or obvious debuff is more dangerous. This can lead to fights that are just challenging slogs, and occasionally a PC dies, but usually the effort to kill the PC exhausts enough baddie resources/actions that the encounter is then salvagable, much in the way that one can often shed a pawn in chess to turn a bad position into an equalish one down a pawn. This happens 15-20% of the difficult encounters in my case, but it seems reasonable to state that its frequency is extremely variable depending on an area's penchant for running for weak/unbalanced parties. This too is unavoidable, save for not scheduling those tables. Now for concerns of softballing: #1 is extremely frustrating to observe as a DM, because it is extremely obvious when you softball it as everyone wonders why the big bang didn't go off last round when it could hit everybody. Consequently, when I'm running an encounter with this potential, I will for players of little or moderate experience ponder aloud if they are going to stay in a clump. For experienced players, or players that insist after I ask, I throw the big effect at them. IME, because area effects are weaker than the equivalent single target effects (as well they should be) there is usually enough ability for PCs to circle the wagons after the effect goes off and still struggle through to victory. Because battlefield control wins slower, this is usually without death but instead is a hard-earned success. For very inexperienced players, or someone playing way out of APL due to unavoidable circumstances, or a party that I expect will be decimated by this one effect, a subtle fiddling with the init order in the first round (usually through what would be a delay by a baddie who wouldn't ordinarily intend to go first) is usually enough to either save the screwed PC from an unavoidable death or create a salvagable situation for the table. It is important to identify this issue before one rolls the surprise round breath weapon damage, for example. #2. I hate this type of encounter as a player and as a DM less because of the tactics than because it strikes me as terrible roleplaying as well as unfun. If I can find a way to do so without violating the tactics, I run the mod with the NPCs trying to win, not necessarily trying to kill someone. I don't even consider this softballing, as it usually makes the encounter harder, not easier, (not to mention more believable) even though it limits the chance of death. #3. Identifying these table issues in advance is part of the DM's job, imo. The question is to what extent should one modify one's behavior to accomodate the weakness. I confess that my behavior here is greatly situation dependant. When I do softball things, which I am more prone to do with newer players or difficult mustering situations (with correspondingly cautious players), I try to do it with subtle tactical errors that most players shouldn't notice or would consider unintentional. Rolling my dice out in the open...and always ready to cite DMG p. 18 paragraph 6, but hoping I don't need to do so, Brayden Glad, also from Highfolk (and can personally understand some of Crystalblue's comments) PS: In 5ish years of judging, I've killed 3 PCs. One was a Triad-mandated execution of a foolishly played 1st adventure PC (of a very experienced player) that was breaking laws and endangering the lives of other PCs. One was an encounter in which the PCs had the fight well in hand, but a previously wounded character decided to reenter the fray and was killed by a 20 x2 crit after absorbing the AOO. One was a high level table of six experienced players that inadvertantly failed to deal with the main threat for 6 rounds (!), and on the sixth round, the threat, having used battlefield control to delay the PCs for the previous 5 rounds, had as his only remaining viable option a disintegrate, which he used on the one effective wizard at the table out of three. I don't think my DMing was the fault of either of the two real deaths above, but I still feel bad about them.
CrystalBlue 07-11-07, 08:59 AM	Highfolk is a very killer region. And I'm not talking about being the worst region or the most challanging. I'm sure everyone has their fair share of modules and games that become very overwhelming. But on the border where I am, between Highfolk and Shield Lands, I see way too many encounters that are either designed to kill the PC's or just screw with them a lot. And the challange is great, but being on the edge of your seat for three encounters, wondering if this will be it, is nerve wracking and just plain unfun. I've been in enough deaths to just learn that the average D&D player wants a fighting chance, not a total slaughter. They want to duke it out toe-to-toe, not have to always be thinking of an escape plan before the mod starts. PC's are heros and they should think and act like it...and they should be treated like heros. Soldiers retreat, civilians scatter, and animals scurry. HEROS. DO NOT. RUN. That's my story and I'm sticking too it. On an unrelated note...seriously, everyone come to Conflict. Great times to be had this year with the Shadowdark series and some awesome premiers. :D
Drezden 07-11-07, 12:08 PM	I - and many other players - like being on the edge of my seat wondering "if this will be it." I find that very fun. Most of the time my group and I overwhelm combats in 2-3 rounds with little challenge, so we like getting a really challenging encounter. That brings up a major factor that hasn't been mentioned in this thread: player variation. That is, what might be challenging to one group of players could be a walk over to other groups. This is a real problem mod writers face. As mentioned in another thread, this can create a sort of "arms war." I mentioned previously that many Keoland and Sheldomar mods are extremely tough. Not coincidently, Keoland has some of the best "power gamers" that play LG. Some of the reason for this is likely playing through the tough mods. The problem becomes that many authors try to write mods to challenge these type of players. The end result is that they usually fail to really challenge the top powergamers and the mod ends up being extremely challenging for an average party and downright impossible for a below-average party. I do believe that this is the number one reason we end up with some of the over-the-top encounters that we do. Daren Highfolk is a very killer region. And I'm not talking about being the worst region or the most challanging. I'm sure everyone has their fair share of modules and games that become very overwhelming. But on the border where I am, between Highfolk and Shield Lands, I see way too many encounters that are either designed to kill the PC's or just screw with them a lot. And the challange is great, but being on the edge of your seat for three encounters, wondering if this will be it, is nerve wracking and just plain unfun. I've been in enough deaths to just learn that the average D&D player wants a fighting chance, not a total slaughter. They want to duke it out toe-to-toe, not have to always be thinking of an escape plan before the mod starts. PC's are heros and they should think and act like it...and they should be treated like heros. Soldiers retreat, civilians scatter, and animals scurry. HEROS. DO NOT. RUN. That's my story and I'm sticking too it. On an unrelated note...seriously, everyone come to Conflict. Great times to be had this year with the Shadowdark series and some awesome premiers. :D
Mommy was an Orc 07-11-07, 12:59 PM	Generally, I've got three times I'll softball: When a player hasn't understood the consequences of a ruling, did something stupid as a direct result of not understanding, and then died due to phenomenally poor luck(i.e. crit or rolled a natural 1 on a save) - I'll see if I can work it back to allow them a way out of it. Where due to circumstances, either I as DM or one of the players rushed player(s) to move too quickly, and the party is now risking a TPK as a result. This one is particularly annoying to witness as a player and is the only time one of my characters has died. DM doesn't rush, we would have easily wiped the encounter out. This doesn't mean a player should get 5 minutes to do a single action, but rather when things aren't clear to the player(s) because of how I've described things and I become aware of it. When the monster doesn't have a good justification for acting with my tactical knowledge. This doesn't mean I won't have them do an appropriate action, but it may mean that a monster might not do the best tactical action.
copper_wyrmling 07-12-07, 11:14 AM	A couple of things: Haro, I have seen vindictive / adversarial GMing in Australia. For example, I've watched a GM come up with an on-the-fly modification of the grapple rules to let his monster snatch an unconscious PC away from their rescuer, and then coup-de-grace the PC, because the player was annoying him, on a table low-level enough that nobody was confident enough to call him on it. I've watched another GM allow his 40-ft-move NPCs to stand up, draw weapons and move 80ft in the surprise round, so they could coup-de-grace the sleeping PCs with their greataxes at the start of the first round - and then, when most of the PCs made their Listen checks to hear the guard yelling and rolled quite high on initiative, the GM decided that waking up was a full-round action, so the PCs had no chance to move before getting either full-attacked or coup-de-grace'd. (The latter case was the only instance where I have ever considered appealing to the senior GM.) There are adversarial GMs out there: I try to avoid them after the first time. That said, I also dislike softballing past APL 2 (or 4 with inexperienced players). I agree with MwaO though that the GM should consider rolling back the encounter if a PC dies because a player obviously didn't understand your ruling or the description of the situation. I think the only time I've really softballed recently was a death to an advanced assassin vine at APL 4... the party fighter was grappled and unconscious, and the cleric walked in and healed her 5 HP or so. Then the assassin vine had its action, and since it now had a conscious enemy in its grip, it squeezed and killed the fighter (my assassin-vine tactics are always "grab and squeeze anything that's moving until it's not moving any more"). At that point I rolled back to the cleric's action and let him do something else - yes, I could've just told him what the consequences would be, but I think this way reinforced the message a bit better. If he'd been an experienced player on his fourth character, rather than a newbie playing up and doing his best to help out, I would've probably let him live with the consequences. (I later ran the same group through Pits of Azak-Zil. They worked together really well there, and I didn't need to softball at all - they didn't quite clear the entire map, but came fairly close.) I think I've killed three PCs (apologies if I'm forgetting any). The first was a L8 warmage playing up to APL 12 who elected to stay on the ground to cast a sudden empowered maximized fireball on the two gargantuan behirs in charge range, while the rest of the party went mass-flying. I think that falls in the "asking for it" category - and she got Last-Breath'ed back to her original race the next round, so no harm done anyway. The second was a L4 paladin who got smacked with a x3 crit while frontlining in a very tricky APL 6 encounter (the one with the warrior levels added on for no CR bump), the third was a L11 Con-10 rogue at APL 10 who got zapped with an extraordinarily high diceroll on spell damage (I rolled 53 on the first 10d6). I felt bad about both of those, but I rolled in the open, and sometimes the dice just don't like you.
Drezden 07-12-07, 11:51 AM	As the DM at that table, I feel compelled to dispute this assesment. The encounter was an EL= APL+4 (CR14 creature at APL10) encounter with additional creatures and circumstances not even factored into it (the creatures were too few HD to count against the EL -despite the potential to hurt the party with AOE effects and HEAL THE BBG!). In other words, a "real" EL of APL+5 or +6. The BBG had a high AC; DR; High HPs; Magic Immunity/Reflective Spell Powers; a save or done AOE effect that had DC24 Reflex save to prevent at APL10; High attack bonus and high damage output with Power Attack and Cleave; Improved Grab with a Grapple check of +33; and the ability to grapple up to 4 creatures without penalty; and on and on. In other words, in 4+ years of playing LG I don't think I have ever seen a harder opponent at APL10. Considering all of that, to even suggest that "being rushed" was the cause of the deaths/PC failure at that table is ludicrous. To further suggest now - after the fact and after looking it up that you would have very likely employed the ultimate/best strategy - to turn that Ridicuously Hard encounter into one that you would have "easily wiped out" is even more absurd. That party failure clearly belongs in the "overwhelming powerful" column, not DM rushed us. Daren [MwAO and I have exchanged multiple private messages about this, but I felt compelled to respond publically - although not as detailed - after I re-read his post and noticed the "easily wiped out" part that I overlooked previously.] Generally, I've got three times I'll softball: [snip] Where due to circumstances, either I as DM or one of the players rushed player(s) to move too quickly, and the party is now risking a TPK as a result. This one is particularly annoying to witness as a player and is the only time one of my characters has died. DM doesn't rush, we would have easily wiped the encounter out.
solbergb 07-12-07, 11:53 AM	Yeah....my death count isn't that high if you don't count animal companions, mounts and similar expendible critters :) level 7 Gnome wizard trapped under a badly wounded invisibile stalker bets he can move, take the AOO and kill it without having to make a concentration check. AOO crits, he dies. After the game he realizes "Damn, I had a fireball wand...." second level fighter with 2000gp and no armor engages an ogre-weresnake. After getting a good whack in (important...he was doing his job) the ogre proceeds to beat him into a bloody pulp....with low attack rolls that would have missed if that 2000gp was armor instead of coins. The party decided to raise him, but he woke up next to his new suit of armor bought with his cash. This is one module where my party gave up without finishing. Had they continued, I might well have TPK'd them in the next encounter. They were totally out of resources and down their most powerful fighter. Party is fighting two grapplemonsters after the first one grabs the only healer. PC light infantry type engages the other one and rather predictably gets grabbed. Rescuing the healer is higher priority, so he's left alone to be crushed while the rest of the party hacks at the one that has the healer. He would have lived if any of the following had not occurred: Crit on the attack that grabbed him, near max damage on the grapple check the next round and the only person who could heal any damage stuck in a grapple...he just barely died. I've also had three "deaths" that when I slowed things down turned out to be GM error. (in one case I kept throwing javelins at a downed target when the bad guy would have moved on to another one, in another I simply added the damage wrong, the final result was more than the dice could roll and in a third we all forgot about two people who were delaying, and when they took their actions they were able to keep the -9 PC from bleeding out) I'm frankly surprised I didn't kill anyone in the "3 huge air elemental at APL8 with vortex+drop at 200' tactics" encounter, the infamous eye/hand construct encounter run at APL6 and the "maximize SLA 20hd horrid wilting+quicken SLA unholy blight" encounter at APL12 - but my parties were all on the side of "we got some good dice" or "did just the right thing" as opposed to the "cascading failure" situation or the more normal "one person dies" situation I saw in the simulations. The odds are bound to catch up to me one of these days, but of course when I see an encounter like that in the mod, I warn parties if their char mix seems weak that this is gonna be tough in places and maybe the "they did the right thing" odds increase because of that.
Cardinal Teplin 07-12-07, 12:36 PM	I mentioned previously that many Keoland and Sheldomar mods are extremely tough. Not coincidently, Keoland has some of the best "power gamers" that play LG. How would you know? You've only met a tiny proportion of LG players. Seriously, do the math. This game is huge. I've not noticed Keoland players having special skills over those from any other region. Most people in most regions reckon that their own region has some kind of edge over others - Keoland is fairly typical in that regard. I have heard rumours both that Keoland has unsually generous item and favour access, and a fairly 'player-centric' approach to interpreting the rules. I've no idea if either of these are true. However, either would certainly explain the existance of tougher mods, since they'd naturally arise in an attempt to challenge the more powerful characters that would result. Softballing can only ever really occur in contrast to how a mod is normally run, and I strongly suspect there is considerable variation in what is considered 'normal' difficulty, whether in the way the game is run, the percentage of characters that are 'optimised' for combat performance, or whatever.
LeeShort 07-12-07, 12:48 PM	I've watched another GM allow his 40-ft-move NPCs to stand up, draw weapons and move 80ft in the surprise round, so they could coup-de-grace the sleeping PCs with their greataxes at the start of the first round - and then, when most of the PCs made their Listen checks to hear the guard yelling and rolled quite high on initiative, the GM decided that waking up was a full-round action, so the PCs had no chance to move before getting either full-attacked or coup-de-grace'd. (The latter case was the only instance where I have ever considered appealing to the senior GM.) There are adversarial GMs out there: I try to avoid them after the first time. IMO, this kind of behavior really should involve the application of the RPGA penalty guidelines under 'Poor Sportsmanship'. Absolutely no one is being served by allowing GMs to run games like this. I've never called for the senior GM at a table where I've been playing, but if I see something like this happen I'll be on my feet in a minute.
Donald_Cannith 07-12-07, 12:53 PM	In my career i have killed 2 characters. A certain wizard who accidentally got into the way of a fireball and failed his reflex save. And another time where he got hit by a certian breath weapon. And we had a max damage guy who got hit by exactly the right amount in a digester acid breath. so nothing anyone could do. Doug
solbergb 07-12-07, 12:57 PM	I'd say a fair metric for how tough a mod is would be the core modules, since they are something people from all regions have experience with. In general the regionals and metaregionals where I've played have been no harder and no easier than the cores (ie, roughly the same (small) percentage of unusually tough encounters, most fights can be accomplished with most parties with small chance that someone dies and some (small but larger than the tough encounter) percentage of really easy fights) Core specials and maybe one in four battle interactives are harder than the norm as a rule, although largely due to resource exhaustion rather than individual encounters being tougher. Adaptables so far have been mostly not more dangerous than a normal mod if you modify your behavior to match the more fluid kinds of encounters they often have. A couple have been easier than a normal mod. I've seen only one over-the-top encounter in an adaptable so far, but I think we weren't intended to fight it. My sample size includes only Pale, Nyrond, Duchy of Urnst, Bandit Kingdoms, Ket, Tusmit, NMR mods and a single IUZ mod, so take it for what it's worth.
nony2klerch 07-12-07, 01:45 PM	I've never been accused of softballing and I probably never will. I don't use a screen for that reason. People know when I'm gonna crit and most of the time know if I'm gonna miss. Sometimes my dice hate the players. But when you sit at my table I'm going to assume (as best I can) the persona of the bad guy. If the bad guy uses tactics then I'm going to use tactics. If I'm unintelligent I often attack randomly or the person that has done the most damage to me that round(and in range). At my tables (most of the time) players kill other players. Our job as judge/DM/GM is to entertain our players and then by entertaining our players _be_ entertained by the players. The object of the game is to have fun. Death is not fun, but it is part of the game...make their death (esp if they deserve it) be meaningful and hopefully they'll learn from the experience...(the "shouldn't always charge the bad guy" tactic) Remember your audience and be empathic if your dice are cruel. But don't softball...you do a disservice to them and any future players that they play with.... Lynn Register
Mommy was an Orc 07-12-07, 02:08 PM	As the DM at that table, I feel compelled to dispute this assesment. The encounter was an EL= APL+4 (CR14 creature at APL10) encounter with additional creatures and circumstances not even factored into it (the creatures were too few HD to count against the EL -despite the potential to hurt the party with AOE effects and HEAL THE BBG!). In other words, a "real" EL of APL+5 or +6. The BBG had a high AC; DR; High HPs; Magic Immunity/Reflective Spell Powers; a save or done AOE effect that had DC24 Reflex save to prevent at APL10; High attack bonus and high damage output with Power Attack and Cleave; Improved Grab with a Grapple check of +33; and the ability to grapple up to 4 creatures without penalty; and on and on. In other words, in 4+ years of playing LG I don't think I have ever seen a harder opponent at APL10. I've yet to say it is an easy opponent. It would have been easily wiped out. There's a difference. As strong as the thing was, its first 3 rounds would have been spent doing tactically correct, greatly suboptimal actions(AoE, Trample, full attack Displaced, FoM'd, Close Quarters Combat BDF right next to it rather than risk falling from Grease) - by the time it realizes it has to shoot the moon or die, it is probably too late for it. The problem with the AoE is my character can negate it. The problem with Trample is that I can move away from it without taking an AoO, Grease it, and then disappear. He can't do enough damage with the Trample to stop me from doing this, and once he's Greased, his options become extremely limited. Despite all their power, Cadaver Collectors are obviously constructs and like most constructs have poor balance checks.
rutrow424 07-12-07, 02:33 PM	2. Mod or DM encourages what I would broadly define as kamikaze tactics: a baddie that makes tactical decisions not based on even a credible pretense of trying to survive or win the fight, but instead on landing a kill before going down. This includes things such as the tactics mandate or spiteful dm that leads with a disintegrate instead of a sensible battlefield control or area effect spell that is tactically appropriate for battling several enemies. Most of the time, equipping people with scythes fits here, as it's an inferior weapon to even a greatsword 97% or so of the time and thus it is hard to believe someone would fight for their life with it. Even the periodic assassin encounter fits here, because lone rogues are just really weak encounters in general. <snipped> #2. I hate this type of encounter as a player and as a DM less because of the tactics than because it strikes me as terrible roleplaying as well as unfun. If I can find a way to do so without violating the tactics, I run the mod with the NPCs trying to win, not necessarily trying to kill someone. I don't even consider this softballing, as it usually makes the encounter harder, not easier, (not to mention more believable) even though it limits the chance of death. This is where the biggest complaints for unfairness come from in the so-called "Arms Race" of mods. It can't be stressed enough that though errors and such are going to happen, these sorts of encounters are the ones that should be "softballed" when they occur by accident; if they occur on purpose and make it through editing then the mod should get pulled. It is a no-win situation when an encounter, or the tactics for the encounter, is designed to kill a PC. Players will generally accept a death when it is due to bad luck, or a bad decision, or bad party composition. It is very hard to accept being killed because you were chosen as the target for an auto-surprise disintigrate or the coup-de-grace after you reach -5 HP and drop (when the foe has other targets attacking them). I have killed PCs by trying to "win" the encounter (sorcerer 6 at APL4 with fireball and a smallish room), or when PCs are dumb (wandering off alone as a 1st level). I have been fortunate to only have 1 PC die (a low-level monk I played dumb), but have witnessed many compatriots fall and have been close countless other times myself. I am glad and don't feel shame that I have benefitted by DMs "softballing" in some instances - here's my personal favorite: Year 5 regional mod where the first encounter at APL8 (IIRC) was a fire giant champion (elite array with 1 fighter level) mounted on a nightmare (no bump in EL, no explanation in-mod for the "companion") on an open field. The encounter was unavoidable (a skill check in the 50s needed according to the DM); the fire giant goes ethereal to buff and heal (with consumables) whenever we do any significant damage. My PC dragon disciple was attacked by a mounted charge with lance and spirited charge on the 1st round of combat and "dropped to -9 and auto-stabilized." The only PC to not get dropped went greater invis and hid once everyone else was down. The whole scenario was worsened by an "imperfect" party thrown together to make a 2nd table for the slot at the Con (no arcane caster, barely qualified for min APL for the mod, etc.). We healed up and returned to the quest, where the last encounter was another fire giant with spiked chain in a small room - I'm still trying to figure out how the 2 troglodytes played into the enemy group (from an in-game explanation). We ran faster than you could say expeditious retreat. Anyways, IMHO there are legitimate reasons to "soft ball" that do not hurt the greater game or the experience for the players.
Drezden 07-12-07, 02:35 PM	[It wasn't just a Cadaver Collector - it was an advanced amped up Cadaver Collector.] Well what "would have" happened is clearly hypothetical; as you know, you can't negate the paralyzation effect when you are paralyzed. I understand the urge to go back and re-do things, and think "what if." It's nice to think about things months later and try to come up with the optimum tactic. But that's not the way the game is played. When the game was actually played, you (the party) chose to cast certain buffs and not others (like Freedom of Movement). You chose where to position your character(s). Unfortunately, your character chose wrong and got cought in the AOE. If you feel the need to chalk it up to being "rushed," that's your perogative; but you had control of your mini - I didn't place it where it was. The game can be deadly. Sometimes PCs die through no fault of their own or the DM. It happened to you. That is just part of the game. Daren I've yet to say it is an easy opponent. It would have been easily wiped out. There's a difference. As strong as the thing was, its first 3 rounds would have been spent doing tactically correct, greatly suboptimal actions(AoE, Trample, full attack Displaced, FoM'd, Close Quarters Combat BDF right next to it rather than risk falling from Grease) - by the time it realizes it has to shoot the moon or die, it is probably too late for it. The problem with the AoE is my character can negate it. The problem with Trample is that I can move away from it without taking an AoO, Grease it, and then disappear. He can't do enough damage with the Trample to stop me from doing this, and once he's Greased, his options become extremely limited. Despite all their power, Cadaver Collectors are obviously constructs and like most constructs have poor balance checks.
Mommy was an Orc 07-12-07, 05:29 PM	When the game was actually played, you (the party) chose to cast certain buffs and not others (like Freedom of Movement). You chose where to position your character(s). Unfortunately, your character chose wrong and got cought in the AOE. If you feel the need to chalk it up to being "rushed," that's your perogative; but you had control of your mini - I didn't place it where it was. A DM's decisions on pacing influence the game and players' decisions. If you don't think it does, you shouldn't be DMing. Claiming you had no influence on my decisions is ridiculous. You gave us so little time to think about buffs that the cleric didn't actually cast any buffs. Yes, my mini was in the wrong spot. You don't rush the mod, and yes, you rushed through the non-combat parts of the mod, I'm not in that spot because instead of going straight to initiative, I'm asking you wait a minute, how did we end up in this short corridor, what's behind us, give us detail, etc... And at that point, everything I described happens. But instead, you quickly had us roll initiative, and in general, I play once initiative is rolled, I don't move my figure until my action(as it is cheating to take advantage of a poor initiative roll to move yourself out of fireball formation)
Drezden 07-13-07, 01:01 AM	I guess I cursed your die to make you fail your Reflex save too. LOL. Give me a break. I actually asked you guys if you wanted to buff - that is far more than most DMs will give you. You buffed (Heroism on yourself) - I don't know why the Cleric didn't. You guys were fully warned how deadly the mod/encounter was. I'm sorry - maybe we should have paused for 20 minutes while you came up with more buff ideas. Sorry you got beat by the Advanced Cadaver Collector - you were certaintly not alone in that regard. But please stop the whining about being rushed - or any other poor excuse you try to manufacture - you lost to an overwhelming encounter (APL+4, but more like APL+5) - that's it. Daren A DM's decisions on pacing influence the game and players' decisions. If you don't think it does, you shouldn't be DMing. Claiming you had no influence on my decisions is ridiculous. You gave us so little time to think about buffs that the cleric didn't actually cast any buffs. Yes, my mini was in the wrong spot. You don't rush the mod, and yes, you rushed through the non-combat parts of the mod, I'm not in that spot because instead of going straight to initiative, I'm asking you wait a minute, how did we end up in this short corridor, what's behind us, give us detail, etc... And at that point, everything I described happens. But instead, you quickly had us roll initiative, and in general, I play once initiative is rolled, I don't move my figure until my action(as it is cheating to take advantage of a poor initiative roll to move yourself out of fireball formation)
_metz_ 07-13-07, 03:21 AM	[It wasn't just a Cadaver Collector - it was an advanced amped up Cadaver Collector.] Well what "would have" happened is clearly hypothetical; as you know, you can't negate the paralyzation effect when you are paralyzed. I understand the urge to go back and re-do things, and think "what if." It's nice to think about things months later and try to come up with the optimum tactic. But that's not the way the game is played. When the game was actually played, you (the party) chose to cast certain buffs and not others (like Freedom of Movement). You chose where to position your character(s). Unfortunately, your character chose wrong and got cought in the AOE. If you feel the need to chalk it up to being "rushed," that's your perogative; but you had control of your mini - I didn't place it where it was. The game can be deadly. Sometimes PCs die through no fault of their own or the DM. It happened to you. That is just part of the game. Daren I agree, I know several players who were whinging about cadaver collecters, but: A) They are big obvious nasty constructs, so not very stealthy. (They shouldn't be surprise rounding you unless you are crawling all over anon moving one.) B) Enlarge and Freedom of Movement Stops a Fighter from being smashed by one. (No trample, no spikes, no grapple, no paralysis...) C) They are CR 12, that means should ONLY be featuring at APL 10 or above. Maybe with mitigating circumstances at APL 8. In an APL 10 mod if you don't have a spare freedom of movement or some way of dealing with grappling and paralysis, you deserve to be wolloped. And finally on the Keolander's being the toughest guys thing, try some Perrenland Mods, most are all as hard as the tough Iuz mods. I know Perennland is a tough region, and dare any Keolanders to try some of our mods if they feel they are the 'elite'.
Dr.Cornelius 07-13-07, 04:17 AM	but of course when I see an encounter like that in the mod, I warn parties if their char mix seems weak that this is gonna be tough in places ...With all due respect to your good intentions - Is not such a warning bordering on a spoiler or ethics violation? Perhaps I misread the LG guidelines, but it is my understanding that if an author wanted such a warning he would have explicitly put it in the blurb or in an instruction to the GM. Of course I am making a straw man argument. I think both the players and GMs would be much better served if extraordinarily difficult mods were labeled as such. It works for Specials, why not for tough mods like Dominion? Pity the random semi-novice party that wanders into Dominion thinking it is just another adventure...
copper_wyrmling 07-13-07, 09:26 AM	Sorry you got beat by the Advanced Cadaver Collector - you were certaintly not alone in that regard. But please stop the whining about being rushed - or any other poor excuse you try to manufacture - you lost to an overwhelming encounter (APL+4, but more like APL+5) - that's it. Hmmm, I could've sworn it was listed as EL15 at APL 10 (I asked to see the mod afterwards - it was the first game I played at my first US convention). My table got through it with no trouble, but only because I was playing a L14 cleric down to APL 10 in order to make a legal table (it was legal then, anyway). It was one of the toughest encounters I've seen in any mod. I found that the Year 3-5 Iuz metaregionals tended to be noticeably more difficult than Cores (I've only played half the Year 6's). Perrenland mods used to be about the same as Cores, but some of the newer ones were closer to the Iuz mods in difficulty. The few NMR metaregionals I've played seem Core-ish in difficulty, as do Bissel regionals; Sheldomar metaregionals seem a bit more difficult, but not hugely so (with the exception of the mod being discussed by Drezden and MwaO, and even then it was only one crazy encounter). Just my 2cp.
solbergb 07-13-07, 09:42 AM	With all due respect to your good intentions - Is not such a warning bordering on a spoiler or ethics violation? Perhaps I misread the LG guidelines, but it is my understanding that if an author wanted such a warning he would have explicitly put it in the blurb or in an instruction to the GM. It's within the rights of the GM to say "I don't think your party is strong enough to do this mod at the APL you have chosen. Consider changing the party mix or playing down. However if you want to give it a shot, I'll run it." There are no spoilers in that statement and it is just an opinion. The players may know better than you, or they may be willing to take the risk when the alternative is to not play, or not play with the "Right" characters. The mod isn't probably deadly to all parties. Just the one that mustered. So the blurb doesn't enter into it. I've been on the player side of this equation too a few times (usually with 4 player, weirdly mixed parties or a party where a key player didn't turn up). The success rate so far is two times, we had to give up before the final encounter. Twice we finished but somebody died. Twice we had several near TPK's but squeaked through with no deaths. Once we broke the mod due to our unusual party mix, and the main risk was collateral damage in harassing the untiered EL17 NPC (at APL10) preventing him from achieving his objective in the first scene (who says 4 arcane casters and a rogue are a bad party!). Olivia has a disturbing tendency to be in parties that do that. She was also in a party at APL4 that captured an untiered EL13 enemy who was supposed to either fool the party or essentially walk in, disable them and plane shift away with the plot device.
Mommy was an Orc 07-13-07, 10:25 AM	Sorry you got beat by the Advanced Cadaver Collector - you were certaintly not alone in that regard. But please stop the whining about being rushed - or any other poor excuse you try to manufacture - you lost to an overwhelming encounter (APL+4, but more like APL+5) - that's it. Daren Daren, are you forgetting that you're the one who identified that you were the DM? I haven't complained the 3-4 other times you've brought this up as an example of what a nice DM you are when a TPK is in progress, because it wasn't relevant. I don't have any complaints about being beat by an overpowering encounter - that's going to happen - I'm merely pointing out if I have the ability to act why that particular overpowering encounter isn't that horrible to our specific party. I have complaints about the DMing. That doesn't have to happen. In my view, that DMing indirectly led to my inability to act. Let's grant you the possibility that I make the exact same choices that I did when not rushed - does that still mean I should be happy about not having a reasonable amount of time to make such choices?(and I'm a relatively fast player)
rutrow424 07-13-07, 11:54 AM	Daren, are you forgetting that you're the one who identified that you were the DM? I haven't complained the 3-4 other times you've brought this up as an example of what a nice DM you are when a TPK is in progress, because it wasn't relevant. I don't have any complaints about being beat by an overpowering encounter - that's going to happen - I'm merely pointing out if I have the ability to act why that particular overpowering encounter isn't that horrible to our specific party. I have complaints about the DMing. That doesn't have to happen. In my view, that DMing indirectly led to my inability to act. Let's grant you the possibility that I make the exact same choices that I did when not rushed - does that still mean I should be happy about not having a reasonable amount of time to make such choices?(and I'm a relatively fast player) Could you guys take this back offlist?
Drezden 07-13-07, 12:04 PM	Sorry for keeping this going. I would rather just end it. Andy - we will have to (as usual) just agree to disagree. Daren Could you guys take this back offlist?
TetsujinOni 07-13-07, 02:27 PM	Doesn't help much when the senior GM is the one running the table... Fortunately, it was a very low threat ruling, and we demolished the encounter anyway. Attacking from prone provokes an AoO in what world?
TetsujinOni 07-13-07, 02:34 PM	With all due respect to your good intentions - Is not such a warning bordering on a spoiler or ethics violation? Perhaps I misread the LG guidelines, but it is my understanding that if an author wanted such a warning he would have explicitly put it in the blurb or in an instruction to the GM. Of course I am making a straw man argument. I think both the players and GMs would be much better served if extraordinarily difficult mods were labeled as such. It works for Specials, why not for tough mods like Dominion? Pity the random semi-novice party that wanders into Dominion thinking it is just another adventure... I will warn tables that look unbalanced that they look unbalanced, irrespective of the adventure's nature. The blurbs seem awfully variable in quality.
lseelba 07-13-07, 11:53 PM	I like the quote from the DMG (p. 18): A good rule of thumb is that a character shouldn't die a trivial way because of some fluke of the dice unless he or she was doing something really stupid at the time. I definitely don't go out of my way to kill PCs. Especially with over-powered NPCs and encounters. However, you do something bone-headed and get in trouble don't look for me to save you. You play up because you think your latest build is too-uber, don't look for breaks. But if you are stuck with the Wiz2 at the APL 4 table because it was the only seat open, I am not going to be targeting you with the big guns just because I can. I've only killed two PCs as a judge. One charged ahead and got surrounded and pummeled to death. The other was warned by the BBEG to let him pass with the McGuffin or die and I even described the crackling black energy surrounding his hand. The PC tried to stop him and failed his save vs. slay living. The first is an example of a PC doing something stupid, and the later was a little fool-hardy, but at least it wasn't a trivial death. I hated my only PC death. Ambushed by a chuul, paralyzed the first round, and masticated unto death. I wasn't doing anything stupid nor doing something heroic. One bad roll was all I got. It just sucked and I wouldn't want to do that to any other player. If you have only killed 2 PC's as a judge you have either A) not been judging very long or B) have been softballing. Player deaths happen. I don't softball unless I know a TPK is going to happen. A single PC death is a wake up call to the other PC's. Two PC deaths means the encounter was either too hard or the PC's did something very bad. I've never encountered anything higher than 2 PC deaths that wasn't a TPK... A TPK, in my opinion, is generally the fault of the DM and is no fun for anyone (including the DM).
control freak 07-14-07, 12:35 AM	If you have only killed 2 PC's as a judge you have either A) not been judging very long or B) have been softballing. or your dice are cursed to only roll high on things that dont matter :D
echoota 07-14-07, 10:53 PM	Personally I prefer a softballing DM. In the cons I've gone to I've asked around to figure out who were the hard DMs and avoided them completely. At the last con 20 characters ended up dying and thankfully I was able to weave my way through the slots without having to sit at the tables where people were going down left and right. A few of the DMs just play too hard and that just isn't fun for me. Honestly, I hate challenging mods. I find them irritating over anything else. I vastly prefer a cakewalk than some nailbiting fight. If the DM can blunt some of the effects of the mod then I won't complain. So to all the softballers out there, thank you! And to the hardballers, nothing personal if I have to make some excuse and leave before the final seating for the table is done, it just isn't my kind of game.
bitznarf 07-14-07, 11:29 PM	There is a difference between 'not-softballing' and 'playing too hard'. There are more than 2 positions on this.
_metz_ 07-14-07, 11:54 PM	Personally I prefer a softballing DM. In the cons I've gone to I've asked around to figure out who were the hard DMs and avoided them completely. At the last con 20 characters ended up dying and thankfully I was able to weave my way through the slots without having to sit at the tables where people were going down left and right. A few of the DMs just play too hard and that just isn't fun for me. Honestly, I hate challenging mods. I find them irritating over anything else. I vastly prefer a cakewalk than some nail biting fight. If the DM can blunt some of the effects of the mod then I won't complain. So to all the softballers out there, thank you! And to the hardballers, nothing personal if I have to make some excuse and leave before the final seating for the table is done, it just isn't my kind of game. Sign up for these softball games!!! No better way to justify experience and rewards than not having to fight or worry about it!!! Always WIN!!! remove dice!!! Remove Table variation!!! don't actually bother turning up!!! certs can be emailed to your home!!! You won!!! congratulations!!! EVERYBODY IS A WINNER!!! Don't be daft. It isn't a game if there is no chance of not winning. I suggest you go and LARP cos that isn't what we do here. I don't tell others off for having this view outside of LG, but in LG thats how the ball rolls. If I go fight a dragon and I KNOW I am going to win, what the hell is the point? May as well have every mod a group of characters sitting in a pub roleplaying their quirks and not have any 'adventuring'. If thats your cup of tea ok, but its not the point of Living Greyhawk. In this game, experience isn't rewarded if there is no threat, so don't expect to ever get past level 1.
clannagh 07-15-07, 08:10 PM	I agree, I know several players who were whinging about cadaver collecters, but: A) They are big obvious nasty constructs, so not very stealthy. (They shouldn't be surprise rounding you unless you are crawling all over anon moving one.) B) Enlarge and Freedom of Movement Stops a Fighter from being smashed by one. (No trample, no spikes, no grapple, no paralysis...) C) They are CR 12, that means should ONLY be featuring at APL 10 or above. Maybe with mitigating circumstances at APL 8. In an APL 10 mod if you don't have a spare freedom of movement or some way of dealing with grappling and paralysis, you deserve to be wolloped. And finally on the Keolander's being the toughest guys thing, try some Perrenland Mods, most are all as hard as the tough Iuz mods. I know Perennland is a tough region, and dare any Keolanders to try some of our mods if they feel they are the 'elite'. The complaints were about two cadaver collectors in two sequential combats without rest at APL8 and yes if they are in a dungeon they can likely get a surprise round.
_metz_ 07-15-07, 08:15 PM	The complaints were about two cadaver collectors in two sequential combats without rest at APL8 and yes if they are in a dungeon they can likely get a surprise round. In that case then an issue should be taken up with the mod writer for an equivalent EL 14 encounter in an APL 8 (APL +6) the issue isn't the Cadaver collector, but the mod, I will cede my point then.
control freak 07-15-07, 09:02 PM	In that case then an issue should be taken up with the mod writer for an equivalent EL 14 encounter in an APL 8 (APL +6) the issue isn't the Cadaver collector, but the mod, I will cede my point then. that is something that i agree with u compleatly and is one of the few things, that ticks me off, the encounters that are EL+4 or more (im looking at you DOMINION) or use compleatly wrong templates (ah hem looking at you ghoul mobs!) are the only cases i would soft ball if the party isnt up to it thats fine, but if the party is a weak APL 8 (say 7.3) and decides to play down so 1 person doesnt take half, then still gets hosed by a APL +5-6 encounter, or a STUPID template and breaking it in half to kill a party member or TPK or irrecoverable death is the STUPIDEST THING ever possible the other thing i hate is not factoring in traps, IE 1 battle i know of theres a pit fall and and as you get out of it you get attacked which isnt factored into it and wouldnt be that bad at APL+1 maby +2 but its at +3 and they are min maxed APL+3 so the encounter tends to be tough
CrystalBlue 07-16-07, 08:28 AM	No one here is saying that games shouldn't be challanging. What we're saying is, when shown a mod that will out-right kill PC's without too much effort, will you do so and let no one have fun or will you try and balance the game so everyone can have fun. If you want to say that there are bad rolls and people have to deal with them, fine. I guess arguing a clearer, more valid point doesn't get through to you, but fine. However, when the encounters are overwhelming even to a correctly balanced party, full table, at the right APL...then there's something wrong with the mod or the author. Maybe the mod slipped by the filters. Maybe the author just has it out for PC's and is trying to make himself feel better by totally crushing everyone else that plays this game. When that happens, the judge is the final check before handing the experience of adventure, action, and challange to the PC's. And everyone that says otherwise is sorely mistaken and wrong. Our duty as a judge is to give the PC's a good time at a table, not run a dry, robotict game by the book. Computers can do that just fine. We are supposed to look at the challanges and figure out if there's some horrible mistake. Now let's stop fighting, cause this is only going to continue. See? Rock......this arguement.....a hard place
codyknotts 07-16-07, 10:44 AM	Challenging is what makes the game fun. Reading the Core Adventure writers guidelines makes one understand the problems facing the game. Traps are basically discouraged (hence the rogue being "useless" problem) Wow and to complain I didn't get to rest and regain spells between two monsters. Maybe spell casters will have to learn to not drop the best spells everytime first. Look I want to run and play challenging modules. Some people want to have easy rewards. That is why we are preparing an interactive for those that WANT a challenge. We will advertise it as such, so that roleplayers (though good combat characters can roleplay too) and such can avoid it and those that want to really challenge thier min mix characters can come to play. I think that if people were warned about the danger level (maybe using omen of peril being allowed before playing) then some of the complaints would go away. To the person that avoided killer dms, what is the purpose? You seem to want no challenge which appears to be the case with many here. At Origins, we played the Spider Queen with three of our local Keolanders and three people we did not know. In all the fighting in a CORE SPECIAL, they killed 0 monsters and put almost no damage on the stack. The 12th Level Wizard had max out Diplomacy (which I guess signals roleplayer, though our Cleric did more talking and asking). The Monk-Cleric build, only bounced around and tried to avoid being hit (no spell casting or healing during combat), the Wildrunner did put some damage out, but did not use his bear warrior ability or scream and dropped constantly. Our Knight of the Watch Mounted on Giant Owl crushed everything, while our RServant of Cheese kept us standing, and my little Halfing Max damage fighter tumbled to kill the spellcasters (and nearly died for it). In fact, their team hide at one point under the lance of the Knight of the Watch. We failed to complete most of the mod, not because of combat problems, but because of "excessive" roleplaying in a couple of encounters, meaning that our combat orientated characters felt we were missing out on the big cool fight that would have challenged us. BTW the roleplaying meant nothing to the plot or story. It would have been like watching Lord of the Rings and see a discussion about what are we eating for dinner, boring.
KarmaInferno 07-16-07, 11:10 AM	Challenging is what makes the game fun. That's an opinion, not fact. Fun makes the game fun. For some folks that means hyper-combat challenge. For others that means heavy roleplay. Most like something in between. I personally avoid "killer DMs" because they are generally the type who have forgotten their job. To ensure the players have a good time, not to put another few notches in their belt. They are in many ways getting their jollies at the expense of others, and that is a reprehensible mindset to me. -karma
TetsujinOni 07-16-07, 01:59 PM	I had a con slot of Calm Before the Storm where we spent a probable hour dealing with a very very very very minor NPC for roleplay reasons. We ran over the slot, especially since our judge had been helping with mustering. Of course, that was also the adventure that got me to put my first "My character will NOT accept a mission with character X played by player Y, EVER" note on my character sheet. It MIGHT have been roleplaying the character, but it looked like rank cowardice and/or stupidity to my wizard... Oh, man. I was less mad THEN about it than I am now!
codyknotts 07-16-07, 02:40 PM	I personally avoid "killer DMs" because they are generally the type who have forgotten their job. To ensure the players have a good time, not to put another few notches in their belt. They are in many ways getting their jollies at the expense of others, and that is a reprehensible mindset to me. This is not a defense of Killer DM's, just challenging Mods and DMs that run it straight. I run the monsters as written and based on intelligence. If the bad guys have information on the party, they use it. If not they do the obvious move first. If they are stupid, they attack stupid. Personally, given the nature of most LG adventures, if you are seeking heavy roleplay, then this is not the system. We have a good "roleplayer" who used to get upset about LG. He eventually told us that he accepts it for what it is, combat orientated. Secondly, there seems to be a perception that roleplaying means conversations without purpose or goals for the sake of showing our "quirks" of our character. It usually means that one or two at most players dominate a table. The rest sit waiting for their turn to do something. The real question is whether we should (in particular at timed events) 1. Be subjected to one or two people dominating play with non-goal orientated questions and conversations 2. Whether those characters should be rewarded for building subpar or non combat builds. To role play most of my own characters properly (usually based on aspects of my own personality), I would not tolerate standing around listening to conversations that are not productive. Would not do in real life, not in game. When I realize it is headed no where cool, lets move on. The problem is that I cannot move on, till A is done. So we are held highjacked by one or two people. This is what happens in events by these "roleplayers". Personally, I love roleplay and every character I have ever had had a personality and was combat effective both in LG and home games. But to make modules easier on players just encourages more non-combat builds that do nothing but eat up time. In our Origins group, the Socrerer, Bard, Marshal had +40 in diplomacy and outmade any talk over time. She talked, we sat. She talked, we waited. When the fight happened, she was angry at the Knight of the Watch for easily killing the monster with a spirited charge and smite. She openly said "What I am doing here". But she had no offense spells at 4th level, and had dominated talking for the majority of the CORE SPECIAL which are designed to be combat orientated. The goal of a DM is that everyone has fun, balanced play. The DMs are adviced that in timed adventures to keep things moving. I did not encounter a DM that did. As someone that runs two adventures a week, I move things along. I want the players to open up more and take interest in the story. But I also realize that most LG the story doesn't really seem to matter. We played an investigative mod where all the information did not matter for leading to the final fight. Wow, so the players said "what was that for, it was a waste of time, I learned nothing that mattered". Poor writing. We want a challenge in combat and a story. Think Lord of the Rings Parts 1 and 3, not the middle of part 2 the endless neverending saga of Froddo. -karma[/QUOTE]
bitznarf 07-16-07, 03:11 PM	I personally avoid "killer DMs" because they are generally the type who have forgotten their job. To be honest, I don't think anyone here is advocating a "killer DM" style. If someone is advocating a style like that I've missed it.
solbergb 07-16-07, 03:17 PM	Agreed. There does seem to be a perception among some players that "not softballing" = "Killer GM" which I find kind of disturbing. As far as I know I have a reputation for being fair and moderately tough DM based on feedback received. I know some people have the impression my death rate is higher than it actually is (I still have most of my "you were killed by Brad" buttons that I was given in one convention a year later, and all but one I gave out for animals....) Mostly though, I think I have a rep for being prepared and being able to react well (ie find or make up mechanics for) to any weird thing some PC comes up with. I don't do the softball stuff. There are no free rerolls at my tables, you die at -10 if delay death wasn't cast before the damage was rolled (or close wounds didn't happen), and the bad guys fight to win, using their own capabilities, motivations and information about the PC's that they have incharacter to the best of their abilities. I also don't consider myself prepared to run a mod if I don't know what "to the best of their abililities" is. I'm not going to forget that all earth elementals above a certain size have power attack and cleave, for example. Bad things do happen at my tables sometimes, but I like to think the players felt that the situation was fair. Actions have consequences, and bad luck or bad decisions or both will kill you sometimes. All I do is make sure that the events happened legally, and everyone had their fair chance to act because death is settled at the table and the GM needs to get it right.
bitznarf 07-16-07, 03:21 PM	There does seem to be a perception among some players that "not softballing" = "Killer GM" which I find kind of disturbing. Yeah, thats the one bit of this thread that keeps irking me.
codyknotts 07-16-07, 05:07 PM	Yeah, thats the one bit of this thread that keeps irking me. \ I agree, the qoute attributed to me, was from teh other guy (I accidently deleted the qoute thing. Fair DM means players die. When I was at a recent con in Butler, a player died. The DM stated it was the first time a player died at his table ever in three years of DM. How is that possible? A critical from a Great Axe will kill many characters at no fault of their own. I have not had a player that has played past 6th level in LG at my table that has not had at least one character death. The best players have only died at low levels. The worst die all the time. We have one player that cannot get past 8th level. He dies either here or at the Beehive in Pittsburgh. It is the combination of a weak build and poor player decisions. His next character is better and his play is improving. He loves the game.
codyknotts 07-16-07, 05:08 PM	To be honest, I don't think anyone here is advocating a "killer DM" style. If someone is advocating a style like that I've missed it. Opps I didn't use the qoute thing. Sorry, this was not my qoute by someone elses.
solbergb 07-16-07, 09:28 PM	\ Fair DM means players die. When I was at a recent con in Butler, a player died. The DM stated it was the first time a player died at his table ever in three years of DM. How is that possible? A critical from a Great Axe will kill many characters at no fault of their own. e. Well, largely it is because characters vulnerable to getting all the way dead from a great axe crit make sure the great axe weilders aren't near them or are priority targets. It's a subtle thing, but more experienced players do suffer fewer "random" deaths. Their mini isn't the one exposed to the charge lane in the surprise round unless it's tough enough to take it even with bad luck. Dangerous enemy capabilities that can result in sudden death are recognized and neutralized early, so the dice don't get a chance to "catch up" to the players. Some examples: enemy spellcaster - routinely grappled via spell or melee type and his attempt to escape via dim door or similar counterspelled with silence. He never gets to use his save/die spells that might result in a death or three. Same basic tactic for the freedom of movement cleric, but you need to dump him on his rear with trip or grease or something, to keep him in the silence. Or maybe just put silence on a mobile character who follows the caster around. enemy scythe-weilder with bulging muscles. Blind him, tie him up in battlefield control, disarm him, sunder his weapon...reduce him to something that does NOT do 150 points of damage if he rolls a 20 and confirms. Prioritize him over the spike chaing guy with bulging muscles, who is annoying but can't move somebody from full to dead in one lucky hit. Enemy archers at low APL (longbow crits kill). Take away their ranged attacks with obscuring mist, or even smokesticks if you can't take the fight to them easily. IF you can, trip them, blind them, disarm them, grapple them, take them out of their game. Experienced players also tend to just win combats faster. If the guy doesn't get 10 rounds to swing at you, the odds that the lethal crit will happen is much lower. I've not had very many player deaths either as a GM - D&D characters after level 1 are actually quite tough compared to what they fight. The save/die dynamic at higher levels usually causes some deaths but with the various reroll options available in LG from favors, class abilities and reward cards, I've not actually seen much of that. (both of my own deaths since starting LG have been from hitpoint damage, oddly, at level 9 and level 13, and neither situation was normal - the party dynamics had broken down, in the first case due to fatigue, and in the second case due to wicked roleplay by the DM in dividing the party). I know the "die all the time" players, I've seen a few (one guy died something like 5 times in one weekend, twice in a single game where I was at the table). My body count would be much higher if any of those guys was a regular where I run. We don't seem to have too many of them in the Pale. Either they get shielded by routine teamwork or they learn fast before they come to cons or something. My "death pool" would have more than doubled if one intro mod table that seemed determined to self-destruct due to worse and worse player decisions had tipped over into TPK. That would have been strange - it was a haunted-house kind of module and the players were roaring with laughter as they realized the dumb moves their characters had made getting deeper and deeper. That probably would have been the most fun TPK ever, if it had gone that way. We had GM's coming over to observe and just shaking their head when they saw the map layout and what the Pc's were doing. (hint - they split the party...and kept triggering more encounters in the middle of fighting existing encounters....) I attribute the GM-low-death-rate to the fact that about half of the games I run are slotzeros or playtests, with very experienced players and also to the fact that I do everything I can to eliminate "DM error" as a cause of player deaths. My games don't feature autosurprise (but do feature surprise if the monsters are better at stealth than players at alertness), my grapple monsters follow the actual monster manual rules on natural weapons/rake/constrict, I know and enforce limitations on charging, missile fire, terrain, etc on both sides. Scouting is a useful tactic at my table if the scout is competent. So are alternate methods of getting information that might make a fight easier if the PC's know about it. I also help playtest modules and give feedback if the lethality rate is higher than the CR would indicate. Generally my suggestions seem to carry weight, based on modifications that come back later. Unfortunately, nothing much can be done once a mod is released. Eratta is exceedingly rare.
Drezden 07-16-07, 10:57 PM	Hmmm, so what interactive are you working on? What APL will it go to and will it have item access? Daren (who likes hard interactives; might have a min/max character or two :)) Look I want to run and play challenging modules. Some people want to have easy rewards. That is why we are preparing an interactive for those that WANT a challenge. We will advertise it as such, so that roleplayers (though good combat characters can roleplay too) and such can avoid it and those that want to really challenge thier min mix characters can come to play.
Jay_Ibero_911 07-17-07, 12:20 AM	i know of at least 2 current mods tthat have encounters FAR over the approriate ECL which compleatly are hard but not as broken as some other encounters i know of APL 6 7th level wiz firing off a scorching ray, well thats not that bad in grapple, he spont silences, stillls, maximizes, and empowers it on the monk grappling him of almost equal level, he proceeds to crit 2 times 24d6 mazimized... is 144 damage, at level 6 you could have a con of 20+ and you would probably still be dead (save delay death and we saved him after because we had a suped up healer) our DM allowed it simply because the mod spesificaly said he novas his spont meta magics to kill the PC that is the greatest threat to him at higher APLs he novas them on better spells and chains it (shakes my head) how could any one survive (at APL 8) chained, spont max, spont emp tripel raying rays, it would simply own the party the feats that are closed to PCs only are more deadly then writers who have decided to under CR monsters (IM LOOKING AT YOU DOMINION!) and not counting terrain the feats i look at and glare uneearingly at are the spont metamagics because you will probably only see them once and then they will die after, and a few other feats that are broken to add to bad guys only (ie undead feats and evil feats) personaly i will never as a DM use spont max, emp, quicken, EVER the silence, and still, and other ones are fine... as they dont NUKE the damage in an attempt to 1 hit a PC, i dont mind the actual maximize and empower feats those are fun and fine, they deal more damage but it honestly isnt that bad (as its HARD to go quicken,max, empower if not impossible on a single spell after all theres a reason they take spell levels) encounter level leathalness comes from 1 shot feats, have you ever seen a NPC with extra rage? thats because they dont have any thing to worry about other then those 2-4 rounds of combat (tipicaly its short in greyhawk) imoh thats what needs to be fundumentaly fixed in greyhawk Uhh...you got some seriously messed up math there for that scorching ray. A maximized empowered scorching ray from a 7th level caster is 8d6 maximized for 48 damage and 4d6 rolled, 52-72 damage if both rays hit. And you can't apply the chain spell metamagic feat to scorching ray. It doesn't meet the requirements for chain spell. Dominion on the other hand is tough, but just requires a solid on APL table with good tactics, or someone playing down (My 12th level druid played down to 10 and it was a cakewalk).
clannagh 07-17-07, 01:06 AM	Dominion on the other hand is tough, but just requires a solid on APL table with good tactics, or someone playing down (My 12th level druid played down to 10 and it was a cakewalk). The complaints are about APL6 because a lot of stuff did not scale well, even then Dominion at APL6 could possibly be solo-ed by a well built 9th level Arcanist. The real problems with Dominion arose when people that had played the Bright Sands Arc as a single group with Bright Sands PC's in sequence with no other mods in between (an excellent and very commendable non-power-gaming approach to the plot arc) then felt ob;iged to play Dominion without importing "foriegn" non Bright Sands PC's and generally got TPKed. Dominion is a great favor/access giveaway and something of a pushover for non bright sands higher level PCs and a killer for the people that "should" play it .. dedicated Bright Sands characters trying to complete "their own" plot arc.
_metz_ 07-17-07, 01:16 AM	Dominion at APL6 could probably be solo-ed by a well built 12th level Arcanist. The real problems with Dominion arose when people that had played the Bright Sands Arc as a single group with Bright Sands PC's in sequence with no other mods in between (an excellent and very commendable non-power-gaming approach to the plot arc) then felt ob;iged to play Dominion without importing "foriegn" non Bright Sands PC's and generally got TPKed. Dominion is a great favor/access giveaway and something of a pushover for non bright sands higher level PCs and a killer for the people that "should" play it .. dedicated Bright Sands characters trying to complete "their own" plot arc. Exactly, APL 6 is where most characters would be at the time of playing Dominion. Why was it the hardest APL? Its difficult to get a character above level 7 in one years worth of TUs. This is definitely true. The series lost its way, and failed to cater for the people who were supposedly playing it. There was no point to being a centaur the whole time except be being ragged on in mods for being a centaur, and I mean there was even a bright sands mod where asherati honestly couldn't play! Dominion required optimised characters with non bright sands gear If anyone had of taken Bright sands feats/flavour items, they were less prepared than other characters to play it. I found it outrageous, laughable, and a damning critique of Creighton quite frankly, as circle editor he should be the last one to put a minimum EL 11 in an APL 6. It really frustrated me, and made me feel less inclined to play core games, and I know many others who agree. Not to mention nobody died when I played it, but it just wasn't a fun game. Sorry that all came out, but I have YET to meet someone who played the supposed end of the bright sands arc who felt it was good, enjoyed it, and thought it was of an appropriate challenge. If you feel it was, please make a separate post about it and I will discuss it with you there. My DM didn't softball Dominion, He just chose to tell PCs it was a stupid mod, and warned us to pack heavy on the optimised characters. This resulted in some players NOT playing their 5th level Bright sands characters in the game, a wise move, as it would have been a TPK. That was unfortunate for the 5th level Asherati, and 6th level Centaur involved who missed out. (characters supposedly at the right APL to play the game.) I consider soft balling where a mod that isn't necessarily dangerous is made easy to the point where it is not a challenge. I definitely agree, that there is a lot of middle ground between soft balling and killer DMing, and that is what we are advocating in this thread. Dominion is a bad example, that module, was frankly just stupid, and badly written. I don't care if I have offended someone by saying that. It has to be said. There was next to no roleplaying, unscaled ludicrous encounters, marginal differences between parties chosen, and no real sense of accomplishment in the arc.
CrystalBlue 07-17-07, 08:25 AM	It's not that there are only two types of DMs. There might be bunches of them out there that are fair. It's just that, in my experiences, I've only met those that you consider 'softballing' and those that are out to get the players. I wish I could go to hundreds of regions to meet these great DMs that are fair, but I don't have the money, time, or energy to do that every other weekend.
solbergb 07-17-07, 10:25 AM	Crystal - sounds like you need some new blood in your area. If that is your experience I'm amazed that you play the game at all. I'd really hate an environment like that. If my wife and I had experienced that at our first convention, we would not have ever returned to another LG game. Have you considered DMing yourself and encouraging the newer players in your area to DM? You can't break the stranglelock of adversarial DM's and softball DM's if you don't set an example. One reason box-text-PC-paralysis and autosurprise is less common in our region is a bunch of players stopped putting up with it, on either side of the table. Good DMing breeds good DM's. If people haven't seen any other example, how will they improve? I actually don't see what is so hard about playing by the actual rules of the game, and the motivations and capabilities of the NPC's, while rolling openly so people know that if bad luck or good luck happens, it isn't a vindictive or softall DM. But it seems a difficult concept for some.
Mattastrophic 07-17-07, 10:44 AM	I wonder if some DMs can't get over the fact that it's not a competition. -Matt
_metz_ 07-17-07, 11:04 AM	I wonder if some DMs can't get over the fact that it's not a competition. -Matt Some players view it as such, which doesn't help. When the DM follows standard tactics, they get angry.
Samwise 07-17-07, 01:59 PM	Its difficult to get a character above level 7 in one years worth of TUs. It is? Never playing up = 44 adventures Playing up at odd = 38 adventures Always playing up = 33 adventures To get to 8th level. And since the Bright Sands arc was over two years, it is two years worth of TUs. At the slowest rate, 22 adventures in each of two years is 4 regionals, 4 metaregionals, and 14 cores. That is 36 TUs, 40 TUs if you have the Bright Lands as your home region. Only a crafter should have any real difficulty with that. Not that it helped me. The group I played with had two deaths, and I wound up fleeing because I was only 5th level. (Because I couldn't play that many adventures for another reason.)
solbergb 07-17-07, 02:24 PM	Note that you only get ~30 adventures in a year because most are 2 TU. This is especially true of bright sands regions, whose only 1TU adventures are the actual Bright Sands mods, and some of those add other TU penalties (one favor requires a TU of study every adventure, another AR item had a 20 TU consumed). The real issue though is that while a PRIMARY character can level to 7ish in one year, most bright sands characters were not in fact the first character played by a LG player, nor the main character after their "main" retired. For many of us, the BS characters were just another low level char added to an already large list of low level chars caused by (fun) intro mods. They compete not only with the "primary" characters for playtime but also any other secondary characters under level 6. The BS series started as a LOW-only apl adventure and then expanded to 2-16 level ranges for all the mods. How were we to assume that the last one would be an unusually deadly APL6 minimum and thus we needed to prioritize playtime? What this means is a lot of BS characters have mostly BS mods on their play list - because regionals and metaregionals were played with local characters, and cores with chars that, you know, don't drown in water or have trouble climbing ladders. That gets you just short of level 4, or maybe level 4 if you played up a lot. Then Dominion comes out and we're assured that level 4 characters will just die if they play it. So a lot of those guys are now getting played quite a bit more to try and toughen them up before the mod retires. I dunno. With me I suspect we'll either miss the mod or just risk our level 4 guys. I don't see the play opportunities for those characters between now and the end of the year. The mods exist, but most make more sense played by one of our other characters. And if they're just gonna get permakilled in Dominion anyway (which might be ok from a character story standpoint) I'm reluctant to play them at all unless I can play them enough to actually level them. Why throw good money after bad? Luckily or unluckily for us, we know some folks whose level 4 chars are getting enough airtime to be level 6ish when we try. We might even get a level 7 or 8 guy to play. We'll probably try it. Then we'll see what all the fuss is about. It looks like Greyhawk Ruins will be the same way. You can't use existing characters, so these guys will be "yet another newbie to my already huge stable of newbies from intro mods". Not enough adventures to get you to the finale if you just play the arc. I think that's stupid from a design standpoint, but they didn't ask me :)
clannagh 07-17-07, 08:39 PM	Note that you only get ~30 adventures in a year because most are 2 TU. This is especially true of bright sands regions, whose only 1TU adventures are the actual Bright Sands mods, and some of those add other TU penalties (one favor requires a TU of study every adventure, another AR item had a 20 TU consumed). I totally agree. My Bright Sands character used all his time units last year and played Dominion as his last two time units this year. He has not died or taking any massive TU penalties but he still only finished his second year of play as a level 7. Its hard to power level a charcter who plays all regionals as 2 TU games. The Centaur on our Dominion table had only just managed to reach level 5 (which on the plus side means she only lost 2000 XP when she was raised after the game) as the character was not started until well into 2006 and then lost the aforementioned 20 extra TU to compound matters. I also would point out the choice of sensible mods for a Bright Sands character is limited. Roughly half the new cores are APL10+ and unavailable. In addition , aside from role play considerations, most people are wary of "wasting" a regional or metaregional mod on a character that pays double time units preferring, quite sensibly, to keep those mods for an "in region" character. The problem with Dominion is that it does not scale well. Untiered environmental factors, etc etc really hit an APL6 party hard and can contribute to a TPK but get totally ignored even by APL8 and are laughable by the time you get characters capable for playing level 10. Dominion was actually quite fun ... I think the real problem with Dominion was the lack of an APL4 option for all the Bright Sands Characters, especially the ones that partied as a group, that were well below APL for APL6.
Haro 07-17-07, 09:22 PM	Before we derail the thread i wanted to get this in about Dominion; I believe that Creighton referred many times to the fact that several core modules set in the BS 'region' that were *not* directly part of the BS arc would be available in 595 & 596. I'm thinking of ones like Stone Man's Missive, Here Comes the Sun and Storm Ebb here. He has stated similar for the Greyhawk Ruins arc. There will also be modules set in Greyhawk available in 597-598. It would be reasonable to expect that anyone dedicating a PC to the area (as some have done) would also want to play these with their region specific PCs. This would help make them level 6 by the finale. Also, as someone who is writing a scenario with a APL spread of 6-14, I can tell you it's beyond difficult to scale challenge appropriately in every encounter at every APL while staying true to the concept. Dominion went 6-16 and was a finale (thus justifying APL 16). Adding another tier to it would have at best delayed release and at worst made more encounters dispprotionately tough. Now, back to the softballing bunfight! ;) Joe
garyjohnson 07-17-07, 09:45 PM	Hi, all. I expect I'm seen as a "soft" DM by some of the local player group - I roll in the open, but I really dislike killing PCs if there isn't a good character story reason for the death. I don't like the assumption that's hardwired into the D&D rules that the standard outcome of combat is death, as opposed to unconsciousness - my preferred RPG genre is supers, where the standard outcome of combat is unconsciousness, followed either by handing the villains over to the police or by waking up in the villain's lair and having part of the plot explained to you. :) D&D combats often feel more like boardgames to me, because the in-character dialogue and characterisation seems to stop once the battleboard comes out - and when playing boardgames, the emphasis tends to be more on optimal tactics than on character-appropriate tactics. As a consequence of my play style preference, my villains talk during combats. That means they can get distracted and change targets, lose their temper when insulted, get overconfident when winning, try and negotiate with the PCs when things get tough - all within their stated tactics and the characterisation provided by the author (if any), of course. What it does mean, however, is that it's easier for me to reduce the chance of killing a PC by having the NPC's demonstrated behaviour influence their choice of actions. In other words, because the NPCs aren't presented as silent, optimised killing machines that make perfect tactical decisions, I hope the players find their lack of optimised killing machine-ness reasonable - I suspect some of them find it not-D&D-like, and some find it sufficiently divergent from "what D&D should be like" that it's unfun. My record as an LG DM for (almost) killing PCs is * 1 PC who died (most recent session in RHoD, PC was holding a wall against several waves of opponents, gambled his high AC would protect him against the creatures until the healers could reach him, then found out the next wave of creatures had AoE energy attacks and chose not to withdraw for healing "because I have to hold the wall") * 1 cohort who died saving another PC (earlier in RHoD, cohort on 1 HP chose to move next to the downed PC and the creature who put the PC down) * 1 PC who survived only because they had an "I'm not dead" favour (the PC was on around 10 HP, fighting two ogre brothers with spiked chains, and chose to use an ability that could affect only one of the ogres - when they killed their target, the other hit the person who killed his brother) * 1 party (4 PCs at APL 2) who almost died fighting an EL+3 creature combination that included a "save or taken down" effect which took out 2 PCs in the surprise round (the villains were winning so rapidly they started doing sub-optimal things like grappling the wizard and shaking him unconscious so they could torture him later, rather than power attacking him with the large greataxe and making him dead right now - by the end of the fight, 1 PC was conscious on single-digit HP, the wizard was unconscious because of nonlethal damage, one of the other PCs has managed to self-stablise, and the fourth was about 2 rounds away from bleeding out) Cheers, Gary Johnson
_metz_ 07-17-07, 09:53 PM	It is? Never playing up = 44 adventures Playing up at odd = 38 adventures Always playing up = 33 adventures To get to 8th level. And since the Bright Sands arc was over two years, it is two years worth of TUs. At the slowest rate, 22 adventures in each of two years is 4 regionals, 4 metaregionals, and 14 cores. That is 36 TUs, 40 TUs if you have the Bright Lands as your home region. Only a crafter should have any real difficulty with that. Not that it helped me. The group I played with had two deaths, and I wound up fleeing because I was only 5th level. (Because I couldn't play that many adventures for another reason.) In perrenland, the primary metaorgs suck at least 10-12 TUS out of you each year before you have played one game. Thats down with most characters to 40. Coupled with playing the odd core, or two part special, and even one or two mods with a surprise 'extra TU cost' and so on. There is a current core game that can drain you 10 TUs. This wasn't made very clear by my DM at the time when he asked my character to do the tasks involved. Most mods now do have these 'hidden' costs that usually involve finishing the mod, and you often have to do them because you are unsure. whilst I happily agree it is possible, it isn't if you want to join metaorgs, do unusual roleplay stuff like 'save the princess of the bright sands' etc etc. Your TUs are actually often worth half as much these days. At least that is the impression a lot of Aussies are getting, maybe its something to do with our mods here, the triad has been notified about these excessive TU costs, and a review is apparently under way.
Samwise 07-18-07, 02:52 AM	whilst I happily agree it is possible, it isn't if you want to join metaorgs, do unusual roleplay stuff like 'save the princess of the bright sands' etc etc. Your TUs are actually often worth half as much these days. Those things are all choices, not opportunities, as is choosing which character is primary and which are secondary. Choosing to spend TUs on meta-orgs, or not play adventures is not the same as not having adventures to play. Oh, and I should have said "over three years," not "over two years." The first Bright Lands adventures were in 2005, and the last one retires in 2007. So since Blood on Bright Sands appeared, there have been 13 2005 cores, 20 2006 cores, and there will be 20 2007 cores before Dominion retires. 35 of those are APL 2, with an APL 4 Bright Lands adventure as well. Add in a few APL 6 cores, and you are 8th level unless you play down constantly. I understand if people want to play other characters and such. I'm just noting that the opportunity is there, you just have to make the choice of what you want to do with a particular character. It is rather unreasonable to assume that Creighton, or anyone, "knows" that you intend the character you use with a particular story arc is your first, second, third, fifth, or tenth PC, and plans accordingly.
_metz_ 07-18-07, 03:07 AM	Those things are all choices, not opportunities, as is choosing which character is primary and which are secondary. Choosing to spend TUs on meta-orgs, or not play adventures is not the same as not having adventures to play. Oh, and I should have said "over three years," not "over two years." The first Bright Lands adventures were in 2005, and the last one retires in 2007. So since Blood on Bright Sands appeared, there have been 13 2005 cores, 20 2006 cores, and there will be 20 2007 cores before Dominion retires. 35 of those are APL 2, with an APL 4 Bright Lands adventure as well. Add in a few APL 6 cores, and you are 8th level unless you play down constantly. I understand if people want to play other characters and such. I'm just noting that the opportunity is there, you just have to make the choice of what you want to do with a particular character. It is rather unreasonable to assume that Creighton, or anyone, "knows" that you intend the character you use with a particular story arc is your first, second, third, fifth, or tenth PC, and plans accordingly. Perhaps, but it is also unreasonable to assume that such characters WON'T have done such things, and hence only really been up to around level 6-7. Lets not Forget that three of the people I am referring to started playing LG in 2006. Lets not restrict it to people who have played it for at least three years, doing so will condemn the system to not grow, disenfranchise new players, and through excessive internal anecdotes make the game less accessible and enjoyable. Players are required to make these assumptions, when generating major plot arcs, the flipside needs to be taken into consideration also, I agree that all your points are valid, but they are merely a sample of the possibilities. We already have several players as examples of where this hasn't held true. Even look at ruins of greyhawk, technically we have had half a year to prepare, but without the source book, we really haven't... Whilst it personally doesn't affect me, it may affect others. As most regionals and cores were their own arc or not necessarily suitable for bright sands characters, it is perhaps unreasonable to believe that one would play their bright sands character in all of them... Especially if they were created at that time. The mere fact that they were created mid year implies they were new characters, are you saying that whenever a new arc comes out we must only play the new arc characters in every other core mod lest we fall behind and be unready for the final mod in the series? Are core mods now just filler games for our yearly plot arc characters? Assuming they would play non Bright Sands regionals is a big ask, especially for roleplay reasons. Why would a centaur be exploring some tomb in perrenland week in and out when the Player has a Character from that region to play in that arc?
Samwise 07-18-07, 03:09 AM	I also would point out the choice of sensible mods for a Bright Sands character is limited. Roughly half the new cores are APL10+ and unavailable. Only for a brief time. At the beginning of the year a bunch of APL 10+ adventures were released, but over a year, a majority of the adventures have a minimum APL of 2. In 2007, there are nine APL 2-8, four APL 2-12, one APL 6-14, and six APL 10-14 (16). In 2006 it was five APL 2-8, five APL 2-12, two APL 2-16, one APL 4-14 (Bright Lands), one APL 6-14, one APL 6-16 (two rounds) (Bright Lands), one APL 8-16 (two rounds), and four APL 10-16 (one of which was two rounds). In 2005 it was one APL 1 (start of the Bright Sands), seven APL 2-8, two APL 2-12, three APL 2-14, two APL 2-16, three APL 6-12 (one two rounds), and one APL 10-16.
Samwise 07-18-07, 04:25 AM	Perhaps, but it is also unreasonable to assume that such characters WON'T have done such things, and hence only really been up to around level 6-7. In what possible way is it reasonable to expect someone else to anticipate how you will want to your play your character? Lets not Forget that three of the people I am referring to started playing LG in 2006. Lets not restrict it to people who have played it for at least three years, doing so will condemn the system to not grow, disenfranchise new players, and through excessive internal anecdotes make the game less accessible and enjoyable. In which case the choices are even easier for them. Starting like that, they have the full slate of 2005 adventures available, as well as an idea of the 2006 adventures available. They can easily plan ahead to play the all the APL 2+ and 6+ adventures from 2005 and 2006, followed by a few APL 2+ 2007 adventures, so they can be the 8th level you are requiring for Dominion. Yes, it will be close if they always play down (46 rounds available to make the 44 minimum), and someone won't have the TUs at that rate after taking the hit in Time's Tide (though not if they make it after playing 38 rounds). So their is no disenfranchising of people, condemnation of the system to a lack of growth, or making the game less accessible or enjoyable. New players got the benefit of 20/20 hindsight in planning, old players got three years of play. Players are required to make these assumptions, when generating major plot arcs, the flipside needs to be taken into consideration also, I agree that all your points are valid, but they are merely a sample of the possibilities. We already have several players as examples of where this hasn't held true. What flipside? That expectation that someone else can anticipate how much and what you want to play with a particular character? I say again, that is impossible, and unreasonable. Or do you mean the flipside of people playing a character so much they level up too much for the last adventure in a series? I know several instances where that has happened. To keep that from happening, and to keep your problem from happening, every adventure would have to be APL 2-14. Is that what you are asking for? . . . are you saying that whenever a new arc comes out we must only play the new arc characters in every other core mod lest we fall behind and be unready for the final mod in the series? Are core mods now just filler games for our yearly plot arc characters? I'm not saying anything beyond you can not expect someone else to anticipate how you want to play. Assuming they would play non Bright Sands regionals is a big ask, especially for roleplay reasons. Why would a centaur be exploring some tomb in perrenland week in and out when the Player has a Character from that region to play in that arc? Because the campaign does not require you to have separate core, regional, and metaregional PCs. If you want to do that anyway, you are free to do so. As it is not the rule, adventures are not written expecting that people won't play anything else.
_metz_ 07-18-07, 04:29 AM	You are entitled to your opinion, and I to mine Sam, this is a matter of that. I actually agree with most of what you say, however, its not just a matter of APLs, but of the roleplay applications of Bright sands characters elsewhere. I know several PCs who are 'chosen' etc who felt they were seriously disadvantaged by such occurrences. I will say I know several people who were let down by not playing their bright sands character as a 'primary'. It didn't personally affect me, I was merely commenting on the experiences of others, and agreeing with the sentiments by another poster. I will leave it up to those who were affected to express their opinions (e.g: Clannagh) I am not fully qualified to comment, but know enough players whinging about it to recognize an issue as a DM/Player myself. I will say this: One PC who was playing last year had 21 TUs going into Times Tide on the Bright Sands, and left it with 0. This resulted in missing out on: COR5-20 - Phantoms on Bright Sands An important game in the arc. And this was a wastelands druid who was a built bright sands character, who played other cores to get to a reasonable level ,and was leaving TUs for the whole arc. Whilst I respect your opinion, what do you have to say to that unfortunate player? Are you going to say the Character shouldn't have completed the module? That was an interesting scenario I was told about, and it really angered said player.
Samwise 07-18-07, 04:56 AM	You are entitled to you opinion, and I to mine Sam, this is a matter of that. I never suggested otherwise. I would have liked to have done better in Dominion myself. I didn't. In fact, I'd call the whole thing a prime case of DM softballing. It should have been an unrecoverable TPK, or a barely managed resurrection recovery at best, but I am not complaining.
_metz_ 07-18-07, 06:10 AM	I never suggested otherwise. I would have liked to have done better in Dominion myself. I didn't. In fact, I'd call the whole thing a prime case of DM softballing. It should have been an unrecoverable TPK, or a barely managed resurrection recovery at best, but I am not complaining. I am not complaining on behalf of my character, but rather several others who were disenfranchised at no fault of their own. Normally I don't complain about specific mods, or tell people off for innapropriate ways of doing just that, you can go through some of the older threads on these forums and check up on that. But dominion was written by the circle editor, which surprised me, and did in fact disappoint me significantly. I was merely commenting that one *shouldn't* have to softball a mod to allow parties to survive it. I am very much against soft balling, and I don't mean I like killing parties by that. I used to softball a bit, and have felt the direct negative results of doing that in both my own, and the players attitudes, and the resultant effects in game. Dominion is an outlier, and that was the point I was originally getting at, as stated in a previous post. I did get distracted, and may have vented a little, but they were all not just sentiments echoed by myself. There is a difference between letting feelings of disappointment show through, and complaining Samwise, (I am not having a go at you here) I feel I am doing the former. Comments on mods, both positive and negative shape our LG experience. I know Perrenland is under a review due to player input on modules and the two year plot arc, and am a firm believer in a player based system, not a 'them and us' attitude many non mod writers/primary DMs occasionally develop. By all means, we respect the work that the volunteers do, and I agree that people are human, mistakes happen. Its just that I personally know many players who were unhappy with dominion, and yet to find one that was 100% satisfied with it. Normally I wouldn't get on a high horse, but the problem was it was the conclusion to a 2 year arc with a lot of time and effort invested by all parties. As such there was bound to be some people unhappy, I was just astounded by the sheer number. I am sorry to have derailed this thread, but I think I kinda got back on topic in the end there :) - David
Madfox11 07-18-07, 07:25 AM	Yeah, thats the one bit of this thread that keeps irking me. My personal irritation is that somehow combat effectiveness and a love for nail-biting hard fight is considered the opposite of role-playing. Role-playing is all about running a character from that character's perspective, and for some type of characters that can involve a lot of fighting. As for tough modules, lets please drop the comparisons. One of my worst LG experiences and most ineffective character ever, was with two people from the Keoland region ;) I have played in many parts of the world with people from the rest and I can honestly say that the for the most part each region has its bad and good players and DMs.
Mattastrophic 07-18-07, 10:44 AM	My personal irritation is that somehow combat effectiveness and a love for nail-biting hard fight is considered the opposite of role-playing. Role-playing is all about running a character from that character's perspective, and for some type of characters that can involve a lot of fighting. Hear, hear. I'll even go so far as to express irritation at the dubbing of certain encounters and modules as being "roleplaying" encounters or modules, as if we're supposed to turn off the roleplaying for everything else, or as if roleplaying is only "allowed" to happen during the five or so minutes the "roleplaying" encounter lasts. -Matt
Mommy was an Orc 07-18-07, 12:18 PM	My personal irritation is that somehow combat effectiveness and a love for nail-biting hard fight is considered the opposite of role-playing. Role-playing is all about running a character from that character's perspective, and for some type of characters that can involve a lot of fighting. I don't really think that's an issue at all. The real issue is that some players make characters that can't contribute effectively to expected, specific sections of mods. Either non-combat or combat. Being unable to contribute often makes for irritated, bored players or dead PCs, neither of which is particularly pleasant to experience at a table. Also, the people into non-combat parts of mods can get treated really poorly - I'm into both, but as my primary is a Bard/Marshal who Motivates Charisma, people often jump to conclusions before they've seen me play. And I've never seen a DM decide to skip all the combats of a mod because they felt the party would just overwhelm them. I've seen that happen in non-combat, though. If the players of combat monsters cheer the non-combat specialists on when they're doing their part, giving them high fives for success, they shouldn't see the people complaining that they're not into roleplaying.
solbergb 07-18-07, 12:24 PM	As someone who played a lot of superhero games, I don't see why you can't have some roleplay even in the most combat-intensive modules. Fights are much more satisfying when the bad guys and good guys roleplay with each other as they beat each other up. Talking trash, "monologuing", reacting with awe or disdain and bickering between pc's or NPC's can be a lot more fun than just watching the hitpoint pool drop. A lot of social skill encounters can just become a skill check too, which is sad unless the mod pacing has gone awry. Or to say it another way. I've had core specials and battle interactives that were a delight to play because of the dialog between players and NPC's (some with antagonists, some with each other) and I've had social/investigative mods that were about as exciting as watching paint dry, because the judge or the author or both didn't bring the NPC's to life and their actions, motivations and responses were even more stilted than a typical CRPG - and also the players didn't interact with each other. (my wife and I often do inter-party roleplay when the GM is shuffling through notes or working with the scout or doing anything else that means the game isn't moving forward and we're just sitting idle. The problem is that sometimes the GM and other players get entertained and forget to run or play the mod..."We can do this forever. Stop us when you're ready to continue". There needs to be about 3 people at the table willing to do this though for it to happen. When I'm alone at a table that pretty much just wants a wargame, I go along with it)
Mattastrophic 07-18-07, 12:28 PM	I've seen that happen in non-combat, though. Here's an interesting idea... how about phasing in modules that have the PCs fail if they can't do non-combat tasks? I figure, we have plenty of modules where the PCs fail if they can't do combat tasks, so why not place importance on non-combat ability as well? -Matt
Madfox11 07-18-07, 12:44 PM	I don't really think that's an issue at all. If that wasn't the issue than why do many people make those claims? O, I know, it might all be semetics. They mean exactly the same thing as I, but use different wording, but as with pet peeves, that doesn't make it less irritating. I just want to make sure we are talking about the same thing ;) The real issue is that some players make characters that can't contribute effectively to expected, specific sections of mods. Either non-combat or combat. Being unable to contribute often makes for irritated, bored players or dead PCs, neither of which is particularly pleasant to experience at a table. Agreed, but that has nothing to do with role-playing, just with bad character design and not being willing to live with the consequences of your own choices ;) Also, the people into non-combat parts of mods can get treated really poorly - I'm into both, but as my primary is a Bard/Marshal who Motivates Charisma, people often jump to conclusions before they've seen me play. And I've never seen a DM decide to skip all the combats of a mod because they felt the party would just overwhelm them. I've seen that happen in non-combat, though. Come over here and let me run a couple of games for you. I never skipped all combats, but I have skipped some combats for those reasons, especially when pressed for time and when running the game with players that show more interest in talking than rolling dice just as that I have skipped role-play encounters. One of the things that makes a good convention DM is the ability to watch the players, determine what kind of style of gaming they like and try to carter to all the players at the table. It is not easy to do so, and I still fail on occasion, but it is something that can be very rewarding. One of the worst convention game I played was with a DM who completely ignored any interaction between the PCs and pressed us on into one combat after the other and than proudly proclaimed to have finished within 2 hours. He completely missed the fact that all the players walked away in disgust, and belief me, three of us actively tried to get him to cut us some slack. If the players of combat monsters cheer the non-combat specialists on when they're doing their part, giving them high fives for success, they shouldn't see the people complaining that they're not into roleplaying. It is not the fact that some players are not into roleplaying. It is the fact that combat monsters somehow are always considered non-roleplayers that irks me.
solbergb 07-18-07, 12:50 PM	Here's an interesting idea... how about phasing in modules that have the PCs fail if they can't do non-combat tasks? I figure, we have plenty of modules where the PCs fail if they can't do combat tasks, so why not place importance on non-combat ability as well? -Matt There are some, but the problem is pretty much this. Combat - there are a multitude of ways to beat a combat. It's the most complex task-resolution systems in the game and any random assortment of characters is assumed to be able to defeat an EL appropriate encounter. The party with four arcane and a rogue though, is gonna do it differently than an iconic party or a "3 cleric and a monk" party. Noncombat - these pretty much break down into three categories: 1. Physical challenges. Defeated with a few skill checks or spells cast. Most parties are expected to be able to cope with these, if only by taking their lumps and healing it up until they succeed. These make pretty good noncombat challenges for parties, but usually aren't worth many EL's because spells efficiently deal with most of these using minimal resources in the APL8+ game. (eg, cross the desert, chasm, slippery cliff, swim up the river). More commonly, briskly dealing with a physical challenge gives an advantage in future combat encounters, either by a more advantagous position, not alerting the enemy or just having more resources free to fight with. 2. Information challenges. You can get information via raw KN skill checks (boring but fast), talking to people (somewhat more interesting if the GM is up to it and author gives some hooks, but takes more table time and real ingame time) or researching it (sage, library - find a source that knows and ask or look it up). Sometimes alertness skills (search, spot, listen, track) can get information too. Only the "talking to people" is really very interesting - Kn skills end the challenge if they work or fail it if they don't work. Research is only fun if the sage/library is interesting in some way. (eg, a recent mod I played where the doorkeeper required weapons/armor checked, proper attire and there was a restricted books section for the rogue to sneak into and steal references while the face distracted the guard). Talking to people can be fun or excruciating. Bottom line is - this can be ok but you need multiple ways to get the information as an author if this is going to be required for the mod to succeed. Not as many ways as to win a combat perhaps, but the party should have some hook. As an example, if the party can't gain entrance to the snooty palace because none of them can pass the dress code/social background stuff and lack the mega-social skills to overcome such things, perhaps an alternate encounter from a bitter wanna-be who also didn't get into the palace needs to be written in - she watches the comings and goings of those she envies and while her information isn't as good as you'd get from going inside and charming the staff, it's enough to keep going. As with physical challenges, informational challenges are best if there are layers of success - total success = big advantage in later encounters. Using the safety net ("wannabe helps out" in above example) = disadvantage in later encounters, but not the end of the mod. This isn't different from a combat mod really. Rolling over an early combat means more resources for a later combat. Barely succeeding means you may be "tapped out" for later encounters. 3. Social or Professional challenges. These are interactions where the goal isn't to get information, but to get status. This can range from not screwing up the diplomatic mission you are bodyguarding by saying something stupid to winning a dance contest. In some way this status must translate into an easier or harder time in later encounters, but absolute end-of-mod failure has to be as rare as a party giving up after too many deaths in a combat encounter. Nearly every party should be able to do the minimum to continue. These kinds of challenges are often a lot of fun, even for those inept at the skills. I'm all for noncombat challenges in modules, but your yardstick for success if failure is critical to the mod success has to be the same as for a combat encounter. Some parties will effortlessly and very quickly succeed with best result. Most will have to work a bit to get the average result. Some will struggle and get the minimum result. A very, very few will fail so badly that the mod ends - generally requiring a combination of bad party for the challenge, bad player decisions and bad luck to get this result. Success should have an impact on later encounters a significant amount of the time. If the encounter is the social equivalent of the "obligatory thug encounter with no cash/ar access" or "PC's easily defeat thugs so weak they aren't worth XP", then the bar can be set differently, but if the outcome of the mod or rewards are significantly impacted, it shouldn't have a lower success rate with a randomly mustered party than an EL+2 to EL+3 combat encounter would. All of this is author stuff though, kinda off topic for DM softballing.
solbergb 07-18-07, 12:55 PM	I've never seen a DM decide to skip all the combats of a mod because they felt the party would just overwhelm them. I have and it's annoying. In one case we had to beg the DM to put the monsters on the table so we could "show off" a little. Especially as those fights sometimes are needed to "shake down" the party teamwork, show off what they can do, so when the actual difficult battle happens later the party doesn't screw up. Complex encounters shouldn't be handwaved, and almost by definition, any combat encounter worth xp will be a complex encounter. Still though. If the author's "social encounter" is "his attitude is unfriendly, he'll be useless unless he's diplomacized to helpful" then the party will either have sufficient skill to do that always or insuffiicent skill to do it ever or they'll be at the mercy of a single die roll. Encounters written like that are much more similar to trap encounters than combat encounters. And yes, nobody is upset when the rogue announces his search and disable device scores and the GM handwaves the traps he discovers with take 10 search and disables with take "1" DD. That's what happens when you have an encoutner tied to a skill check or two.
Madfox11 07-18-07, 01:08 PM	Here's an interesting idea... how about phasing in modules that have the PCs fail if they can't do non-combat tasks? I figure, we have plenty of modules where the PCs fail if they can't do combat tasks, so why not place importance on non-combat ability as well? Ironically, many adventures actually do fit this bill if a DM would be willing to take the PCs behaviour to the logical conclusion. How many times have you seen the PCs act in such a rude fashion at the start of an adventure that it made no sense what so ever for the potential employer to hire them and than still do? Often enough though a DM softballs social encounters just as much as fights. To be honest, I have a bigger tendency to softball social encounters than combats, because more often than not, social interaction is much easier to be ruined by the actions of 1 character than a fight and I really hate punish the group for the actions of the individual. It ruins the fun of the majority of people at the table, and more often than not the offending player never learns anything from it. I realize this has a bad effect on players' behaviour, and I always decide not to do it before the game, but once running, I just cannot get myself to stick to the principal. On the other hand, if the group as a whole is responsible, or I can punish the characters that are to blame, than I immediately do so. Note that I have done the same with combat though in a couple of extreme cases. I remember a scene in which the villain did not coup-de-gras the paralyzed barbarian despite there being no other threat and him needing to kill the PCs. The reason the barbarian was even in that position was because of the actions of two other players who did not even realize they were to blame. The player of the barbarian (and one other who could not help the barbarian in anyway) was fully aware I softballed him, but he was gratefull. Those same players would really dislike it though had I softballed them in any situation in which their actions caused them to be in that difficult situation.
rutrow424 07-18-07, 01:13 PM	Here's an interesting idea... how about phasing in modules that have the PCs fail if they can't do non-combat tasks? I figure, we have plenty of modules where the PCs fail if they can't do combat tasks, so why not place importance on non-combat ability as well? -Matt Though neither is great mod design, it is generally more acceptable to de-emphasize non-combat abilities. Fighters/Paladins/Clerics are often short on skill points and may not be able to effectively contribute depending on the non-combat encounter. All PC classes are designed in some way to contribute to combat situations, even if an individual player may not effectively utilize those abilities. OTOH, I have recently encountered 2 mods where being "successful" did not include a combat. In one, if the party gets in a fight they will have failed miserably and in the other it comes down to PC choice (there is a combat path and a possibly non-combat path). I had some of the most fun in an LG mod in the first - the RP was great, and the skill checks mostly did not pertain to my PC's talents, but it was exceptionally well written. My party chose the combat path in the 2nd mod (the RP choice made based upon the group's skills and backgrounds), but the groups that did the other appeared to have a great time.
Madfox11 07-18-07, 01:15 PM	I have and it's annoying. Especially as those fights sometimes are needed to "shake down" the party teamwork, show off what they can do, so when the actual difficult battle happens later the party doesn't screw up. Complex encounters shouldn't be handwaved, and almost by definition, any combat encounter worth xp will be a complex encounter. When done, it needs to be done properly. I agree that if done incorrectly, it is annoying, but when pressed for time and when dealing with people who are really into role-playing, the disruption in the pace of the adventure a fight causes, should better make it worthwhile. I really dislike EL +0 fights in the middle of an adventure (so you already had another fight) that serve no other purpose than to highlight the area is dangerous or let alone to fill up the ELs, especially if actually running that fight causes you to run late and cut the end-fight or some important social interaction scenes. As for your text about that non-combat sollutions should never lead to failure: you are ignoring Ms point. If I am understanding him correctly, he states that apparently it is acceptable for an adventure to fail if the PCs loose a fight. It is rarely so with non-combats. He is right.
Samwise 07-18-07, 01:24 PM	Ironically, many adventures actually do fit this bill if a DM would be willing to take the PCs behaviour to the logical conclusion. How many times have you seen the PCs act in such a rude fashion at the start of an adventure that it made no sense what so ever for the potential employer to hire them and than still do? Often enough though a DM softballs social encounters just as much as fights. Not that many times. The few times it got excessive I have directly warned players they were about to end the adventure for their character, and possibly the entire group, and they have backed down on their actions. What has been a bigger issue are the situations solbergb mentioned where the adventures included skill checks that the players simply could not make, and which included no alternate route to continue the adventure.
Samwise 07-18-07, 01:54 PM	There is a difference between letting feelings of disappointment show through, and complaining Samwise, (I am not having a go at you here) I feel I am doing the former. Comments on mods, both positive and negative shape our LG experience. I know Perrenland is under a review due to player input on modules and the two year plot arc, and am a firm believer in a player based system, not a 'them and us' attitude many non mod writers/primary DMs occasionally develop. I am not taking a shot at you either. I have replied concerning two specific things: 1. the number of play opportunities available to reach the minimum APL of the last adventure in the series. 2. whether having the last adventure in the series have a minimum APL higher than 2. That's all. I am not saying anything about the difficulty, beyond stating my own experience. As for feedback about the second point, all I am doing is providing an alternate view, with additional factors that I have seen. In particular the point about people leveling out of story arcs. You can find that referenced in the threads on the limit on playing down. I do not subscribe to an "us versus them" attitude, except perhaps in the case of ultra-maxed characters versus more average characters (write adventures for the average characters, and if people find them too easy, congratulate them on winning the PC optimization contest and continue), and the investigative adventure issue (I like them, provided they include alternate ways to succeed without requiring specific skills).
Mommy was an Orc 07-18-07, 01:56 PM	If that wasn't the issue than why do many people make those claims? O, I know, it might all be semetics. They mean exactly the same thing as I, but use different wording, but as with pet peeves, that doesn't make it less irritating. I just want to make sure we are talking about the same thing Well, you have to see how the other side looks - I've more than once sat down at a table, announced that I'm playing a bard in my normal tone of voice, and someone at the table roll their eyes and sneer, "Oh, no, not a Bard..." They don't know who I am or what I'm capable of doing. That's their immediate reaction. I've never left a table where they're not semi-apologizing for their words afterwards, but...if I weren't very sure of my math and experiencing that on a regular basis, I can see how the player of the Bard might say something equally dismissive about the players of combat monsters.
GrahamWills 07-18-07, 03:21 PM	The bottom line is that D&D is a tactical miniatures game with roleplaying. The majority of the rules, the majority of the feats, the majority of the equipment, the majority of the spells, the majority of the classes are focused straight on the main D&D goal: Killing Things. Given that there are half a dozen base classes and a huge number of prestige classes who have the avowed goal of killing things, and that you cannot play a simple merchant, an aristocrat, a painter or a career diplomat in Living Greyhawk, complaining that D&D favors combat over roleplaying is like complaining that the Winter Olympics is biased against people who like hot weather. Even those people who enjoy roleplaying in this discussion phrase it in secondary roles -- they do it when waiting for the GM to get a combat ready; they make non-game-affecting comments in combat, etc. One poster says that mod writers cannot require skills since the combat monsters won't have many of them. That last remark is the most telling -- because it is true. Because it assumed everyone can fight, the "must succeed" encounters therefore must be combat. Hence the rules-optimal characters to build are combat-focused. They have low skills and therefore the combat-focusedness is reinforced. Now you COULD image a new living campaign that has a non-combat focus. D&D is not ideal for it, but if you wrote mods that way from the start, soon you'd have threads like: * Reasons why you might NOT dump CON * INT or CHA? Which is more important? * Help needed with Expert/Aristocrat/Bard * Why Jack of All Trades is overpowered However, this is not our world. In our world, we kill things far more than we talk to them. Hence we build our characters to kill. Roleplaying is something we do "outside the rules" -- we project character and talk and so on. I understand that people state that because their character talks a certain way, or has certain player-adopted styles, hindrances or the like, that they are roleplaying. Hence they can say that their "dump all mental stats" orc barbarian chainfighter is a roleplaying character. It isn't though. You are roleplaying him outside the game. If you make a witty aside in combat, you are roleplaying outside the game. It's only when you use that comment in a FEINT that you become a roleplaying CHARACTER. I can roleplay a game of Chess -- that doesn't make it a roleplaying GAME. Don't get em wrong -- roleplaying outside the game is better than none at all, but without it being part of your character's game state, then it's a secondary effect. THAT is why people say "Your combat monster cannot be a roleplaying character". It's because, according to the game rules, your character does nothing but kill things. He has never learned any non-combat skills and his feats are all kill, kill, kill. Yes, you can, out of the game rules, say that you like good food and heavy drinking, love being an elf and hate dwarves. But unless you have put any sort of development into Profession:Cooking, Greater Fortitude, Elven knowledge or Favored enemy:Dwarves, then it's fluff. Fun fluff, but fluff. Acording to the rules, next module you could be an aescetic dwarf-lover and nothing would stop you. Of course, good roleplayers won't do that -- but the point that is being made is that you COULD -- because your character has no game rule commitment to their roleplaying. Whereas they have on their combat. Think of it another way. If you see a 1-barbarian, 4-fighter, 1-cleric, 3-exotic weapon master spike chain wielder, do you think: a) They must have chosen those classes for ROLEPLAY reasons! b) They must have chosen those classes for COMBAT reasons! On the other hand, if you see a 4-bard, 4-rogue, you might think the other way. Yes, again, you can be roleplaying your combat monster, but it's clear that that is a secondary goal. It really does sound a bit irritating when players do not acknowledge that. Me, I have 4 characters: An elf monk/ranger who is a bit of both. Definitely not a combat monster, but not inept either. Plenty of skills for being foresty and interested in religion, but not religious. I have a warmage who wants to rule the world by blowing things to pieces. Mostly combat, but feat choices (familiar, leadership, focus:diplomacy) and tons of intimidate to compensate for being a halfling. I have a 2-barbarian/2-fighter combat monster dwarf. I roleplay him heavily, but he's not slightly a roleplay character. Then I have a favored soul / swashbuckler devoted to love and chaos, who I am trying hard to make at least somewhat combat effective, but is solidly roleplay focused. I roleplay all of them, but they avry in the degree to which they are roleplayign characters I think it's important to distinguish between "I roleplay this character" for which you are to be applauded and will absolutely make me want to gaem with you, and the "roleplaying character", which I will really, really want to play with if you are ALSO a good roleplayer. However the latter is way harder, as LG discourages it, and if you are a bad roleplayer, it makes for a long, long evening. The purpsoe is to have fun. Roleplay every character as much as you can. However, if you are good both at roleplayign AND at combat, consider also alloting some in-game character choices away from combat and towards roleplaying. I do think that over time it will make our world more fun - Graham Wills
solbergb 07-18-07, 04:27 PM	As for your text about that non-combat sollutions should never lead to failure: you are ignoring Ms point. If I am understanding him correctly, he states that apparently it is acceptable for an adventure to fail if the PCs loose a fight. It is rarely so with non-combats. He is right. I didn't say never lead to failure. I said should lead to failure ONLY AS OFTEN AS A PARTY LOSES A COMBAT. Which is almost never. I can count on one hand how often I've seen a party fail a combat (run away or TPK) at a table that I've played at or judged, in many hundreds of combats fought (probably as many as a thousand). These situations are almost always a combination of bad party mix AND bad party decisions AND bad luck. Any two of the 3 leads to a bad result, but not an utter failure. A really nasty fight, harder than usual can cut the margin of error down to two of 3 fail, 1 of 3 make it hard. Those fights are the under-cr'd fights everyone is complaining about on this thread. We don't want the "noncombat failure bar' to be even as high as the "under-CR'd battle", especialy if failure costs the party more than 5000gp under cap (cost of a raise)+encounter worth of loot because most failures in combat don't result in TPK's, they result in retreat and a death or two.
Reylance 07-18-07, 04:29 PM	I am glad and don't feel shame that I have benefitted by DMs "softballing" in some instances - here's my personal favorite: Year 5 regional mod where the first encounter at APL8 (IIRC) was a fire giant champion (elite array with 1 fighter level) mounted on a nightmare (no bump in EL, no explanation in-mod for the "companion") on an open field. The encounter was unavoidable (a skill check in the 50s needed according to the DM); the fire giant goes ethereal to buff and heal (with consumables) whenever we do any significant damage. My PC dragon disciple was attacked by a mounted charge with lance and spirited charge on the 1st round of combat and "dropped to -9 and auto-stabilized." The only PC to not get dropped went greater invis and hid once everyone else was down. The whole scenario was worsened by an "imperfect" party thrown together to make a 2nd table for the slot at the Con (no arcane caster, barely qualified for min APL for the mod, etc.). We healed up and returned to the quest, where the last encounter was another fire giant with spiked chain in a small room - I'm still trying to figure out how the 2 troglodytes played into the enemy group (from an in-game explanation). We ran faster than you could say expeditious retreat. I think I know which one you're talking about. It was actually a Year 4 regional, minimum APL 10, and it definitely sounds like you were at APL 10. First encounter = EL 13 (Fire Giant is 10, so Fire Giant Ftr1 is 11; Cauchemar Nightmare is 11). There is an explanation in the module for this NPC. (Master villain's letter: "...I find fire giants often pack sufficient power to deter all but the most concerted attack. Perhaps Falkur would do as a long-range scount; his skill on that nightmare is legendary among his people.") The terrain is hills, so the enemy is spotted (no roll necessary) when you get to the top of a rise and can see what's on the other side. (The DC you remember may have been for another NPC in the module.) I ran the module several times, mostly at higher APLs, and it wasn't that bad, because 1) I rolled separate initiatives for the two foes, and they had to wait until the slower of the initiatives, and 2) charging is broken by Evard's Black Tentacles, Obscuring Mist, Wall of Force, and countless other effects. (One druid rusted his lance with Rusting Grasp.) The final encounter's troglodytes were humans under the effect of alter self. Giants and humans were working on behalf of the same master villain. In other words, the enemies were using the same tactics that PCs used.
Mattastrophic 07-18-07, 05:04 PM	I didn't say never lead to failure. Regardless, the point remains: tons of mods can have the PCs fail by losing a fight, but not very many can have the PCs fail by being totally inept at non-combat tasks. It'd be nice to place some importance on non-combat skills sometime. -Matt
Sieylianna 07-18-07, 05:11 PM	It is rather unreasonable to assume that Creighton, or anyone, "knows" that you intend the character you use with a particular story arc is your first, second, third, fifth, or tenth PC, and plans accordingly. I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect Creighton to understand that a significant portion of the players for a story arc will create create appropriate PCs for the arc. In the Bright Sands games that I've played, I'd say it's about 80%. I certainly hope he considers this for Greyhawk Ruins and any subsequent story arcs. Ed
Jay_Ibero_911 07-18-07, 06:11 PM	Just my opinions on DM combat styles...from worst to best in my opinion 1) DM's who go out of there way to kill PC's 2) DM's who make things so easy it's effortless 3) DM's who make it so you just barely win by using up all of your renewable resources by the end of a day. The 3rd variety is where the games are the most fun. A great DM will keep you thinking that you are about to die without it necessarily being true.
LeeShort 07-18-07, 06:31 PM	Regardless, the point remains: tons of mods can have the PCs fail by losing a fight, but not very many can have the PCs fail by being totally inept at non-combat tasks. It'd be nice to place some importance on non-combat skills sometime. -Matt I'll agree to this, but I think's it's very bad design to have the PCs fail at a mod for lack of a single specific skill. There should always be more than one path to success. For example, any mod which absolutely requires a Diplomacy check of DC 25 or higher (I'm looking at you, <name suppressed>) is roughly the equivalent of a BBEG which absolutely requires a spirited charger to take down. Both are poor module design (or would be, if the latter type of mod existed). So if mods can be failed by PCs being inept at non-combat tasks, then there must be more than way to skin that non-combat cat.
rutrow424 07-18-07, 06:35 PM	I think I know which one you're talking about. It was actually a Year 4 regional, minimum APL 10, and it definitely sounds like you were at APL 10. First encounter = EL 13 (Fire Giant is 10, so Fire Giant Ftr1 is 11; Cauchemar Nightmare is 11). There is an explanation in the module for this NPC. <snipped explanation> I ran the module several times, mostly at higher APLs, and it wasn't that bad, because 1) I rolled separate initiatives for the two foes, and they had to wait until the slower of the initiatives, and 2) charging is broken by Evard's Black Tentacles, Obscuring Mist, Wall of Force, and countless other effects. (One druid rusted his lance with Rusting Grasp.) Agreed that there are several tactics that could prevent charging or have made the combat easier; our lack of effective spellcasters was a huge detriment. Giant CRs are heavily weighted IMO towards needing artillery to help whittle them down before melee ensues. The tricked-out fire giant synergizes too well with his mount and the situation. If the giant can charge, he will kill an APL 10 party member (and I was the physically toughest in our party). If he can't, he is still a tough fight as he has the nightmare's ability to go ethereal and heal/buff if dimensional anchor is not available. If the ethereal ability could be negated or was not present, we would have actually won the fight (or had a good chance). Our sub-optimal party had no chance in this encounter and should have been TPK'd; I appreciate the DM softballing this table that was thrown together at the last minute (pullng me from a more balanced table). The final encounter's troglodytes were humans under the effect of alter self. Giants and humans were working on behalf of the same master villain. This encounter was probably doable even by my party, but after the first fire giant encounter... Not being a fan of the pre-eminence of spiked chains in the first place, I concur with the group that feels placing such a foe in an enclosed space borders on writer cruelty. In other words, the enemies were using the same tactics that PCs used. True, but I'm not in the camp that the bad guys should be power-gamed to the hilt because the PCs can. Fight smart, yes; tricked-out using all the cheesy tactics players abuse, no. I don't want every cleric to be a radiant servant, or every half-orc to have dumped all his mental stats on either side of the screen.
Sieylianna 07-18-07, 10:13 PM	So if mods can be failed by PCs being inept at non-combat tasks, then there must be more than way to skin that non-combat cat. Why? The only way to defeat 99% of LG modules is through combat. You don't have any other out, why should non-combat challenges be any different? The only issue I have is that the module blurb needs to make it clear that investigation (or something similar) is involved. Ed
Genghis Cohen 07-18-07, 10:43 PM	Softball DMs deprive players of the opportunity to improve. I've had 6 deaths among my characters. After each game where this has happened, I've approached it with introspection. I became a better player, and my characters became better adventurers.
control freak 07-18-07, 10:44 PM	The only issue I have is that the module blurb needs to make it clear that investigation (or something similar) is involved. most mods have a warning "this is a roleplaying intensive mod" on it now
_metz_ 07-18-07, 10:46 PM	Why? The only way to defeat 99% of LG modules is through combat. You don't have any other out, why should non-combat challenges be any different? The only issue I have is that the module blurb needs to make it clear that investigation (or something similar) is involved. Ed Mods should all have roleplaying AND combat. If it was just combat we would all be playing World of Warcraft. The exception should be two things, mods with no combat, or mods with mostly battling. In any case, both mods should still have the potential of both. (With the exclusion of some really far out mods e.g: a certian Iuz game) But those should be EXCEPTIONS. D&D is NOT a wargame. Its just that combat is something that has to be quantified, whilst roleplay cannot be, and worlds are designed by the DM. hence the core rulebooks have to deal with the mechanic that is not campaign or character specific. This makes perfect sense to me, and should to most people I would imagine. you cannot quantify social interaction with rules and set procedures, if you could then life would be a lot different. You can however regulate the combat mechanic for the DMs benefit. I won't stand for someone who tells me that I shouldn't be roleplaying in LG. On the flip side I can't stand someone who isn't prepared to face combat encounters either, because that is LG canon and the way mods are done, as well as the easiest way to give out experience and rewards, whilst satisfying the most people. They are STILL roleplaying modules, LG has never been a wargame.
Timlagor 07-18-07, 11:30 PM	If an 'Arc' requires a new PC then it's ridiculous not to assume that many many players are going to be playing the arc with secondary or dedicated characters.
Samwise 07-19-07, 12:21 AM	I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect Creighton to understand that a significant portion of the players for a story arc will create create appropriate PCs for the arc. In the Bright Sands games that I've played, I'd say it's about 80%. I certainly hope he considers this for Greyhawk Ruins and any subsequent story arcs. Ed I'm sure he does. What I still don't get is how that means those characters won't play anything else.
copper_wyrmling 07-19-07, 12:28 AM	Why? The only way to defeat 99% of LG modules is through combat. You don't have any other out, why should non-combat challenges be any different? I think solbergb said it better than I can, but... As has been said, there are many ways to defeat combats. Nobody's saying there should always be a combat method to defeat a non-combat challenge, just that there should be more than one way to solve a non-combat challenge, so the frequency of PCs failing it and failing the mod as a result should be about comparable to the frequency of PCs failing a combat and failing the mod as a result (i.e. extremely low). A "non-combat challenge" consisting of "make a DC 35 Diplomacy check or lose, you can't retry and you can't use successive diplomacy checks to adjust their attitude further" (at APL 6! and the DC was actually higher for our table due to party composition factors that we could not change, i.e. race + religion of PCs) is just as unsatisfying and frustrating as a combat challenge that can ONLY be defeated by a single melee attack dealing 100 or more damage. You'll never see the latter (at least I sincerely hope not), but I have seen the former. There are a lot of skills in the game. Which ones do you choose to focus on in a skills-based challenge? (That seems to be mostly what people mean by "non-combat".) Even if you bring a skillmonkey character, it's not possible to be good at every single skill.
Mommy was an Orc 07-19-07, 09:17 AM	I'm sure he does. What I still don't get is how that means those characters won't play anything else. I think Greyhawk Ruins is a little clearer about the endgame - you need to around 8th level to play the ADP and everyone should already know that - there isn't also the giant resource hog of Red Hand of Doom eating up the low level mods. Fane of the Drow was a great way to help get a character around 6th. Unfortunately, that also meant it was the best way to get a new character ready for RHoD...
Prof. Pacali 07-19-07, 10:39 AM	I have played with both softball DMs and killer DMs, including one who vindictively killed my rogue for interrupting some boxed text. My problem with the softball DMs is that they act as your best friend, but the DM should remain neutral especially during combat. My problem with the killer DMs is that they either play every monster as tactical genius to rival Grand Admiral Thrawn, or they carry vendettas from game to game and target specific PCs because they don't like the players. Monsters with low INT should not be five-foot stepping every round, especially ones that are actually mindless. As for the vendettas, I'm pretty sure that this sort of behavior is a violation of the RPGA's rules. What I want in a DM is someone who will entertain me for 3-4 hours with roleplaying and fair combat where the dice fall where they may. I don't expect the DM to softball for me but I damn well don't want the DM targeting me because of messing up the box text, or because my character isn't optimized, or because I wear a yarmulke. I can live with a boring DM, or one who is inexperienced, but the killer DMs are the ones ruining it for everyone.
rutrow424 07-19-07, 10:39 AM	I'm sure he does. What I still don't get is how that means those characters won't play anything else. I think the point is more properly that because the arc encouraged/required new PCs, it is unreasonable to expect that these PCs would be primary PCs. Because of this, it is not logical to assume that they would play a lot of mods. Bright Sands PCs could get to level 6+ in the time frame allowed, but it is perfectly reasonable that they may not, since they are not primary PCs. It was very likely that Bright Sands PCs would not play regionals or meta-regionals (their players would already have PCs for those mods), and they may or may not play a lot of other cores (depends on the player and the PC - several mods were not friendly to centaurs IIRC). Making Dominion APL 6+ when combined with the believed brokenness of the mod at APL 6 therefore upset many people. There was a real possibility that the majority of the Bright Sands PCs would play at APL 6, and apparently many were in weak APL 6 parties. I totally understand the complaints when you put those things together.
control freak 07-19-07, 11:44 AM	Making Dominion APL 6+ when combined with the believed brokenness of the mod at APL 6 therefore upset many people. theres no believed about it there was 1 encounter that was simply broken, they gave more exp/gp because of that simple fact (although even if it was labled CORS and had a "this mod is very difficult" i would still be afrade of it and as DMs go most of the time i will not softball unless it is rediculously hard (dominion) or i roll like i did saturday in pits of azak zil, over the mod i critted like 20 times(i only confermed like 2 lol but still it was creepy) at which point i decided any crits in the last encounter= DMs favored away since the party had already compleatly cracked a CLW wand in half :rolleyes: that was nearly fresh at the start
LeeShort 07-19-07, 12:34 PM	Why? The only way to defeat 99% of LG modules is through combat. You don't have any other out, why should non-combat challenges be any different? The only issue I have is that the module blurb needs to make it clear that investigation (or something similar) is involved. Ed Why? Because the number of characters who are useful in a combat encounter is not even vaguely comparable to the number of characters who are useful in a Diplomacy encounter. Putting single specific skills on the same level as combat as a whole is just ridiculous. Or, what copper_wyrmling said. Single specific skills, combat-related or not, should never be required to complete a mod. The equivalent would be a combat that requires a DC 35 Tumble check to complete. Which would also be a poorly designed mod. At the very least, the kind of monofocused mod you advocate -- it is a mustering nightmare. As the organizer of a game day, I have enough issues already without mod writers creating more for me. Like I said before, I have no problem with mods where Diplomacy makes a real difference. But that doesn't mean that it's OK for Diplomacy to be the only path to success. If you can't figure out how to make Diplomacy important without making it the only path to success, you shouldn't be writing that kind of mod. Period.
solbergb 07-19-07, 12:57 PM	Because combats have multiple paths to solution and almost never fail. Anything else that can stop a mod cold has to be about as flexible with ANY party mix.
Mattastrophic 07-19-07, 12:58 PM	But on the other hand, what really stinks are non-combat mods that require absolutely zero non-combat abilities (note I said abilities, not necessarily skills) to complete. Where five BDFs can sit down, play up, do nothing, and get some XP. -Matt
Mattastrophic 07-19-07, 01:02 PM	Why? Because the number of characters who are useful in a combat encounter is not even vaguely comparable to the number of characters who are useful in a Diplomacy encounter. Problem here is that we have a chicken/egg situation. Did making non-combat skills unnecessary breed characters who fail at non-combat situations? I say just frickin' label the mods. If a module's blurb says something to the effect of "your BDF will be useless, and a table of BDFs will fail miserably. In case that wasn't enough, this mod won't give free XP to BDFs," that'll solve things. Or heck, it'd be incredibly healthy to start phasing in modules where anyone can do the bare minimum for success, but actual non-combat abilities get you the higher grades of success. -Matt
LeeShort 07-19-07, 02:12 PM	Problem here is that we have a chicken/egg situation. Did making non-combat skills unnecessary breed characters who fail at non-combat situations? No, as solberg said, the problem is mods that have a single path to solution. That's just bad mod design. Any LG mod that absolutely requires a single skill is bad mod design. Period. Well, I think I've ranted enough on this topic.
Samwise 07-19-07, 02:54 PM	I think the point is more properly that because the arc encouraged/required new PCs, it is unreasonable to expect that these PCs would be primary PCs. Because of this, it is not logical to assume that they would play a lot of mods. Bright Sands PCs could get to level 6+ in the time frame allowed, but it is perfectly reasonable that they may not, since they are not primary PCs. It was very likely that Bright Sands PCs would not play regionals or meta-regionals (their players would already have PCs for those mods), and they may or may not play a lot of other cores (depends on the player and the PC - several mods were not friendly to centaurs IIRC). This is why I started the other threads in the general forum. People keep saying that, but unless there has been some significant database establishing this that has been communicated to the campaign staff, I see no way it is at all reasonable to say that anyone should have known this. Maybe this has been done but I've never seen or heard of it. But to the best of my knowledge, there is no understanding, written or unwritten, concerning how people assign priority to characters, and how many adventures they play as a result.
Lomiat 07-19-07, 02:56 PM	Or heck, it'd be incredibly healthy to start phasing in modules where anyone can do the bare minimum for success, but actual non-combat abilities get you the higher grades of success. -Matt I agree with you there. That would make things more interesting. Up until such mods had been so highly "phased in" that people stopped being able to roll initiative a couple times each adventure...
rutrow424 07-19-07, 02:57 PM	Problem here is that we have a chicken/egg situation. Did making non-combat skills unnecessary breed characters who fail at non-combat situations? -Matt It is very difficult to create a fighter who can be an asset out of combat from a mechanical standpoint. They do not have the skill points or class skills to do much well outside of physical challenges. They can spend feats (they have some to spare) to make some other options available, but that is not the norm. Clerics, paladins, sorcerers, and warmages IME suffer from the same problem but have better class skills, if they choose to take them. Because of this, and the DnD rules bias towards combat, it is far easier and safer to design adventures that focus on fighting - every class is designed to have combat effectiveness (whether w/ weapons, spells, or other abilities). I applaud any mod author that incorporates non-combat skills and such into the equation w/o crippling the "BDF" in full plate by making him act like a rogue or bard the whole time, or w/o hinging success on skills that may not be present in the party.
Samwise 07-19-07, 03:02 PM	No, as solberg said, the problem is mods that have a single path to solution. That's just bad mod design. Any LG mod that absolutely requires a single skill is bad mod design. Period. Well, I think I've ranted enough on this topic. It might be bad design, but without understanding why, people can easily do it anyway. In a home game, there is no reason not to have an encounter that showcases a single PCs specialized abilities. Even in a published product, a DM can easily change such an encounter to adapt it for his group, but that is not allowed in LG. As such, it becomes fatally flawed only in an LG context. As with many other elements that have evolved in LG adventures over the years, it has taken time for the campaign staff to recognize this as a problem, and more time for individual authors to recognize it as a problem and stop trying to include such elements because they don't think there is anything wrong with it because of their home game experiences.
rutrow424 07-19-07, 03:20 PM	This is why I started the other threads in the general forum. People keep saying that, but unless there has been some significant database establishing this that has been communicated to the campaign staff, I see no way it is at all reasonable to say that anyone should have known this. Maybe this has been done but I've never seen or heard of it. But to the best of my knowledge, there is no understanding, written or unwritten, concerning how people assign priority to characters, and how many adventures they play as a result. I think it is pretty clear that every player does things slightly differently based upon their style, their gaming "group," and whatnot. Mod writers, triads, and the Circle I think are all players and former players and should already know the basic pattern (as metz described in your other thread) that significant participants follow with their PCs. The crux of this issue is whether it was a mistake to make Dominion start at APL 6 and if so, whether it was foreseeable. It is a defensible decision, but in retrospect probably should have been an APL 4+ to account for the "weak" APL 6 Bright Sands PCs. Again every player is different, but I think it was entirely forseeable that the majority of Bright Sands PCs were not going to be played as often or level as fast as normal PCs. The discussion would not be relevant if the APL 6 for the mod was perceived as "fair" or "tough" as opposed to "broken." Those sorts of things happen, but this is the perfect storm type of situation (APL min for the mod happens to be the "broken" APL in a finale of the 1st LG campaign arc).
LeeShort 07-19-07, 03:24 PM	It might be bad design, but without understanding why, people can easily do it anyway. In a home game, there is no reason not to have an encounter that showcases a single PCs specialized abilities. Even in a published product, a DM can easily change such an encounter to adapt it for his group, but that is not allowed in LG. As such, it becomes fatally flawed only in an LG context. Totally agreed. Though even for home games I think adventures are better off if you design in more than one success path. But it's not nearly as critical. And I do like Matt's suggestion where you might come out of the mod better off if you have the right non-combat skill. I'm even perfectly fine with mods where non-combat skills are essential...say if you have the choice of using Diplomacy, Bluff, or more stealthy options.
Cardinal Teplin 07-19-07, 06:22 PM	And I do like Matt's suggestion where you might come out of the mod better off if you have the right non-combat skill. I'm even perfectly fine with mods where non-combat skills are essential...say if you have the choice of using Diplomacy, Bluff, or more stealthy options. Plenty of Splintered Suns and Onnwal mods require some non-combat abilities. Skimp on the non-combat sections and the mod gets tougher. You can get through the mod without doing much but combat, but you may not get everything on the AR.