Brigandage - Another AIMHack Campaign

[Nioca]

Remember, the session is TODAY! We're closing in on the finale!

[Triumph]

Remember, I will not be at the session today! Subs, make sure YOU are!

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Triumph

Remember, I will not be at the session today! Subs, make sure YOU are!

Wait, so we need a sub for a sub? What's that, a sub2?

[Triumph]

Maybe an under-sub-er?

[Nioca]

It'll depend on how many people are present. Fact is, it may just be Iliau, Xuan, and Erika for this session.

[Nioca]

Speaking of which, the next Brigandage is in 2 hours 30 minutes. Be there as the party arrives at Ssareko Point!

 

Unfortunately, CalRef's still down, so just copy-paste this into your address bar:

Code:

aim:GoChat?RoomName=spidwebRP

[Nioca]

And now, for something completely different. With only three people showing up and questions regarding whether they'd actually be able to stay, we wound up doing an improv session. Rolled up new characters, and set loose into the dangerous world of my imagination. Everyone involved had fun, and I hope to do another one-shot some day.

 

But the session was important for another reason. Ladies and gentlemen: That session had the FIRST PC FATALITY. Admittedly, it was a bit of a foregone conclusion... but you're still going to have to wait for the log to find out what happened.

 

As for Brigandage, I really should have trusted my gut and just faced that fact I needed to wait. Not making the same mistake twice, the session will (hopefully) actually happen on July 31st, which is the only clear day on the calendar. The good news is that Eph ought to be back by then. Heck, in a way, he never missed a session!

 

See you then. I'll hopefully have stuff moved to my freewebs account soon, since CalRef is STILL down.

[Nioca]

(WOO! GO QUADRUPLE POST!)

 

Anyway, the LOG of Felidae is up on my new (old) site. I've got to start the process of getting stuff moved back to freewebs... Hoo boy.

 

In the meantime, some quotes:

Click to reveal.. (They're Catastrophic!)

"Tunik. Healer. Archer. Serial self-introducer." - Tunik-Tan, after introducing himself. Again.

"It's your fault for being a mammal." - Reythisss the Dragonborn, to one of his foes.

"Dikiyoba doesn't suppose you happen to talk, by any chance?" *meow* "Is that a yes or a no?" - Dikiyoba, to a cat.

"Why would I ask where we were if I knew?" - Geoffrey.

 

See you guys at the next Brigandage! And thanks to Diki, Duck, Dantius, and Sarachim for playing along with this little Improv session!

[Rowen]

Kitties!

 

That was a fun session log to read. Great PR'ing and GM'ing all who were involved.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Rowen

Kitties!

That was a fun session log to read. Great PR'ing and GM'ing all who were involved.

Hey, I'm not in PR! How dare you sully my good name such!

[Triumph]

Wow. That was a crazy improv session.

[Nioca]

REMINDER!

 

The next session of Brigandage will take place on SATURDAY THE 31ST AT 7:00 PM EDT! That's six days from tonight!

 

Please, give me a heads-up if your schedule has changed and you can't make it.

[Triumph]

Originally Posted By: Nioca

I got my catfish avatar back! Yay!

...had something sinister happened to said avatar?

[Nioca]

Yes. The site it was hosted on, CalRef, went down and hasn't come back up yet. So I had to host my catfish elsewhere.

[Nioca]

Remember! The next, and likely final, session of Brigandage is TODAY in three hours! Be there!

 

Code:

aim:GoChat?RoomName=spidwebRP

[Triumph]

...dude, really? Final session? Wow. Coolness. I shall plan to spectate.

[Dantius]

EPIC FINAL SESSION!

 

I was amazed at how it turned out. Well, I wasn't, but everyone else was. Serious WTF-ery, though.

[Nioca]

It sort of says something when you've got everyone including the DM going "WTF JUST HAPPENED HERE?!?!".

 

Anyway, yes, the campaign has ended. I shall have a proper exit written up tomorrow, because it was physically impossible for me to predict that it would end this way. And then I'll get to work on the log.

 

In the meantime, though... To the migraine pills!

 

*also, note altered signature*

[Triumph]

It was the most mind-bogglingly bizarre couple of plot twists yet seen in AIMHack. It was truly astounding to watch. I kept thinking "I can't believe they're doing that," "Surely they're not really going to..." and then just "Wow."

[Ephesos]

...yeah. If I'm gonna write an epilogue, Harosh needs some serious hints on what happens next. Because now I just have no idea.

[Nioca]

Okay, huge massive post for wrap-up here.

 

First, a proper denouement:

Originally Posted By: Aftermath

When the next morning comes, you can't help but feel lost. Not eight hours earlier, five adventurers came to claim Reat's life. Now, three were assisting the very goblin they had been trying to stop.

 

After Iliau departed from the group, Erika performed a surprisingly respectful burial for Xuan (though, naturally, only after respectfully relieving him of even the knife he used to claim his own life). Darusk was sent back to the Trimaran to fetch Casper. And Harosh hesitantly helped Reat decipher Orlis's journal.

 

During the tedious work of trying to decipher the journal, Reat relates what happened. He came to the island looking for the journal of Orlis in his search for the Cliffpainter's supposed treasure. Apparently, he and a necromancer named Erratis were close companions. Also apparently, Orlis had built some kind of vault for a treasure of Erratis's... alarmingly, though, your glances through Reat's notes seem to be rather vague on the subject. Furthermore, it seems the mages were part of a triad, with a third, unknown mage having been involved at some point.

 

After two days, Reat finished at Ssareko Point. With you in tow, he set off to Thane, delivering the jewels back to Alaris and confirming that, yes, Alaris and Reat are working together to locate this treasure. Krath, Alaris's butler, was apparently behind the jewelry theft, in a misguided attempt to protect his master. Certain measures taken by Reat to uncover the jewelry had left him in mortal condition, causing him to tell the next person he came across of their location... Wallo. Wallo then was relieved of the jewelry by Reat after Wallo started talking of mutiny against Reat.

 

Alaris doesn't pay you anything, seeing how much damage you did to Reat's treasure hunt. However, he does agree to get Gregory Harper of the Ivory Stool to drop the 1,000 Gold bounty he had out against you for the damages caused by Xuan and Erika, along with the 1,600 gold worth of bounties set out by Reat. The 5,000 gold bounties originating from Ricoto, unfortunately, were ones that you'd just have to live with.

 

The next day, Reat informed you that you'd be setting out to Hermit Isle, where Orlis supposedly had an old tower, and where the remnents of his men were located. Spring weather was finally coming, and the adventure had finally come full circle. Where it had begun, it was now over. And a new one was just beginning...

 

Assuming, of course, that you decided to tag along. Reat genuinely seems to believe that his actions will lead to a better and united Skarrifissk. And yet he's also taken extreme measures to further those goals. At this point, you can't help but wonder... is this really the road you want to go down?

Okay, time to send in those epilogues. Some notes here for those that might be feeling lost:

-Iliau can do pretty much anything xe wants, since xe left the party at the end of the finale.

-Xuan is dead. There's not much to do besides decompose here.

-Harosh, Erika, and Darusk joined up with Reat at the end of the Finale. Now that the characters are in Thane during the denouement, if you've changed your mind and want to break for it, you can do so in your epilogue. Also, you can either write your epilogue yourself or, if you're feeling uncomfortable or confused, can just send me a small outline of what you want your character to do and I can write it up for you.

-Jewels wasn't present during the Finale, so I had Casper stay back on the Trimaran with some mysterious illness. It's ultimately up to her whether she joins with the trio that joined with Reat, strike out on her own, or what have you.

-I'll also be writing up epilogues for some of the NPCs as well, just so you can see what kind of impact you had on Skarrifissk.

 

Okay, now it's time for some thoughts. Let me start off with saying that I really enjoyed running this most of the time. The upkeep was a pain in the place where the sun doesn't shine, but actually running the sessions was great. However, there are a lot of things that, in hindsight, were ill-thought-out, executed poorly, and, given the chance, I likely would have changed. First, on the campaign's denouement. I've got to be honest, I couldn't help but wince. There was way too much explaining there, explaining that really ought to have been avoided, had I handled the plot better. Admittedly, part of this was the players making the rather surprising decision to join with the villain, instead of killing him (though that may have been my fault by making him too sympathetic at the end). But still... the plot should run smoothly, not get dumped on the players in the end text.

 

Another thing was the whole Orlis thing. Don't get me wrong, I liked injecting Harosh and Orlis a little deeper into the plot. However, I feel I got too enamored with it. The result is that I wound up side-tracking the plot and entire point of the campaign, and also wound up unintentionally showing favoritism to Harosh. This wound up being unfair to everyone (Harosh for hijacking his backstory, and the rest of the party for perpetually thrusting Harosh in the limelight). And while I don't think it actually turned out bad, it still wasn't as good as you guys deserved.

 

Speaking of which, allow me to take a moment and say that you all were excellent players. As were the subs, when they had to step in.

 

Another thing I probably wouldn't have done is keep derailing myself. Every other session, I'd wind up changing the plot on a whim. Which ultimately meant that when it ended, things were a bit of a mess. Players derailing the campaign is one thing, but when the DM is constantly derailing himself, it sort of defeats the purpose of having a plot in the first place.

 

There were also quite a few things that I wanted to do that never got a chance to see the light of day. Visiting Saris Peak and the monastery there, for one, and visiting the religion-torn battlefield called the town of Nikorom. Not to mention various other bits I planned out. Plus a few things I wanted to reveal to you now, but can't now that a sequel hook has been firmly lodged in place.

 

Mechanically, there are probably a few things I would have done differently, but I think it mostly just came down to inexperience.

 

Now, regarding the system, there was one thing I noticed while DMing, that particularly stood out last session: PC Defense. The way defense is handled right now is rather horribly broken. It's pretty transparent when it's Player versus DM-controlled-and-statted monsters, but becomes blatantly obvious when Player-versus-player arises. To put it bluntly, all current PCs have defenses of less than 20, regardless of their level. This means that someone completely untrained in any martial skill could still land a hit on high-dex player character. Fair enough, everyone has their critical hit, right? Thing is, if the creature has so much as a +5 attack, their odds of landing a hit increase to 25-50%, depending on the PC. And if they have a +10, which is about average for most semi-leveled PCs? That increases to 50-80% hit chance. If PCs and Monsters were statted out the same way, 9 out of 10 fights would break down into particularly bloody slaughter-fests where even natural 4s would regularly land hits. If a lot of the PCs thusfar were to turn on each other? The more optimized would be landing hits on natural 1s. The thing is that defenses don't scale like attack power; they're based primarily on stats, which require a lot of skill points to increase. My thought is to maybe make stats count for double when it comes to defense; that way, it'd be possible to invest in a character's defenses efficiently and help keep the system from slanting so far into favoring offense.

 

Okay, I think I've rambled enough for now. Any thoughts, comments, criticisms? Questions? Things you think I should have done differently?

[Ephesos]

Yeah, PC defense is broken. I do not have an elegant solution for it right now, other than avoid PvP.

 

And I apologize for taking too much part in the plot derailing. I was getting a little befuddled by it myself, given that even I hadn't thought out too much about Orlis. Still, good stuff.

 

And that epilogue... yeeeeah. We'll see.

[Triumph]

Another option for helping PC defense is to seriously increase the defense bonuses PC gear provides.

 

It looks to me like you've have done an excellent job of assessing the campaign and the lessons you learn and analyzing areas you could improve.

 

Going back to the idea of role-playing as collaborative storytelling, it is really fascinating the way different participants shaped how Brigandage developed - from Erika and Xuan unintentionally getting the party chased out of Thane, without perhaps finishing their investigation there, to Harosh's backstory unintentionally influencing the DM to self-derail his plot, to the DM unintentionally persuading some of the PCs to side with the villain, to the blend of party interactions leading to PvP and a player kill. I even wonder how the finale would have played out had Jewels/Casper been there, and what different dynamics that might have introduced. I wish I'd taken more sociology in college.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Nioca

Okay, now it's time for some thoughts. Let me start off with saying that I really enjoyed running this most of the time. The upkeep was a pain in the place where the sun doesn't shine, but actually running the sessions was great. However, there are a lot of things that, in hindsight, were ill-thought-out, executed poorly, and, given the chance, I likely would have changed. First, on the campaign's denouement. I've got to be honest, I couldn't help but wince. There was way too much explaining there, explaining that really ought to have been avoided, had I handled the plot better. Admittedly, part of this was the players making the rather surprising decision to join with the villain, instead of killing him (though that may have been my fault by making him too sympathetic at the end). But still... the plot should run smoothly, not get dumped on the players in the end text.

This is why I am a fan of sitting down and writing out the plot beforehand. Who is the villian, what are the motives, how, when, why, etc. Keeping that crystallized makes things so much easier.

Originally Posted By: Nioca

Another thing was the whole Orlis thing. Don't get me wrong, I liked injecting Harosh and Orlis a little deeper into the plot. However, I feel I got too enamored with it. The result is that I wound up side-tracking the plot and entire point of the campaign, and also wound up unintentionally showing favoritism to Harosh. This wound up being unfair to everyone (Harosh for hijacking his backstory, and the rest of the party for perpetually thrusting Harosh in the limelight). And while I don't think it actually turned out bad, it still wasn't as good as you guys deserved.

Well, in all honesty, (and I'm talking all honesty here), it seemed like this bit was just pandering fanboy service (since I'm being brutally honest here) to Eph. You included his backstory NPC to the point where he was a central ficure in the campaign, you centered the campaign around his character, you marginalized or ignored other character, etc. This was a very bad idea. (NB: I'm guilty of this too, )

Also, I officially hate you for wasting four hours of my time by linking to TVTropes.

Originally Posted By: Nioca

Speaking of which, allow me to take a moment and say that you all were excellent players. As were the subs, when they had to step in.

Thank you.

Originally Posted By: Nioca

Another thing I probably wouldn't have done is keep derailing myself. Every other session, I'd wind up changing the plot on a whim. Which ultimately meant that when it ended, things were a bit of a mess. Players derailing the campaign is one thing, but when the DM is constantly derailing himself, it sort of defeats the purpose of having a plot in the first place.

Again, keep the plot as crystallized as possible. Note that this isn't railroading. There is a big difference between "The party must do this dungeon to get this artifact to give to this NPC" and "A stole B MacGuffin because of C reason, and the party needs to get it back because of D, although E is trying to stop them because of F". Having the plot and the motives of every character change every session is a huge pain.

Originally Posted By: Nioca

There were also quite a few things that I wanted to do that never got a chance to see the light of day. Visiting Saris Peak and the monastery there, for one, and visiting the religion-torn battlefield called the town of Nikorom. Not to mention various other bits I planned out. Plus a few things I wanted to reveal to you now, but can't now that a sequel hook has been firmly lodged in place.

Well if you wanted to get more stuff done, don't spend so much time travelling. We had how many sessions wasted on wandering through he wilderness/sailing again? Four? More?

Oh, and there are always sequels. Who says that there isn't some crucial text in the monastery that will allow Reat to further his goals of archipelagaic domination? (I am fairly sure that's not a word, but it is now!)

Originally Posted By: Nioca

Mechanically, there are probably a few things I would have done differently, but I think it mostly just came down to inexperience.

Now, regarding the system, there was one thing I noticed while DMing, that particularly stood out last session: PC Defense. The way defense is handled right now is rather horribly broken. It's pretty transparent when it's Player versus DM-controlled-and-statted monsters, but becomes blatantly obvious when Player-versus-player arises. To put it bluntly, all current PCs have defenses of less than 20, regardless of their level. This means that someone completely untrained in any martial skill could still land a hit on high-dex player character. Fair enough, everyone has their critical hit, right? Thing is, if the creature has so much as a +5 attack, their odds of landing a hit increase to 25-50%, depending on the PC. And if they have a +10, which is about average for most semi-leveled PCs? That increases to 50-80% hit chance. If PCs and Monsters were statted out the same way, 9 out of 10 fights would break down into particularly bloody slaughter-fests where even natural 4s would regularly land hits. If a lot of the PCs thusfar were to turn on each other? The more optimized would be landing hits on natural 1s. The thing is that defenses don't scale like attack power; they're based primarily on stats, which require a lot of skill points to increase. My thought is to maybe make stats count for double when it comes to defense; that way, it'd be possible to invest in a character's defenses efficiently and help keep the system from slanting so far into favoring offense.

The system needs work. I'll bet a month's salary that every DM does attack and defense differently. We need some sort of codified damage system for AIMhack. Nothing too complicated, maybe just a multiplier for weapons and then work off you attack roll.

Also, it majorly irked me not being able to see my damage roll. I'd roll a critical and then do minimum damage, which really sucked.

Originally Posted By: Nioca

Okay, I think I've rambled enough for now. Any thoughts, comments, criticisms? Questions? Things you think I should have done differently?

Cool campaign, liked the atmosphere, liked the combat, liked the RPing, plot was a bit cliché but workable, despised the ending. Reat was/is not a good villain, and I blame that for the failure to bring closure.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

Also, it majorly irked me not being able to see my damage roll. I'd roll a critical and then do minimum damage, which really sucked.

The current D&D implementation of crits just has them automatically do the maximum possible damage. Seems like a simple way to do it that avoids situations like that, since a 20 is supposed to be a "best possible outcome".

What I wouldn't like to see is a big list of different weapons with different damage ratings. I like the way things work now because there's no disadvantage in choosing a weapon pretty much purely for flavour reasons.

[Sarachim]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

What I wouldn't like to see is a big list of different weapons with different damage ratings. I like the way things work now because there's no disadvantage in choosing a weapon pretty much purely for flavour reasons.

QFT. There's no reason there couldn't be a weapon upgrade, I guess, but different weapon types ought to be about equally effective.

[Sudanna]

Sawbones got a weapon upgrade. I still just wanted to punch the crap out of people, though.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

What I wouldn't like to see is a big list of different weapons with different damage ratings. I like the way things work now because there's no disadvantage in choosing a weapon pretty much purely for flavour reasons.

It could be incredibly simple. Three categories: Light, medium, heavy, and if you felt like it ranged. I mean, it's fairly clear that weapons already do differing amounts of damage, so why not? It would be fairly simple and easy to implement, too.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

I mean, it's fairly clear that weapons already do differing amounts of damage

It is?

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

Originally Posted By: Dantius

I mean, it's fairly clear that weapons already do differing amounts of damage

It is?

Spells do differing amounts of damage, as Nioca told us after the campaign ended. He also revealed that Dikiyoba's battlestaff did 1d4+2 damage, so I'd think that you could infer that there must be at least some weapons that don't do that very odd damage value. Hence, differing mounts of damage.

That said, being hit with a stick and being stabbed with a sword rightly should do different amounts of damage, flavor or no.

[Sudanna]

Don't get started on should. Because there's a lot in RPGs that shouldn't be as it is.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

That said, being hit with a stick and being stabbed with a sword rightly should do different amounts of damage, flavor or no.

what, encourage roleplaying and character customisation? not here! we must punish individuality to ensure that everybody is running around with the most statistically optimal weapon

this is a terrible idea why would you even admit to thinking of it

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

what, encourage roleplaying and character customisation? not here! we must punish individuality to ensure that everybody is running around with the most statistically optimal weapon

So in every single DnD campaign you've ever run, every person has been running around with halberds and longsword, because they're "optimal"? No thieves with daggers, no mages with staffs?

What you forget is that a lot of people do not optimize and will instead roleplay with the patently inferior weapon, because it's roleplaying.

Originally Posted By: Lilith

this is a terrible idea why would you even admit to thinking of it

Two reasons.
1.) I like realism. It wouldn't be complex and it would add depth and tactical thought.
2.) + 1 2, sucker!

[Triumph]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

1.) I like realism. It wouldn't be complex and it would add depth and tactical thought.

This at least is something that already exists, at least some of the time, even without any formal system. I remember that Sawbones even earned a perk in honor of his careful, targeted use of his surgical-related weapons in combat (=depth/tactical thought), and I consistently tried to use Lanrezac's staff to attack in ways that leave an enemy vulnerable to attacks by his allies, and to use said staff to do things I wouldn't with blade or other weapon, like trip up the opponent (=depth/tactical thought). It's also clear, from various sources, that DMs are already capable of distinguishing different weapons' damage potential. So I'm not sure how some sort of institutionalized weapon damage system will really contribute anything that people can't/don't already do.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

So in every single DnD campaign you've ever run, every person has been running around with halberds and longsword, because they're "optimal"? No thieves with daggers, no mages with staffs?

back when i played 3E D&D pretty much anyone who bothered to play a melee character at all was playing some kind of multiclassed monstrosity that was sneak attacking with a greatsword every round, yeah

wizards don't generally run around with greatswords because (apart from not needing to hit things with weapons) they don't have weapon proficiency for it and God help me if you try to get a class-based weapon proficiency system shoehorned into AIMHack i will personally throttle you through your computer screen

Quote:

What you forget is that a lot of people do not optimize and will instead roleplay with the patently inferior weapon, because it's roleplaying.

here's a better idea: how about we reward them for their roleplaying by not making their weapon be patently inferior in the first place?????

[Lilith]

but seriously you're telling me that if my character concept is a badass old monk who fights with a staff i should be rewarded by always and unavoidably doing less damage than the player whose character concept is "guy who hits things with a sword", even if we invested the same amount into our respective weapon skills

 

that's pretty dumb

[Lilith]

realistically a trained user of any weapon, including bare hands, can kill an opponent in one good hit anyway so don't go on about MY PRECIOUS REALISM like it actually means anything in a world where people can survive being breathed on repeatedly by a dragon

 

good game design trumps "realism" always and everywhere. if i wanted reality i wouldn't be playing a fantasy role playing game

[Lilith]

ok i'm done now. sorry for ruining the thread.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

back when i played 3E D&D pretty much anyone who bothered to play a melee character at all was playing some kind of multiclassed monstrosity that was sneak attacking with a greatsword every round, yeah

Hm. Point conceded, although that may simply be because you played with the wrong people.

Originally Posted By: Lilith

wizards don't generally run around with greatswords because (apart from not needing to hit things with weapons) they don't have weapon proficiency for it and God help me if you try to get a class-based weapon proficiency system shoehorned into AIMHack i will personally throttle you through your computer screen

This sounds like a challenge. But weapon proficiency always struck me as pointless, because every point you wizard puts into a martial skill is one less point they are putting into a Magic skill. Eventually they'll have to pick one or the other, I suppose, because the difficulty will scale with the PC's that are dumping all their points into one skill, and you'll have a character that is proficient in all skills but not good enough at any of them. A few points in Swords at the beginning is fine, but you can't expect someone with 6 in Swords and 6 in Evocation to be able to compete with someone with a 12 in Evocation or a 12 in Swords

That said, Red Mages are cool.

Originally Posted By: Lilith

but seriously you're telling me that if my character concept is a badass old monk who fights with a staff i should be rewarded by always and unavoidably doing less damage than the player whose character concept is "guy who hits things with a sword", even if we invested the same amount into our respective weapon skills

that's pretty dumb

No. A badass old monk with a staff would do the same damage as someone with a sword. I'm saying that if your character concept is a sneaky thief who backstabs people for Stealth damage, you will not do as much damage fighting someone mono a mono in broad daylight as some huge barbarian wielding a broadsword.

Also, since when are we allowed to play badasses? I though level 1 characters were sniveling cowards?

[Triumph]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

Eventually they'll have to pick one or the other, I suppose, because the difficulty will scale with the PC's that are dumping all their points into one skill, and you'll have a character that is proficient in all skills but not good enough at any of them. A few points in Swords at the beginning is fine, but you can't expect someone with 6 in Swords and 6 in Evocation to be able to compete with someone with a 12 in Evocation or a 12 in Swords.

Something along this line sort of happened to Lanrezac - by splitting skill points between magic and a weapon, he was nowhere near as proficient at combat as Boregloaf, and nowhere near as magically proficient as the other three party members. To some extent I planned him that way, as a supplementary sort of character who could fill in and help a little on both sides. However, I think he also struggled some as combat scaled more to match the rest of the party, and by the end he had a tough time landing a hit.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

realistically a trained user of any weapon, including bare hands, can kill an opponent in one good hit anyway so don't go on about MY PRECIOUS REALISM like it actually means anything in a world where people can survive being breathed on repeatedly by a dragon

Good, let's test this. You get a gun with a full clip of ammo, and I get to select a martial artist at the top of his form who has like eight black belts. Twenty paces, who wins? You're clearly not as well trained as he is (unless you are, in which case replace "you" with "someone off the street", so why did you just win? It's because the gun is so much more powerful than hands. Now image you're playing a game where shooting someone in the face does the same amount of damage as smacking someone upside the head. Wouldn't your enjoyment of the game be diminished by you having to constantly suspend disbelief about "I've shot him five times in the head and he's still kicking the crap out of me!"?

Originally Posted By: Lilith

good game design trumps "realism" always and everywhere. if i wanted reality i wouldn't be playing a fantasy role playing game

So if there were a way to inject realism without altering the core game design (here meaning "rules publish on Eph's site), which as I note contains NOTHING on damage rules, it would be a bad thing because "game design trumps realism"?

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Triumph

Something along this line sort of happened to Lanrezac - by splitting skill points between magic and a weapon, he was nowhere near as proficient at combat as Boregloaf, and nowhere near as magically proficient as the other three party members. To some extent I planned him that way, as a supplementary sort of character who could fill in and help a little on both sides. However, I think he also struggled some as combat scaled more to match the rest of the party, and by the end he had a tough time landing a hit.

This is a quandary. If the PC's aren't balanced, the DM gets a bad choice between
1. Letting the more powerful characters obliterate the setting with ease by scaling to the lower reaches of the party
or
2. Screwing over the less optimized party members by scaling to keep the powerful characters engaged in the setting.

Of course, the third alternative is even worse, which would be to simply let the DM level the characters to keep the scaled. But we've seen that happen (in The World), and the result is that they players feel a disconnect between them and their character, which is worse than just some unrealistic combat.

[Sarachim]

I think we're losing sight of the fact that every GM is free to make all the houserules he wants, so nobody will ever be compelled to do something they don't want to. There's no need to get so acrimonious when it's possible for everyone to have what they want.

 

In fact, encouraging diversity between GMs makes it easier to keep everyone happy. Personally, I don't see any appeal in making weapon damage more realistic at the expense of flavor, but others might feel differently. Having Dantius around to GM for those people saves me the trouble of catering to them.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

Good, let's test this. You get a gun with a full clip of ammo, and I get to select a martial artist at the top of his form who has like eight black belts. Twenty paces, who wins? You're clearly not as well trained as he is (unless you are, in which case replace "you" with "someone off the street", so why did you just win? It's because the gun is so much more powerful than hands. Now image you're playing a game where shooting someone in the face does the same amount of damage as smacking someone upside the head. Wouldn't your enjoyment of the game be diminished by you having to constantly suspend disbelief about "I've shot him five times in the head and he's still kicking the crap out of me!"?

not really. i've played lots of rpgs where shooting someone does less damage than punching them and it doesn't bother me because it's a freaking game and i don't expect it to play by the same rules as real life

do you get upset when a knight captures a rook in chess because a horse can't knock down a castle?

Originally Posted By: Dantius

So if there were a way to inject realism without altering the core game design (here meaning "rules publish on Eph's site), which as I note contains NOTHING on damage rules, it would be a bad thing because "game design trumps realism"?

making one option strictly better than another is bad game design

Originally Posted By: Triumph

Something along this line sort of happened to Lanrezac - by splitting skill points between magic and a weapon, he was nowhere near as proficient at combat as Boregloaf, and nowhere near as magically proficient as the other three party members. To some extent I planned him that way, as a supplementary sort of character who could fill in and help a little on both sides. However, I think he also struggled some as combat scaled more to match the rest of the party, and by the end he had a tough time landing a hit.

it would probably be a good idea to revamp the skill point system

maybe something like this:

* raising a skill costs a number of skill points equal to its new value, just like in character creation
* when you level up, you get a number of skill points equal to, say, 3 times your new level

that way you can either have one skill that's as high as possible or a few skills that are only a couple of points behind

[Sarachim]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

This is a quandary. If the PC's aren't balanced, the DM gets a bad choice between
1. Letting the more powerful characters obliterate the setting with ease by scaling to the lower reaches of the party
or
2. Screwing over the less optimized party members by scaling to keep the powerful characters engaged in the setting.

3. Present the party with a variety of challenges, so that the characters who are weaker in combat get chances to shine outside of it. The Platonic ideal of a GM will find ways for History and Divination and Crafting (Pastry Chef) to be the difference between life and death.

[Lilith]

i'm sorry for ruining this thread everybody. i've been having a really bad day today and i think i'm taking it out on you. i'll shut up and go away now

[Lilith]

btw my kokoro wish is to get rid of the Str/Dex/Int stats altogether and just have skills, maybe i'll run a campaign sometime and see how it goes

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Sarachim

3. Present the party with a variety of challenges, so that the characters who are weaker in combat get chances to shine outside of it. The Platonic ideal of a GM will find ways for History and Divination and Crafting (Pastry Chef) to be the difference between life and death.

And if they just took a variety of combat traits...?

And it's Knowledge (Decorative Cake Frosting):, by the way

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

And if they just took a variety of combat traits...?

then you start putting the other players in situations where they can't use their preferred weapon

(don't do this too often it will make your players hate you)

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

then you start putting the other players in situations where they can't use their preferred weapon

(don't do this too often it will make your players hate you)

I fail to see how screwing the other players over for the sake of another player is a good idea under any circumstances. Of course the players will hate you.