Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Gonko 01-29-08, 01:55 PM	We all know what railroading is when a DM applies it to players, but can't players railroad a DM just as easily? Examples: 1. Party has no healing ability at all. Because party knows that DMs are reluctant to kill the entire party, they know that the DM will provide an NPC healer or provide them with some other means to heal. Therefore, they railroaded the DM into giving them healing without having to be a healing class character. 2. Party lacks a good rogue or ability to detect and remove traps. The explanation is similar to above scenario (i.e. DM must provide a trap-finder or be forced into not making traps or risk a TPK). 3. PCs make war machine characters with no social interaction skills or feats. DM therefore can't really make any substantial story which requires the PCs to role-play (as opposed to roll-playing) because entire adventure would come to a halt. I think you all get the point. Players can make characters however they want and conduct themselves any way they see fit because they know that most DMs are reluctant to punish their stupidity or lack of balance. After all, if they decide to kill everyone in town 2 minutes into the adventure, is the DM really going to have the town guards kill them off and end the adventure for everyone right then and there? Probably not. They know the DM won't call their bluff and will come up with something to keep them alive so everyone doesn't pack it up and leave after 2 minutes of gaming. This gives players the ability to railroad the DM into essentially letting them get away with a lot more than they should because the DM doesn't want to look like the bad guy that ruined everyone's fun after 2 minutes. Likewise, given the amount of time the DM probably worked on the adventure, he's not going to want to toss all of it in the trash after 2 minutes either.
Drackthor 01-29-08, 02:04 PM	This assumes that the DM is playing The Great Equalizer and not just the narrator. Maybe your DM will just decide that, hey, you didn't pick a healer, so you must not think you need one, and hey, if you can't disarm that trap, I guess you're gonna let the Fighter suck it up and disarm it the good ol' fashioned way, and maybe no one in your party is Charismatic? Well, the dice did the talking, looks like the benefits of a smooth talker won't be reaching your party.
Orchomenos 01-29-08, 02:11 PM	About #1, this is hardly railroading from each part (Players or DM). Yes, the players can assume the DM will provide healing, but the DM has thousand choices of doing so: giving a few potions of healing at each encounter, giving a wand of cure light wounds, a boring NPC cleric of Pelor, a crafty NPC cleric of Mask, an orcish cleric of Gruumsh who wishes to destroy the same goblin tribe the PCs are fighting, an intelligent magical staff able to cast cure magic, etc. About #2, it's possible to throw non-lethal traps to your party. For example, a Bestow Curse trap. Or a shallow pit trap. If the players request an NPC trapfinder, have them meet the thieves guild, with a choices of NPCs: a bad one who will die at its third trap, a potent one who will flee with the party's gold, a crafty one who will sell the PCs into slavery... #3 is another story, it clearly address the type of game you want to play as a group. Even before rolling new character stats, or as you said, even before spending hours of work on your next adventure, ask your friends what kind of game they want to play. Hack'n Slash? Political/Religious Intrigue? Mercenary group? The Hack'n Slash game require absolutely no social skill, the Political/Religious Intrigue require high social skill, while the Mercenary group require something in the middle (just enough to negociate contracts).
CrimsonDeath 01-29-08, 02:17 PM	I think you all get the point. Players can make characters however they want and conduct themselves any way they see fit because they know that most DMs are reluctant to punish their stupidity or lack of balance. After all, if they decide to kill everyone in town 2 minutes into the adventure, is the DM really going to have the town guards kill them off and end the adventure for everyone right then and there? Probably not. They know the DM won't call their bluff and will come up with something to keep them alive so everyone doesn't pack it up and leave after 2 minutes of gaming. This gives players the ability to railroad the DM into essentially letting them get away with a lot more than they should because the DM doesn't want to look like the bad guy that ruined everyone's fun after 2 minutes. Likewise, given the amount of time the DM probably worked on the adventure, he's not going to want to toss all of it in the trash after 2 minutes either. If the DM worked really hard on an adventure, then it's thrown in the trash as soon as the PCs start slaughtering the townsfolk. IMO, the appropriate response is to respond normally-- possibly by having the town guard come in and crush the PCs-- and then ask the players if they'd like to start over and play an actual campaign rather than mindlessly slaughtering helpless NPCs. This way, you've only wasted two minutes instead of an entire afternoon (plus all the time spent building characters and adventures).
kelcimer 01-29-08, 02:52 PM	We all know what railroading is when a DM applies it to players, but can't players railroad a DM just as easily? No. Not unless the DM is weak willed and/or terribly inexperienced.
nights_the_necromancer 01-29-08, 03:29 PM	why not have the pc's create backup characters in which if something happens to their character then they don't have to sit and create another character and encourage them not to choose the same type but choose different types to see if they like the new choice better. i.e if the pc has chosen nothing but a fighting class have him/her choose a ranger or bard or magic user
Thaliost 01-29-08, 03:36 PM	1 & 2 are just simple. You can't force someone to play what he doesn't want to play. One NPC's assistance isn't a big deal. 3 is a matter of communication between DM and PC's. Generally you should tell them what sort of game you're planning before the game really starts.
DiegoDraw 01-29-08, 03:53 PM	Haha, you think I won't punish my players for being stupid? They're all smart enough to know that if they don't have a healer, they're going to be CRUSHED. If they don't have a rogue, they're going to get pummeled, and if they don't have a smooth-talker, they're probably going to get into a lot of unnecessary fights that they could've avoided. I WILL change my adventure if the players truly want something different than what I had planned, but if they just are selfish and all of them want to be tanks, they're going to suffer the consequences, of which includes dying characters. I've killed player characters within the first couple sessions, simply because they were being idiotic. They got their character back, because they were doing a mission for the church, but all the other players had to go off the beaten path in order to ressurect the guy, who had to stand out and watch from the sidelines for about an hour or two. Basically, the player learned his lesson, because he had to go on a "timeout" for trying to mess with me, and the other players kept him in check, because they don't want to have to go on some long quest to ressurect their friend again (and who knows if they even get off THAT easily next time). You just need to not be afraid of your players dying or facing extreme consequences for their actions. If they do, make sure they know that it's their own fault, explain to them why they faced those consequences, and hope they right their wrongs in the future. If they don't, well...They know they're probably going to face those consequences again. ~D-Draw
kntshade 01-29-08, 03:55 PM	After all, if they decide to kill everyone in town 2 minutes into the adventure, is the DM really going to have the town guards kill them off and end the adventure for everyone right then and there? Probably not. This actually happened in a game I ran a long time ago. I am a big fan of enforcing consequences to PCs actions. I think eventully the whole party was captured, tried, found guilty of mass-murder, and hanged. It was all very gruesome, one of the players was even hanged by his entrails from a tall tower. They were pretty shocked (and mad) that they didn't get away with it, but after that they were more careful when we started over with new characters. This had the added benefit of instilling a bit of fear into them, because they knew I wouldn't hesitate to kill their PCs. I think players SHOULD fear their DM to a certian extent :devil:
nights_the_necromancer 01-29-08, 04:07 PM	This actually happened in a game I ran a long time ago. I am a big fan of enforcing consequences to PCs actions. I think eventully the whole party was captured, tried, found guilty of mass-murder, and hanged. It was all very gruesome, one of the players was even hanged by his entrails from a tall tower. They were pretty shocked (and mad) that they didn't get away with it, but after that they were more careful when we started over with new characters. This had the added benefit of instilling a bit of fear into them, because they knew I wouldn't hesitate to kill their PCs. I think players SHOULD fear their DM to a certian extent :devil: yes because in the next room might be anything from a (depending on level) hydra to kobold
Moonslayer 01-29-08, 04:21 PM	We have had games with no healing other than trying to find somewhere to hole up and rest or retreat to civilization. It's the price we paid for not taing a character with access to healing. Even when we have a Rouge they usually seem to have no skills in finding and removing traps. We pay the price and take the damage when we screw up and trip one (insta-kill traps, esp. ones that can wipe out the whole party, are rare though). Again, the price we pay. We rarely have a charcter with much skill in social interaction. Many times it comes down to, "I have a 10 CHA and you have an 11, you're doing the talking". Even "war-machines" have to deal with some NPCs on a social level, it creates whole different set of interactions than when you have a smooth talker in the party. Sometimes it has made for better actual roleplay because noone can fall back on a die roll to save them from a case of foot-in-mouth disease. Sometimes things go bad sometimes they don't, again the price we pay. Bottom line: as a DM I don't go easy on the players in these situations. They choose the characters they want to play knowing full well what they are capable of doing. If they come upon a situation none of them have the proper skill set to handle easily they do the best they can and deal with the consequences. If they keep going while badly injured or stroll blindly with no regard for hazards they realize they are potentially asking for trouble. As a player I don't expect the DM to alter the situation to compensate for our weaknessess, I expect us (the players) to find a way to deal with the challenges as they come.
Ikyotojin 01-29-08, 04:40 PM	In all the years I've DM'd, I've never padded the player's corners. I don't make it my job to kill them, but I certainly don't make it my job to patch them up or give them a walk in the park... My walks in the park usually involve a lot of screaming and running. ;) If you fudge rolls to draw out a combat, that's one thing. If you give them healing potions and wands to fill in their shortsightedness, that's another! Characters die. My son had a sorcerer that went form a full 5 HP to -2 because of one good wach in the head form a bear's paw. He didn't do what the other two 1st level characters did - RUN! They were a monk and a rogue. They hadn't even THOUGHT about healing - they "forgot". One pile of bear droppings later they make a point of having a character per party with cure light wounds. Period! Did my son get bent out of shape? Nope. He's TEN YEARS OLD and can handle it when a fictional character dies. He's even had his other character (a rogue 7/fighter 7) drop to 0 hp and said "ok, no one step on the elf! I'm the comedy relief and without me, you all would get bored to DEATH!". Then he grabbed his dice and started making a replacement - He called me a jerk in the process, but he was glad his character didn't end up as bear cr@p this time. The higher lever character got saved by the party cleric and all was well - but seriously - If a ten year old can handle a character getting slapped down, then anyone can. If they are playing like there is a net at the bottom of every cliff, they won't bother hesitating to jump. If you make that net out of thin sharp wire that acts like a slicer and make "character chips", they just might start to think ahead. PS - feel free to use the net trap. I've done it and it's a hoot. :devil:
SillyRobot 01-29-08, 05:55 PM	I've DMed groups where every character is a cleric -- they still found traps. I had other groups where everyone was a Thief -- they still hit undead. It is the group's perogative to determine what its dynamic and strengths will be. The group's success is partially based upon its makeup, but more based on the group understanding its strengths and finding compensation for its weaknesses. I think it helps that I run a strong simulationist style campaign and the groups feel free to disengage and avoid adventures as they see fit. In my current campagin, the group was faced with a sea voyage/pirate capture scenario. They discussed it among themselves, determined no one had any water survival capability and high-tailed inland. Since then they've been exploring a jungle wasteland and xenophobic city of Druegar.
KruniacZio 01-29-08, 08:27 PM	We all know what railroading is when a DM applies it to players, but can't players railroad a DM just as easily? Examples: 1. Party has no healing ability at all. Because party knows that DMs are reluctant to kill the entire party, they know that the DM will provide an NPC healer or provide them with some other means to heal. Therefore, they railroaded the DM into giving them healing without having to be a healing class character. 2. Party lacks a good rogue or ability to detect and remove traps. The explanation is similar to above scenario (i.e. DM must provide a trap-finder or be forced into not making traps or risk a TPK). 3. PCs make war machine characters with no social interaction skills or feats. DM therefore can't really make any substantial story which requires the PCs to role-play (as opposed to roll-playing) because entire adventure would come to a halt. I think you all get the point. Players can make characters however they want and conduct themselves any way they see fit because they know that most DMs are reluctant to punish their stupidity or lack of balance. After all, if they decide to kill everyone in town 2 minutes into the adventure, is the DM really going to have the town guards kill them off and end the adventure for everyone right then and there? Probably not. They know the DM won't call their bluff and will come up with something to keep them alive so everyone doesn't pack it up and leave after 2 minutes of gaming. This gives players the ability to railroad the DM into essentially letting them get away with a lot more than they should because the DM doesn't want to look like the bad guy that ruined everyone's fun after 2 minutes. Likewise, given the amount of time the DM probably worked on the adventure, he's not going to want to toss all of it in the trash after 2 minutes either. I dont consider any of this railroading, and it most certainly wouldnt work on me... :D 1 - The PCs will die, or lose a limb here or there. 2 - The PCs WILL most definately die (So many gone from simple pit traps =/) 3 - The plot will go on as planned, and when the PCs cant use diplomacy, they will most likely use force. This will likely result in their deaths. No problems with any of these. I dont mind looking like a "bad guy", I roleplay (and DM) realistically as per the setting. :D
FarSouth 01-29-08, 08:43 PM	Like the others, I don't really think the examples given qualify as railroading. A railroading DM just cuts off all the players' options or makes sure that all the options lead to the same result. Gonko's examples still alow the DM options - he can choose to adjust his adventures to accommodate the players' character creation decisions, or he can choose not to and let the players either adapt or fail. The other main difference is that when a DM railroads, it is usually only obvious once the game is well underway. The only way the players can stop it is by confronting the DM out of game (as their characters are obviously powerless) to demand a change, running the risk of animosity causing the game to collapse. In the cases where the players make these choices about party composition (Gonko's examples), the DM knows about it before play even begins. He can talk about the potential problem with the players, suggest they try something different, or agree to run an adventure tailored to the party they want. There's ample opportunity to resolve any potential problem long before everyone's invested/wasted their time.
CCS 01-30-08, 03:18 AM	I love it when I encounter players who hold these misconceptions. See I'm the DM. My job is (mostly) to controll all the monsters/NPCs the players encounter & the very world around them. It is NOT to ensure the players success or failure. So when I get parties lacking a certain type of character I think nothing of it. If the players had desired class x in their mix then you'd think one of them would be playing it.... Players in my games soon realize that I won't automatically cover their weeknesses. Nor will their weekness deter me from using lethal traps, undead, arcane based challenges, etc. Likewise treasure will not miraculously consist of only things they'd find usefull. And if for some reason the group decides that they DO want such NPC help? Then they get to RP trying to recruit such a person. Hope everybody didn't treat Ch. as a dump stat.... Adventure wise it doesn't matter how many hours I may have invested in something. If the parties actions "ruin" it, oh well. I'll just respond to what they're currently doing vrs what I thought they would. And I'll just file my notes away to be used at some later date. As for what happens if they decide to go on a town murdering rampage? I can roll with that. I'll try my best to take them down with the town guard etc, & I won't shed a tear if I kill them, but in the end? If that's how their story develops, so be it. So what do I do about those who simply don't RolePlay? I continue to throw RP situations at them as events require. If they don't respond it just makes the adventure that much more difficult for them.... They'll likely miss out on info, items, allies, etc....
narack 01-30-08, 08:18 AM	In my game, my players don't have a rogue either a Cleric. I don't provide one unless they look for and addition to their party and want this class. They were lucky that a new player came in and played a Cleric. Still no rogue and they get pawn 1 door out of 4 in my festival city where there's a Dungeon Challenge to win a philosopher stone.
eamon 01-30-08, 08:25 AM	The lack of a healer can be addressed in any number of ways. It's not a problem. A party running around with belts of healing is perfectly playable; and quite a few classes can use wands of healing (any ranger, for instance). Even with only a belt of healing, the game remains playable. Traps aren't usually save-or-die anyhow. The worst that will happen, normally, is that a player needs more healing. This means that adventuring becomes really slow. That's not just a DM's problem. I usually use an element of time pressure at least occasionally; and if they make bad choices, that's just going to cost them. 3. PCs make war machine characters with no social interaction skills or feats. DM therefore can't really make any substantial story which requires the PCs to role-play (as opposed to roll-playing) because entire adventure would come to a halt. This one is a bit of a problem - but frankly, if you're trying to run a game of intrigue with players wanting to play a game of battle, you have a problem anyway.
skrap-san 01-30-08, 09:28 AM	I have found from experience that just as often it is the DM derailing himself in fear of ruining the game, and thus doing what he feared to do.
Joe Khol 01-30-08, 11:01 AM	Threads like this always make me sad. If you play the game as some kind of competition between players and DM then someone is going to loose. If either use such questionable and underhanded tricks to increase their chances of winning, the other is going to be unhappy (and probably do the same in return so nobody is happy). The point is that tabletop role-play games aren't really meant to be competitive. The idea is to play out an interesting story, not see if the DM can kill the PCs before the players break the plot. D&D, like most systems, is designed with that in mind (hence the CR system which (theoretically!) sets things up so the players should *just* beat the challenges they face). Now, there's no wrong way to play the game - if you're all happy, it's all good - but don't be surprised if you hit problems (mechanically or conceptually) when you try to play with a significantly different mindset to the one the designers were expecting. So yes, players can railroad the DM. The question should be "Why would they want to?".
Lincoln Hills 01-30-08, 03:51 PM	In my boastful and self-satisfied opinion (IMBSSO), the DM's job is to present a campaign world that is 1) plausible, 2) challenging, and 3) impartial. A player can appeal to any of those three points, but beyond that - a player's "privileges" cease. In the first two cases, I feel that the lack of what many consider an "indispensable" skill/spell/ability does a lot to promote innovation and cunning on the part of the characters. I don't owe them a blasted thing: each of them had an option to create a character with the "missing" ability, and each of them has the ability at any moment to turn to me and say, "We don't think we have the skills/spells/magic items for this job... so we're going to go hire a hireling, quest or trade for a particular magic item, consult a sage, buy a flock of chickens..." You get the idea. (P.S. The flock of chickens is a notoriously effective and totally inhumane way to check for traps.) The third case (ME HAVE SWORD! NO NEED BRAIN! ME HAVE BIG SWORD!) is almost the flip-side. Because combat plays such a big role in D&D, some folks figure that "a character who is optimized for combat" is the perfect character. Then, later, the player gets upset because the DM expects the character to do something other than charge into a 30'x30' room and slay nine orcs. Being impartial (you're not against them any more than you're for them) means warning the players before they generate characters: "This campaign will definitely involve wilderness travel, and might involve some travel over seas and negotiations with potential allies." Or: "This campaign will be dungeon-centered aside from brief stops back in town, and almost everything in the dungeon will be hostile: an expert in traps would be a good idea too." (Don't give everything away, though: remember you also want to be 'challenging'.) The fourth case (PCs going berserk) is a perpetual threat and looms even larger as the PCs go up in level... but I'm afraid Gonko is on the wrong track when he says "They know the DM won't call their bluff and will come up with something to keep them alive so everyone doesn't pack it up and leave after 2 minutes of gaming." All three of my DMing principles require as ruthless and as powerful a counter-stroke from the local authorities as can be realistically delivered... CrimsonDeath answered this one better than I can: if the PCs go berserk and the entire party ends up slaughtered by the town guard, the players will say to themselves, "Oh, I guess going berserk is a bad idea." They won't think the DM is out to 'get' them: they'll think the DM's world shows no mercy toward psychopaths, and they'll start rolling up non-psychopathic characters.
StormKnight 01-30-08, 07:45 PM	Haha, you think I won't punish my players for being stupid? They're all smart enough to know that if they don't have a healer, they're going to be CRUSHED. If they don't have a rogue, they're going to get pummeled, and if they don't have a smooth-talker, they're probably going to get into a lot of unnecessary fights that they could've avoided. Yes, goodness forbid that people actually should play a group they find fun. Do you also crush them for having a well balanced party when anyone in their right mind should have known to stock up on all four tanks? Or for being dumb enough to have wizards along when you planned a bunch of no magic zones? I also try to quelch anything that my players might find amusing or different. I sure don't want them enjoying themselves or anything. Healing is readily available in a variety of ways. If nobody wants to play a healer, nothing wrong with having other ways. They'll just have more healing items instead of some spiffy fighty items. The main purpouse of 'rogues' classically is to defeat traps. Why are the traps there? To give rogues something to do! Leave 'em both out, now problem. Etc, etc. Railroading is when the DM decides to take power the characters SHOULD have out of their hands. Making characters compatible with the campaign is just good working together. If your DM wants to run off the shelf games, make it easy and make a mostly balanced party (or accept that it'll be a little more challenging). If the DM wants to run a 'Wizard's School' game, this is a very bad time to insist on a balanced party. If the party wants to slaughter the town, stop them and say "What the hell are you people doing? I'm not running a psychotic-fantasy game, so stop right there."
KruniacZio 01-30-08, 07:56 PM	If the party wants to slaughter the town, stop them and say "What the hell are you people doing? I'm not running a psychotic-fantasy game, so stop right there." Thats infringing upon roleplaying freedoms. Let the players go apeshit - then they get massacred by high leveled adventurers who -do- care about the townsfolk.
Drackthor 01-30-08, 08:15 PM	Thats infringing upon roleplaying freedoms. Let the players go apeshit - then they get massacred by high leveled adventurers who -do- care about the townsfolk. Or if you just wanted to display that you are the DM, have Pelor drop in for a visit and godsmack them one at a time. :angel:
CmdrCorsiken 01-30-08, 08:51 PM	Players can make characters however they want. . . . Character creation is not this free when I GM. When it comes time to begin a new campaign, I first present the players with some basic information about the world as well as a simple description of the campaign premise. This gives the players a clear starting point for creating their characters. Their options are still quite varried, but the entire spectrum is not included. If I've already told them that the campaign will take place on a large island that has been fought over many times over the last thousands years by two mighty empires and will involve several long sea voyages, it should be clear that some character options would be bad ideas. The heavily armored paladin or knight would be an unwise choice. I wouldn't outright forbid it, but that player better be smart enough to have his character stow his armor when aboard ship. Plus, every character better put a couple ranks in Swim up front; not only is it wise mechanically but is also fits the culture of the campaign environment. Like many have already said, I would not 'pull any punches' to compensate for bad decisions.
StormKnight 01-31-08, 01:10 PM	Thats infringing upon roleplaying freedoms. I can assure you, there is no constitutional garauntee of roleplaying freedom. I did enough playing with nutty psychos in Junior High to last a lifetime. I would not waste the time to actually play a game with them.
KruniacZio 01-31-08, 01:22 PM	Thats infringing upon roleplaying freedoms. I can assure you, there is no constitutional garauntee of roleplaying freedom. I did enough playing with nutty psychos in Junior High to last a lifetime. I would not waste the time to actually play a game with them. Crack wise all you want, but if a player can roleplay a psychopath effectively (preferrably in the World Of Darkness, rather than D&D, where such mental illnesses are more "dramatic"), then so be it. They have to deal with the consequences of their actions In-Character. While its understandable that if there are no elves in your campaign world, playing an elf should be restricted, there is really no reason to bar playing some sort of Evil alignment, as it exists within the campaign setting. In other words (As I go off to make a Hezrou PC), whatever the players can handle as roleplayers, so be it. If they act like town-killing idiots, then the roleplaying consequences of those actions should surface.
DiegoDraw 01-31-08, 01:26 PM	Yes, goodness forbid that people actually should play a group they find fun. Do you also crush them for having a well balanced party when anyone in their right mind should have known to stock up on all four tanks? Or for being dumb enough to have wizards along when you planned a bunch of no magic zones? I also try to quelch anything that my players might find amusing or different. I sure don't want them enjoying themselves or anything. I'm not saying I'm going to kill them all off and go, "Whoops, you lose," but I also demand a level of respect at the table, because I want to let the players know that they're NOT infallible. If they know that I'm just going to go, "Hey, here's an NPC healer" when they don't have any means of healing or go, "No traps in THIS dungeon" when they don't have a rogue, then it just leads to a sense that I'm "letting them win." I don't want that feeling. I want the feeling that if they mess up they very well CAN die. Not that I WANT them to die, I want them to be smart and NOT die, but I'm not going to baby them the whole way so that they don't. Everyone DOES enjoy this style of gameplay, simply because they're not being babied, and there's a far higher level of suspense and expectation in the game. My players will NEVER be heard saying, "Well, if we die in this battle, then we'll just get somebody to ressurrect all of us, no problem" or "Well, this jump across the deadly chasm looks really dangerous, but if I fail my roll and my save, it's not like I'm going to DIE or anything." ~D-Draw
McPoyo 01-31-08, 02:13 PM	Answer to 1: They either die horribly, or they learn to fight smarter and rest in between. I won't NOT allow them to procure healing items and the like, but I'm not gonna throw it at them for no reason. They need to think like people, not like video game characters. If you were going into battle, and you had the potential for "magical healing", would you not try to procure some, or at least ensure you had someone with you who could provide some? NPCs, purchasing magical items, etc. In fact, most groups I run miss 1 or 2 "standard" party roles. Most of them never have a cleric or anyone who can provide magical healing,and resort to resting in between, hiring an NPC caster, or purchasing magical items to do it for them. 2: They either get clever and bypass the trap, hire someone, or just suck up the trap and deal with the effects afterwards. 3: I usually find out what type of game the players want if it deviates from my standard fare of "Mixed Hack and slash/social", but I make sure the group knows this ahead of time. If they choose to build contrary to this, and try to do it the hard way, good job. Otherwise, they know what's gonna happen more or less within the game.
Eagleclaww 01-31-08, 02:43 PM	I haven't played D&D in years. (wanna get back into the game), but when I was a teenager (um, in the 80's), I usually had my players have a main toon and a secondary toon. I basically did that so that there was a good spread of classes arround. (esp if one didn't show up for a session). Most of my adventures had 3 or 4 players with 6 to 8 characters. (had 5 players, but rarely got all 5 at once). If I can remember after so long, the classes Player 1: Fighter (main), wizard (backup). Player 2.: Cleric (main), monk (backup). Player 3: Druid (main), Paladin (backup). Player 4: Illusionist (main), rogue (backup). Player 5. Rogue (main), cleric (backup). When I was a player myself, I had a Monk as my main, and an Illusionist as a backup. The players certainly seemed to like playing 2 classes. But then again, way back then, the rules seemed to be a lot simpler. D&D 3.5 seems awfully bloated imho.
DiegoDraw 01-31-08, 03:03 PM	Working two players may be fun, especially for a hack n slash adventure, but I feel it really pulls down the game in terms of roleplaying. I mean, how are you supposed to keep track of two different personalities at the same time? In battle it's simple, but in social encounters? Either one person just goes mute for the whole game (which is what usually happens), or the one player talks for both of them and then they get mixed up. I only let people have two characters at one time if someone had to leave early or something of the sort, and they were already in the middle of an adventure (if someone simply doesn't show up, I'll occasionally be nice and tag them along as an NPC, otherwise they just stay back at the town or wherever they started and don't get the XP). ~D-Draw
CrimsonDeath 01-31-08, 04:06 PM	While its understandable that if there are no elves in your campaign world, playing an elf should be restricted, there is really no reason to bar playing some sort of Evil alignment, as it exists within the campaign setting. Except for, maybe, thematic reasons, or the fact that you don't want to run a villainous game. As I recall, the PHB actually indirectly recommends banning evil PCs.
mtbOgre 01-31-08, 04:30 PM	Working two players may be fun, especially for a hack n slash adventure, but I feel it really pulls down the game in terms of roleplaying. I mean, how are you supposed to keep track of two different personalities at the same time? In battle it's simple, but in social encounters? If I'm reading his post correctly he was talking about having a backup player which would only be played if the party was shy a character. So if the guy with the cleric didn't show up the player with the rogue would play his cleric instead. Or maybe both I'm not sure. We have a backup cleric for when the regular cleric is out. One of the players just plays 2 characters for that game. The rest of the party is redundant enough that we can do without any other player. Actually our group kind of likes the backup cleric better than the main one. As for the original posters comments. I think lack of healing or lack of trap finding is the parties problem. If you home brew then just make the dungeon. If you use commercial adventures don't change them. That's been said before though. Our group has the lack of healing problem... even though they have a cleric. The cleric's player thinks the cleric should be swinging her sword when the party already has a barb, 2 rangers, a fighter and a rogue.
Drackthor 02-01-08, 01:08 AM	Except for, maybe, thematic reasons, or the fact that you don't want to run a villainous game. As I recall, the PHB actually indirectly recommends banning evil PCs. Which can sometimes be retarded, due to the fact that honestly, the entire party being chaotic good is The Rebel Alliance from Star Wars, a full group of Lawful Good characters is basically everyone sitting around as such Player 1: Hm. I greatly dislike Evil. Player 2: Agreed. Player 3: Quite. Player 4: Indubitably Player 1: Say, this tea is rather nice. It's really only possible to get such high quality tea in a law-abiding society. Players 2-4: Agreed. or you get a bunch of Neutral Goods. Player 1: Hey guys. Bad guy dead ahead. (Party attacks and kills evil monster) Player 1: Oh, there's another monster Player 2: Well, we killed one already, which got us some loot and rid the world of an evil creature, but killing another seems kinda excessive. Player 1: K, back to the tavern for drinks that we'll skip out on paying for. I mean, what would the Order of the Stick be without Belkar? What would WOTC be without the Beholder that secretly masterminds all of it's business ventures? What would Rocky Balboa be without Paulie? The list goes on. Good Guys need Evil, or at least Not-good people to travel with, to provide Comedic Genius born of Tension brought on by having Conflicting Alignments.
Drackthor 02-01-08, 01:10 AM	If I'm reading his post correctly he was talking about having a backup player which would only be played if the party was shy a character. So if the guy with the cleric didn't show up the player with the rogue would play his cleric instead. Or maybe both I'm not sure. We have a backup cleric for when the regular cleric is out. One of the players just plays 2 characters for that game. The rest of the party is redundant enough that we can do without any other player. Actually our group kind of likes the backup cleric better than the main one. As for the original posters comments. I think lack of healing or lack of trap finding is the parties problem. If you home brew then just make the dungeon. If you use commercial adventures don't change them. That's been said before though. Our group has the lack of healing problem... even though they have a cleric. The cleric's player thinks the cleric should be swinging her sword when the party already has a barb, 2 rangers, a fighter and a rogue. The average dungeon trap doesn't require a seasoned rogue, merely the loss of a chicken purchased from one of the commoners.:devil:
CrimsonDeath 02-01-08, 04:51 AM	Which can sometimes be retarded, due to the fact that honestly, the entire party being chaotic good is The Rebel Alliance from Star Wars, a full group of Lawful Good characters is basically everyone sitting around as such Player 1: Hm. I greatly dislike Evil. Player 2: Agreed. Player 3: Quite. Player 4: Indubitably Player 1: Say, this tea is rather nice. It's really only possible to get such high quality tea in a law-abiding society. Players 2-4: Agreed. or you get a bunch of Neutral Goods. Player 1: Hey guys. Bad guy dead ahead. (Party attacks and kills evil monster) Player 1: Oh, there's another monster Player 2: Well, we killed one already, which got us some loot and rid the world of an evil creature, but killing another seems kinda excessive. Player 1: K, back to the tavern for drinks that we'll skip out on paying for. I mean, what would the Order of the Stick be without Belkar? What would WOTC be without the Beholder that secretly masterminds all of it's business ventures? What would Rocky Balboa be without Paulie? The list goes on. Good Guys need Evil, or at least Not-good people to travel with, to provide Comedic Genius born of Tension brought on by having Conflicting Alignments. You don't need conflicting alignments to have arguments within the party. My CG bard gets in more arguments with the CG favored soul than he does with the LG paladin. (Of course, when he does get in an argument with the paladin, it's a big one...)
Shan 02-01-08, 05:02 AM	We all know what railroading is when a DM applies it to players, but can't players railroad a DM just as easily? Examples: 1. Party has no healing ability at all. Because party knows that DMs are reluctant to kill the entire party, they know that the DM will provide an NPC healer or provide them with some other means to heal. Therefore, they railroaded the DM into giving them healing without having to be a healing class character. 2. Party lacks a good rogue or ability to detect and remove traps. The explanation is similar to above scenario (i.e. DM must provide a trap-finder or be forced into not making traps or risk a TPK). 3. PCs make war machine characters with no social interaction skills or feats. DM therefore can't really make any substantial story which requires the PCs to role-play (as opposed to roll-playing) because entire adventure would come to a halt. I find these questions quite irrelevant, simply because point of playing is to have fun, not have a fight between players and DM :> If your party wants to play something else than Holy Trio (Healer Tank Damage), then the DM should adapt.. it's not "railroading the DM", it's skill of DM'ing. Then again if your DM wants to pull off roleplay heavy campaigns, he should inform you beforehand.. and find a new set of players if you'd want to play "war machines" and hack n slash :p
mtbOgre 02-01-08, 12:05 PM	The average dungeon trap doesn't require a seasoned rogue, merely the loss of a chicken purchased from one of the commoners.:devil: Sounds like sub optimal traps. I'm not that nice to my players. Kobolds set up traps they can run across but heavier creatures trigger, alignment based traps, race based traps... In the group where I'm a player the DM has a DMPC. We make his character go in the lead most of the time.
Drackthor 02-01-08, 12:21 PM	Sounds like sub optimal traps. The average dungeon trap Seems kinda self-explanatory IMO
mtbOgre 02-01-08, 12:31 PM	Seems kinda self-explanatory IMO Hmm, I suppose if you assume that the BBEG is incompetent. IMO the big challenge is not to create the ultimate PC killing dungeon but to make a dungeon that would make sense to someone trying to defend it. Creating traps that continually get triggered by squirrels or rats and have to be reset doesn't make sense at all. -- Dennis
Drackthor 02-01-08, 12:35 PM	Hmm, I suppose if you assume that the BBEG is incompetent. IMO the big challenge is not to create the ultimate PC killing dungeon but to make a dungeon that would make sense to someone trying to defend it. Creating traps that continually get triggered by squirrels or rats and have to be reset doesn't make sense at all. -- Dennis But in your own post you talk about kobolds setting up a trap they can walk over, but not a heavier creature. Were I to send a pig through the door, wouldn't it trigger it like any normal person?
mtbOgre 02-01-08, 01:03 PM	But in your own post you talk about kobolds setting up a trap they can walk over, but not a heavier creature. Were I to send a pig through the door, wouldn't it trigger it like any normal person? Sure. But you originally talked about chickens not pigs. Also, how many pigs do you bring with you? Do you bring along a pig-herder or just have good handle animal skills? When you travel 8 miles to get to the dungeon to the pigs run along beside your horses? What sort of handle animal check does it take to get 5 pigs to run 8 miles beside a horse? I suppose your group eats well.
CrimsonDeath 02-01-08, 01:36 PM	In the group where I'm a player the DM has a DMPC. We make his character go in the lead most of the time. Get ambushed from behind much?
mtbOgre 02-01-08, 01:42 PM	Get ambushed from behind much? Haven't had that problem yet. :rolleyes: Hopefully he's not reading this thread.
McPoyo 02-01-08, 01:55 PM	But in your own post you talk about kobolds setting up a trap they can walk over, but not a heavier creature. Were I to send a pig through the door, wouldn't it trigger it like any normal person? Not if it was SPIDER-PIG!
mtbOgre 02-01-08, 02:02 PM	Not if it was SPIDER-PIG! Holy cow... I cracked up reading this. I just saw that movie last night.
Lincoln Hills 02-01-08, 04:27 PM	Not if it was SPIDER-PIG! For the last time, people, consult your source material! It's clearly established that even Spider-Pig cannot walk on walls.
Drackthor 02-01-08, 05:52 PM	Not if it was SPIDER-PIG! I think McPoyo was the result of a wish spell for a new type of Construct. My guess is a Win Golem or a Pwnforged.
Kursk 02-01-08, 06:16 PM	We all know what railroading is when a DM applies it to players, but can't players railroad a DM just as easily? Examples: 1. Party has no healing ability at all. Because party knows that DMs are reluctant to kill the entire party, ... I tell players up front what types should be in party to help ensure survival. If they don't create the key char types I don't change the world or encounters. Other examples are variations on a theme and are handled the same by myself as the DM. No problem to address. See my sig.
McPoyo 02-02-08, 09:51 AM	Pwnforged...I like it.