Jump to content

Dust Bowl: Yet Another AIMHack Campaign


Sarachim

Recommended Posts

Originally Posted By: Ephesos
..last session? Oh god, I have preparations to make...

Oh, good. I'd heard you were dead.

We have a log of session 8!

Click to reveal.. (Quotes!)
Eva: "...We're going to die. We're going to die. It's now official. We're dead. We are so dead..."

Gramzon: I look from the party to Thuja, "Yeah, I now see what you meant earlier."
Thuja: "I know, right?"

Pirate: "Hey, that's our boat!"
Gramzon: "And thank you for letting us borrow it for the time."

Leitha: "What my comrades mean to ask is, 'Do you have any valuable jewelry?'"

Wybren: "I can't believe I'm saying this, but I'm going to hang out with Thuja now."

Eric: "We used to be more competent."

Xiriatl: "Who here has rope and is good at climbing?"
Eric: "You have to ask?"

Xiriatl: "Hey, Gramzon? This one's your fault."

Leitha: "When you're all done with the amateur dramatics, can we go? You faithful companion, the one you were willing to let get blasted off a 50-foot high cliff by an evil wizard, has selflessly found an easy route up the cliff for you. So come on."

The next (and last!) session will be Saturday, September 11. I don't know what's going to happen yet, but I'm excited!

EDIT: I forgot something important, which was to thank Triumph for another great job subbing. And all the regular players who could make it, for being awesome as usual.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 398
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This level up means that Eva has near-epic casting abilities in three different classes. Yikes! eek

Click to reveal.. (Eva Roe, Level V)
Name: Eva Roe

Sex/Race: Female Elf

Age: 21

Occupation: Wandering Healer

Alignment: Empathic Homesick

 

ATTRIBUTES

Strength - 2

Dexterity - 2

Intelligence - 9

Health - 20/20 (+4)

Stamina - 9/10

Speed - 5

 

SKILLS

Magic (Evocation): 7

Magic (Conjuration): 7 (+2)

Magic (Abjuration): 6 (+2)

Religion: 2

Composure: 1

Streetwise: 1

 

TRAITS

Weak (Weakness) - Eva lacks in physical power. She has heightened difficulty in any task that requires physical strength; For any strength check or skill check that uses strength, her Strength is treated as if it were at 1, regardless of her actual strength statistic.

Bookworm (Perk) - Constant study has made Eva an expert on all things magical. Eva gains three additional spell slots.

 

INVENTORY

2 Gold 25 Silvers 0 Coppers (4.50 Gold), Traveling Clothes, Spellbook, Journal, Pen & Ink, Hardtack, Water Flasks (2/2), Stamina Potion, Vibrant Red Cloak, Old Papers, Coffee, Coffee Pot, Rations, Old Papers, Odd Mold Sample, Concentration of Mana, First Aid Kit, Piece of String, Gold-Threaded Robes

 

SUMMON

Patches the Criticalico - A positively adorable male calico cat, summoned by Eva on a critical success. Gaining independence, but still rather loyal, Patches has demonstrated remarkable tracking skills. Likes attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I think the double level thing breaks down as you gain levels. If I had focused on two classes instead of three, I'd currently have epic level training in two different spell classes. At level 5.

 

I mean, if the campaign kept going, Eva would be a spellcasting force of nature before she hit double-digit levels. Which is a bit broken, to say the least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Nioca
Yeah, I think the double level thing breaks down as you gain levels. If I had focused on two classes instead of three, I'd currently have epic level training in two different spell classes. At level 5.

I mean, if the campaign kept going, Eva would be a spellcasting force of nature before she hit double-digit levels. Which is a bit broken, to say the least.


This is just because the party is overleveled. Labyrinth people ended on level 5 (I think?) and Blood Marsh/Selos people ended on level 7. The smart money is on this party ending on essentially level 11, which is way, way higher than any previous campaign. In all fairness, we had level 7 characters like Nixak with 13's in spellcasting skills, so it's not surprising that someone many levels higher has 6's and 7's in multiple schools.

That said, I'm just wondering if this is a function of spells and not skills. Eva has some pretty powerful spells, whereas some of the Selos/BM characters kept the spells pretty tame.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but that's the thing. The double-level system either forces you to be ultra-stingy with levels, or to award them at a pace that results in you hitting absurd levels of power over the course of a single campaign.

 

Of course, I think part of the problem is that it's just as easy to go from 10 ranks in a skill to 11 as it is to go from 1 to 2. In the original leveling system, you could hit 11 ranks in a skill by level 4. It's just more egregious here.

 

Also, of course Eva has some powerful spells. She's L7. If martial abilities were implemented more solidified, we'd be seeing powerful martial abilities as well. Though that's two other cans of worms. That said, I think part of it is that Eva relies on her spells. She can't get by on anything else, so she needs to adapt her spell roster or die.

 

It also helps that I enjoy making custom spells and coming up with ideas. tongue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as the power of spells goes...I know that in Selos, I just didn't do a very good job of coming up with spell ideas. rolleyes

 

Regarding levels: I thought the double-level system that Sarachim implemented was originally supposed to include getting levels half as often. I haven't kept track of the number of sessions from RP to another (that'd be interesting to look into...) so I don't know whether Sarachim lived up to that goal or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Triumph
Regarding levels: I thought the double-level system that Sarachim implemented was originally supposed to include getting levels half as often. I haven't kept track of the number of sessions from RP to another (that'd be interesting to look into...) so I don't know whether Sarachim lived up to that goal or not.


I don't think so. There will be 9 sessions by the end of the campaign, so that makes the equivalent of adoublenlevel every other session, whereas a standard level every other session seems to be the born in the campaigns. If Sarachim dies award a bonus level, he'll average out to about a standard level every .8 of a session, which is waaaay more than any other DM.

Besides, levels serve as a psychological reward, so I'd rather get a slot of small levels often and feel like I'm doing well than two or three massive levels campaign that entail nothing but paperwork.

I would also line to apologize for any oddly placed or misspelled words in thus post. I can't actually see what I'm typing due to a flitch in the browser on Imobile versions of Safari.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of the problem, I think, is just the low level of granularity in the skills themselves. When 4 is a reasonable starting value for a skill and 10 is epic, that doesn't give DMs a lot of breathing room in between. Ideally I'd want to give a levelup per session, but that would require rethinking what skills mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sense that I've gotten for skill levels is that 3 is a reasonable point for starting characters, and might represent something like basic proficiency in an area. Less than 3 means only a passing knowledge of something. 5 to 6 represents a true professional in a field (warrior, diplomat, mage, etc). 10+ is mastery of a skill. That's how I've been thinking of it for a while, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. You people are forgetting that the number next to a skill has no intrinsic meaning, except for mages gaining access to spells. If everyone gets four more skill points, so will the monsters. The only way it would be an issue would be if characters from Dust Bowl and another campaign both appeared in the same high-level campaign later on, but if that happened I think we could find a way to smooth it out.

 

2. The level you got after this last session was your bonus level. Note that the party leveled up after sessions 7 and 8, whereas before they never leveled twice in a row. Why give a bonus level to a character that's likely to be retired once this is over, when I could let you use it to fight the end boss instead? tongue

 

3. The purpose of the double-level system was to encourage people to build up a nice range of skills instead of pumping one or two. When you compare this party's progression to those of other parties, it seems to have worked pretty well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EDIT: Double-sniped. I was responding to Triumph.

 

Yeah, that's how I've been interpreting it too, but the thing is, a character can go from having a passing knowledge of a skill to total mastery in 4 levels or less. That's like me going from a high-school graduate to a nuclear physicist in under a month. The system's Lilith's using, I think, helps alleviate this, but it doesn't remove it entirely.

 

I honestly think part of the problem is that we're giving out too many skill points. Here:

 

-Under the Original Ephasian Leveling system (+2 skills), the fastest you could hit rank 10 was L4, with fastest reasonable time being L5.

 

-With the Sarachim Leveling system (+4 skills), the fastest you can hit 10 ranks is L3. Yikes.

 

-Under the Lilith Leveling System (SP 2xL+6), the fastest you can hit 10 is L4, though the fastest reasonable is L5 (it'd require all but 1 skill point invested in a single skill to hit it at L4).

 

What I think we're seeing is that we're awarding skill points like we're in a system that hits epic at 20. Seeing as we hit epic at 10, it's a bit of a problem. So the answer may be as simple as scaling back skill points a bit. I also think character creation may be part of the problem; we can get halfway to epic before the first session, and still have points leftover to invest in other skills.

 

I've been toying with skill points and leveling a bit, and here's what I've come up with: 12 SP at character creation, and 2xlevel of skill points for each level up. It'd push the soonest you could hit 10 ranks back to L7, and hopefully encourage the spreading of skill points a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of what you're saying, Nioca, goes back the problems discussed in Bloodmarsh / Selos, with some characters investing almost solely in or at the most two skills, and achieving astoundingly high levels in those chosen skills...but having no other skills to speak of. At that point it happened (I think) largely out inexperienced. None of the subsequent campaigns (Brigandage, Dust Bowl) have seen the kind 10 or 13 level single skilled characters that Bloodmarsh and Selos did. People realized they didn't have pump a single skills, and have done a lot better at building more balanced characters - all on their own. The people who run games have also gotten better at incorporating non-combat skills into the game, making investment in them more attractive.

 

What I'm getting at is that it will probably always be POSSIBLE for someone (is munchkin the term?) to max out a single skill on a character. That doesn't mean the system needs to be changed. It just means you need to play AIMHack with mature people who understand the game well enough to build balanced characters. I bring this up because that's what a number of your examples hit on - how quickly a character can raise a particular skill super high. The extent to which characters have skill points spread into a variety of skills is more a function of the players and the DM than the level system itself.

 

Now, a slightly different discussion, which you also touch on some, is the question of how quickly characters' abilities should grow, and what number should arbitrarily represent mastery of a skill. Those are legitimate questions, but I don't think the number of levels it takes a munchkin to power up a one-skill character is a relevant issue.

 

2 cents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Nioca
Yeah, that's how I've been interpreting it too, but the thing is, a character can go from having a passing knowledge of a skill to total mastery in 4 levels or less. That's like me going from a high-school graduate to a nuclear physicist in under a month. The system's Lilith's using, I think, helps alleviate this, but it doesn't remove it entirely.

I honestly think part of the problem is that we're giving out too many skill points. Here:

-Under the Original Ephasian Leveling system (+2 skills), the fastest you could hit rank 10 was L4, with fastest reasonable time being L5.

-With the Sarachim Leveling system (+4 skills), the fastest you can hit 10 ranks is L3. Yikes.

-Under the Lilith Leveling System (SP 2xL+6), the fastest you can hit 10 is L4, though the fastest reasonable is L5 (it'd require all but 1 skill point invested in a single skill to hit it at L4).

I think the real problem here is that we're playing campaigns that take place over the course of a week or so, but people expect to be significantly stronger at the end than at the beginning. We could do longer campaigns, do campaigns that have the same number of sessions but much more time passing in-game, or weaken levels. All three of those options seem like sacrificing fun for the sake of realism.

The way I save my suspension of disbelief here is to tell myself that the real change in a PCs abilities is less impressive than the numbers make it look. A week of training in, say, swordsmanship ought to be enough for someone to dominate a novice, but that doesn't mean they've mastered the subject overnight.

In other words, somewhere out there is a person with a 50 in Evocation, and we're just lucky not to have run into them yet. tongue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, if the problem is people raising a single skill at the expense of others, then there are ways to discourage that (like what I'm trying to do in CoH). But if the main issue is just that people are gaining power faster than they ought to, then the problem is our expectations of what a 10 in a skill means, not the skill system as such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Nioca
Original Ephasian Leveling
Ephesian (Ephesus/Ephesos was an actual city in Asia Minor). That probably shouldn't have bothered me as much as it did, but hey...

How about a skill cap based on level? Ideally, not spreading out your skills should be punishment in and of itself, but it would force people to.

Also: what is this 'spell level' thing you speak of?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Originally Posted By: Sarachim
I think the real problem here is that we're playing campaigns that take place over the course of a week or so, but people expect to be significantly stronger at the end than at the beginning. We could do longer campaigns, do campaigns that have the same number of sessions but much more time passing in-game, or weaken levels. All three of those options seem like sacrificing fun for the sake of realism.

 

Originally Posted By: Lilith
Yeah, if the problem is people raising a single skill at the expense of others, then there are ways to discourage that (like what I'm trying to do in CoH). But if the main issue is just that people are gaining power faster than they ought to, then the problem is our expectations of what a 10 in a skill means, not the skill system as such.

 

I feel like a lot of this, if it's a problem, is just a matter of correcting player understanding. Maybe we just need to stop thinking of 10 as epic-level skill. Or maybe the leveling does need to be scaled way back. (Smaller and less frequent levels are certainly a more realistic depiction of real-life skill growth.) Back in Selos/Bloodmarsh, I know that some of characters had a single skill raised super high because the players were under the impression that that maxing out their combat skill was necessary to survive. Leveling up may be fun, but it's a relatively small part of the game. I doubt anyone would quit playing AIMHack if you told them at the start of a game that at the most they would get the Ephesian-style small level-ups, and that it would be less frequent over the course of a game than levels have been so far. The DM just has to assure them that despite a limited amount of skill growth, enemies' power will not escalate far beyond them. It would also be good to clarify what numbers will give a character moderate effectiveness in a skill, lower numbers, so that players don't feel their characters' 2 and 3 points in skills mean the characters are all total noobs.

 

Personally, I like keeping the numbers low. I think the RPGs where characters grow to have many hundreds or even thousands of points in various states are rather silly.

 

Oh. Regarding "spell levels," it's always been arbitrary and you know it. tongue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Triumph
I feel like a lot of this, if it's a problem, is just a matter of correcting player understanding. Maybe we just need to stop thinking of 10 as epic-level skill.


See, I was under the impression that you didn't hit "epic" level in a skill until you had 20 points in a skill, not 10. I mean, the way I've been "converting" points in my spell schools to the relative DnD spell levels is just floor[skill/2], so I've been running a character that is apparently an epic level evoker as someone who barely has access to fifth level spells. Perhaps all this confusion could be cleared up by saying that 20, not 10, is epic level in a skill, and then instituting a cap at that point?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:
Some spells require a minimum rank in a particular spellcasting skill.
Ah. So it only concerns people who aren't pulling their spell descriptions out of their rear end as they go along. Gotcha.

Why not make casting spells of a certain level depend on both your skill level and your character's level?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Dintiradan
Why not make casting spells of a certain level depend on both your skill level and your character's level?


Because then a pre-gen high-level character could just give himself a rank in every school and be able to cast every spell at a high level of competence, which would be gamebreaking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Dantius

Because then a pre-gen high-level character could just give himself a rank in every school and be able to cast every spell at a high level of competence, which would be gamebreaking.


Would it actually? They'd still have trouble making the rolls required to cast them successfully, especially against enemies at the same level as themselves.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Two hours to go, everyone! Don't forget!

 

Also, better late than never, a perk for Wybren:

 

Subtle Performance

Your mastery of songsmithery is so precise that each listener hears your songs a little differently. You can cast two spells simultaneously, as long as they do not share any targets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The campaign has ended in epic fashion! Quotes and log coming tomorrow-ish, once I'm no longer exhausted. Don't forget your epilogues.

 

I really enjoyed GMing this campaign, and I'm proud of how it turned out. I can't give you guys too much credit for that. Most of the fun stuff that happened was as much the result of your work as mine.

 

I'm going to take a break from GMing for a while, and work on some secondary priorities like not flunking out of school and finding true love and so forth, but once I've had time to recharge I'd love to do this again. If anyone has thoughts about what kind of setting they'd like to see me take on, I'm interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoo. Okay, my thoughts criticisms, varied and hugemassive as they are. Let me just say that playing as Eva was a bit of an eye-opener. Some of this has already been brought up with individual parties, but I thought I'd lay it all out here.

 

First, some thoughts on AIMHack mechanics.

Click to reveal.. (MECH THOUGHTS)
1. Magic Classes

 

First off, taking a quick trip back to the previous conversation of spells, there were both mentions of how spell levels are somewhat arbitrary and the vagueness of what actually constituted 'Epic' spells. A thought ocurred to me on this front: Why not divide it into classes like Lilith's alchemy system? Named levels of spells that help eliminate the vagueness of how powerful a spell should be at that level, and also provide a solid idea of the spell heirarchy. For example:

Click to reveal.. (Spell Classes)
CANTRIP - Simple spells that require 1 rank in spellcasting to cast.

BEGINNER - Spells that are fairly easy to grasp and require 4 ranks in spellcasting.

INTERMEDIATE - More powerful spells that require a firm grasp of the magic involved, and 7 ranks in spellcasting.

ADVANCED - These spells require a powerful wizard to cast, requiring 10 ranks. These spells also require someone to teach these spells, and also usually have casting limits and stamina costs.

MASTER - Rare and powerful spells, requiring 14 ranks in spellcasting. It's not easy to find people who teach these techniques.

EPIC - Incredibly rare, incredibly powerful, requiring 17 ranks to just use.

Said categories could also be applied to martial techniques as well.

 

2. Double the levels, double the trouble.

 

I'm really not sold on the double-level thing. It just provides too much power too quickly, and with spellcasters, the housekeeping is atrocious. And before I get told that the difference isn't as significant as the numbers indicate... yeah, it is. It becomes significant the second the virtual D20 hits the virtual table; if you've got someone that has 15 points in a skill, and someone who only has 5, balance becomes a nightmare, and it's something that'll only get worse as levels increase. It's one thing to have a gap in skill, but ask yourself this: If there had been another Evoker on the team that had a spread out skill set and wasn't dead-set on magic and Evoking, how would you have balanced situations where that magic came up? Balance it so it challenges Eva, and the weaker Evoker gets left in the dust. Balance it so the weaker Evoker can handle it, and Eva steamrolls over it.

 

I mean, yeah, it did encourage some of the players to spread their skills out a little, but even so, our characters are decked out with multiple skills at/above their current level and/or inflated base stats. Not to mention HP, which is insanely high at L5. And yes, while a mature player shouldn't take advantage of the absolutely gargantuan min-maxing opportunities present, that doesn't mean we should leave such potential for abuse in place.

 

Furthermore, while the idea is that double levels happen less often, from the Ephesian standpoint, we wound up at L9. So I'd say that really didn't work out either.

 

(I'm sorry if I'm coming off a bit extremely blunt here; I don't mean offense, I'm just pointing out what I think didn't work.)

 

3. Trials and Attribute-lations

 

A while back, Lilith posed the idea of a stat-less system, doing away with Strength, Dexterity, and Intelligence. At the time, I wasn't warm to the idea, but having finished this campaign with a 9 INT character, I think I see the idea in a new light. The stat system, as it is, limits character concepts and prioritizes optimization over creativity, and can wind up causing problems at their more extreme ends. And it's not just munchkining either; to use an example, part way through, I wanted to put a point in nature on Eva, to represent her growing acclimation to the wilderness. But I hit a problem; If I put that point in place, Eva's high INT score would kick in, resulting in a mindbogglingly massive bonus (+10, to be exact). Gramzon, the guy who's been doing nature all along and had invested time and energy into it? Would have been outstripped by 4 points (4 Nature + 2 INT, for a +6). All because I put one lousy point in Nature.

 

One thing I'd like to try is a completely stat-less system; everything done via points in skills. Simply because it'd allow other kinds of characters, make things easier from a balance front (both on the DM and the player), integrate it all into one seamless system, and discourage rampant minmaxing.

 

4. Wait, don't we already have someone who does that?

 

While we're on the skill system, that's probably something we need more of: Skills. Seriously, everyone who isn't a mage starts blending together, simply because outside magic, there's not a whole lot of wiggle room. There's a total of 13 skills (19, if you count the magic classes as individual skills, and 20 if you count Ranged and Melee Martial separately). You get a party of 5 together, and odds are extremely good you're going to get a bit of overlap. And redundant skills can make a character feel just that: Redundant.

 

I think addressing point 3 would help alleviate this somewhat, since it'd prevent natural "Go-to" skills for Low-Int characters from forming. But really, just a few more skills would help on this front so people could spread out more.

 

5. I roll for Deus ex machina.

 

Okay, this has been a bit of a trend I noticed recently. It seems that Religion checks are being made to outright call on assistance from the gods themselves. To an extent, I'm a bit conflicted about this; one one hand, it makes sense that someone could call on the gods' assistance, and there are numerous roleplaying opportunities that present themselves. On the other, I do think there needs to be limits and such involved. Even if it's just a simple, "Go away, you bother me" from the god in question if the character gets a little too dependent. Otherwise, I think it could add a nice touch, especially if we've got someone particularly devout. I'm all for making Religion more useful... It hasn't come to much thusfar.

And now, stuff that's not so mechanical regarding the campaign.

Click to reveal.. (CAMPAIGN THOUGHTS)
1. Bumble in the Jungle

 

Well, first off, and you addressed it as well, but there was too much just wandering in the jungle. Seriously, we spent a total of 4 sessions worth of time just walking or wandering the jungle. Next time, unless it's necessary for some reason, it'd probably be a good idea to keep wandering to a minimum, unless exploration is the point of the campaign.

 

2. Suddenly, Labyrinth

 

The labyrinth jaunt was neat. It really was. However, it came out of nowhere and felt like a bit of filler/deus-ex-machina before the final battle. I'm not sure if you had that planned all along or if it was just a last minute way to get us to Vurziveh. But the sudden shift from "Jungle and Weather Mages" to "Reality Bending with Jareth and Hoggle" was disconcerting, and had little to do with the plot. An equally-awesome route might have been a Storming the Castle approach, making our way through hostile forces to get to Vurziveh, instead of making an unexpected trip to another reality.

 

Also, fie upon ye for trying to make an end session with a greater WTH quotient then Brigandage's. tongue

 

3. Expecting Cities? Too Bad. Jungle Time.

 

While the campaign was awesome in what it did, there was a bit of false advertising in there. Namely, the bait-and-switch pulled from "Investigate Koros for the cause of dust" to "Wander Ouracasos and try to figure out a way off". Admittedly, there was a plot reason, but that still meant a good majority of characters were built with handling cities and civilization in mind. A minor thing, but still.

 

All in all, an excellent campaign. I particularly like how you handled NPCs; they felt like they were actually different people, rather than just one person voicing many people. And I think you, overall, did a good job.

 

I don't think I'll be sad to see Eva go. Trying to choose 12 different spells daily was a bit of a pain, as was keeping a journal for her. Plus, I felt like she never really exhibited any real personality, aside from a few minor quirks. My next character will hopefully rectify this.

 

Thanks for doing this and great work, Sarachim. It was a lot of fun! I'll be writing up my epilogue shortly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(I know it's not my campaign thread, but I feel compelled to respond anyway.)

Originally Posted By: Nioca
1. Magic Classes

I only ever designated "epic spells" because I wanted some awesome stuff at a higher tier, for the record. I dunno about formalizing spell tiers... it feels like too much work.

Originally Posted By: Nioca
2. Double the levels, double the trouble.

Pretty much why I'm liking point-buy more and more now.

Originally Posted By: Nioca
3. Trials and Attribute-lations

Stat-less would basically be what we always used to run on the boards, but with a DM. I could get into that. Or we could just do away with people getting attribute bonuses on skill rolls. I kinda like the second option.

Originally Posted By: Nioca
4. Wait, don't we already have someone who does that?

Yeah. Fix #3 and we fix this to a large extent. And I find this kinda funny given how we at one point discussed collapsing the skills available down to even fewer. We could always add Knowledge (Pick Area Here) and... no, no then someone will just whine when their 8 ranks in Knowledge (Fish and Chips) isn't used.

Originally Posted By: Nioca
5. I roll for Deus ex machina.

I agree with this criticism. The only time I've ever used Religion checks like this was that one time Lanrezac crit a roll, when the party was like right outside the Temple of Sliros. And I think that's about the only time I would use it... normally, I see it functioning as Knowledge (Religion).

 

Also, I was shocked to find the session had ended up in the Labyrinth, but yeah. It worked. In the future, I'd rather that people avoid that, particularly when they toss virulent magic-eating molds into the Labyrinth. Not that the setting is sacred, but some of us might have plans for it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Originally Posted By: Nioca
1. Magic Classes

Yes, but one criticism, namely that he numbers you picked were totally random. 12? 17? How about 1/5/10/15/20/25? Or, to be even more accessible, 1/4/8/12/16/20? That would seem to be much easier. Plus, you could then give cool titles to mages, like you could have Eva, Journeyman Evoker, or Nikax, Sage Enchanter, or Zarusa, Elder Pyromancer, since titles are freaking awesome.

Originally Posted By: Nioca
2. Double the levels, double the trouble.

Yeah, too much power too fast. Plus, I didn't like the fact that although double levels were supposed to be given out half as often, they were really delivered at the same pace as regular levels, about 3 every 4 sessions.

Originally Posted By: Nioca
3. Trials and Attribute-lations

Modifying Eph's suggestion, we could just have attributes give less of a bonus then skills. So say Eva's 9 INT would only five a 3 bonus for a Nature skill of 4, wheres Gramzon would have a bonus of 5. I mean, a 9 INT is a pretty hefty bonus any way you slice it, and you should get at least some bonus.

Originally Posted By: Nioca
4. Wait, don't we already have someone who does that?

Well would you prefer we had 60 skills, most of which are trivial (Use Rope? Really?) and every character was completely unique and essential and the DM had to keep track of progressions in dozens of skills across the party? And if one character died, you'd be screwed because you'd lose his skill-set? Because I really wouldn't like that.

Originally Posted By: Nioca
5. I roll for Deus ex machina.

Religion seems to be a pretty much useless skill anyways. Why not dump it and replace it with Knowledge (X), anyways? And to address Eph's criticism, complaining that Knowledge (Decorative Cake Frosting) didn't get used is not legitimate. Claiming Knowledge(Religion) or Knowledge(Engineering and Architecture) or Knowledge(Arcana) didn't get used is somewhat of an issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) I like how "do what Lilith does" is becoming some kind of miraculous solution to any problem. I'm only two sessions in, guys, I've still got plenty of time to screw up! tongue

 

2) This is why I'm deliberately being generous with levels in CoH: to stress-test the new levelup system. Unfortunately my suspicion is that the problem you've described is a fundamental weakness of d20-style systems, and the gap between fast investors and slow investors in a skill will still widen, albeit more slowly. The only obvious "solution" is to make skill costs grow exponentially rather than linearly, which I think would cause players to complain.

 

3) Yeah, the CoH/RoMD-style levelup system fixes the fact that some characters need to choose between stats and skills, but it doesn't fix the fact that one-stat builds are strictly better than two-stat builds. Fundamentally, it's really hard to implement a power/versatility tradeoff in a balanced way without a class-based system.

 

4) Well, to be precise, we either need more skills or more specialised characters. One of my Insane Ideas was just to make players designate a primary, secondary and tertiary skill and have all three of them level up at fixed rates -- but that might be sacrificing a bit too much flexibility for the sake of balance.

 

5) I think part of the issue is that the on-paper definition of what the Religion skill does (knowledge of religious beliefs and rituals, normally those of just a single religion) is just not going to be all that useful in most campaigns, and is a little too close to History anyway. I figured attempting a bit of hermetic magic now and then would at least put the skill to good use -- I did only do it three times in the whole campaign, after all, and it only worked once (and that was on a roll of 18). But maybe the entire Religion skill is really just a holdover from D&D and its intended functions can be collapsed into History?

 

Originally Posted By: Ephesos
In the future, I'd rather that people avoid that, particularly when they toss virulent magic-eating molds into the Labyrinth.

 

to be fair that bit was kinda my fault

 

(also i agree that chucking us into the labyrinth for 3/4 of a session felt a bit like filler, and it was at a pretty weird time to put filler in the first place)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your feedback, guys. Constructive criticism is difficult and often thankless, so I appreciate that you're doing it anyway. And, as it happens, I think you're mostly right.

 

Originally Posted By: Nioca
leveling mechanics

I've reflected on this more fully, and I've come around to your/most people's way of thinking. The problems you describe were evident to me as well at the end, especially when handling NPC defense. If/when I use AIMHack again, I think I'll use Lilith's system, or whatever descendant of it is fashionable at the time.

 

Originally Posted By: Nioca
5. I roll for Deus ex machina.

IIRC, only one of the rolls you describe actually succeeded during the campaign. In that case, Xiriatl was praying to Tanann about lightning elementals, and Lilith rolled an 18, so its success seemed reasonable. In general, these rolls had very high thresholds for success and limited potential to help. In future, though, it would probably help to impose some kind of penalty for a bad failure, if only to discourage people from praying any time it might possibly help.

 

Originally Posted By: Nioca
1. Bumble in the Jungle

This is fair. I got bored with the jungle, too. When I planned the campaign I honestly expected the jungle to turn out more interesting, and in fact my original plan was to have even more of it. Live and learn.

 

Originally Posted By: Nioca
2. Suddenly, Labyrinth

Once again, I agree. Part of the problem is that I planned to set this up in a more satisfying way in the penultimate session, but I have good GM days and bad ones, and that day was a bad one. When I'm not at my best it's tough to respond to what's going on in the present and set up the future simultaneously, and the latter usually loses out. This led to a session that was pretty good on its own but that I felt was poorly integrated into the rest of the campaign. I think this is mostly an experience issue; I've gotten better since I started Dust Bowl, but I've still got a way to go.

 

Originally Posted By: Nioca
3. Expecting Cities? Too Bad. Jungle Time.

This was sort of the point. I originally pictured the campaign having more of a survival element to it, which would work better if we didn't have a party that would be perfectly at home in the jungle. Even though that changed, I still liked how the fish out of water angle played out. I do understand your point, though. In future, I'll probably do the "take the party out of its comfort zone" thing at the micro level, rather than base a whole campaign on it.

 

Originally Posted By: Nioca
All in all, an excellent campaign. I particularly like how you handled NPCs; they felt like they were actually different people, rather than just one person voicing many people.

Thanks! This is one of the things I tried hard to do well, and I'm glad it got noticed. (Also, thank you for not mentioning my habit of forgetting that NPCs exist until someone else mentions them. :p)

 

Originally Posted By: Ephesos
In the future, I'd rather that people avoid that, particularly when they toss virulent magic-eating molds into the Labyrinth.

Well, Hoggle knows it's there, so it's not like we have to assume that the mold has serious consequences. More generally, I see what you mean. I was a little cautious about inventing new canon on my first try, but I think that led me to lean a little too heavily on already-established elements (see also: Ouracasos, Thuja, Korossos). Alec suggested I set my next RP in E/A2, which would set me free to muck about with the canon of someone who won't notice or care. tongue

 

(I also think I'd enjoy doing something historical- maybe 19th century America, maybe pirates, maybe the ancient Mediterranean. Seriously, if anyone's got ideas about what they'd like to play, tell me about it. These ideas will percolate for a long time before I actually start planning another campaign, and hopefully they'll emerge in strange and exciting ways.)

 

Originally Posted By: Lilith
I think part of the issue is that the on-paper definition of what the Religion skill does (knowledge of religious beliefs and rituals, normally those of just a single religion) is just not going to be all that useful in most campaigns, and is a little too close to History anyway. I figured attempting a bit of hermetic magic now and then would at least put the skill to good use -- I did only do it three times in the whole campaign, after all, and it only worked once (and that was on a roll of 18). But maybe the entire Religion skill is really just a holdover from D&D and its intended functions can be collapsed into History?

I don't disagree with this, but it also seems like, if the gods exist, and a PC has a long history of devotion to one in particular, prayer should occasionally do something. A skill check is probably the wrong way to handle it, though. In the future, I will probably make it a no-skill roll, and set the threshold for success based on the circumstances of the attempt (basically how I already handle Intimidate). Maybe I'll dispense with the roll entirely.

 

Originally Posted By: Lilith
(also i agree that chucking us into the labyrinth for 3/4 of a session felt a bit like filler, and it was at a pretty weird time to put filler in the first place)

Looking back, I share this view. I was feeling a bit burned out with what we had been doing so far, and doubted my ability to do a final approach/storm the castle type of ending without repeating elements that I'd already exhausted the novelty of. I tried to do something totally different and surprising, and probably wound up veering too far to the opposite extreme. Again, an experience issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Lilith
Fundamentally, it's really hard to implement a power/versatility tradeoff in a balanced way without a class-based system.

What's wrong with a class-based system?

No, really. Have classes -- or races -- that deterministically determine attribute growth. Then do skills as you have. That way there is no problem with powergaming the attributes, but you can still have the interesting (and in-character) attribute-skill interaction.

Originally Posted By: Sarachim
Alec suggested I set my next RP in E/A2, which would set me free to muck about with the canon of someone who won't notice or care. tongue

If you do this, I will
(1) notice
(2) care
(3) put that aside because the setting might actually tempt me into participating, at least if you're going to do it justice.

And no, my character would not be a slithzerikai ninja, despite the temptation. :-D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES
No, really. Have classes -- or races -- that deterministically determine attribute growth. Then do skills as you have. That way there is no problem with powergaming the attributes, but you can still have the interesting (and in-character) attribute-skill interaction.


Eh, but then by dividing attribute growth by race you run into the problem of having every spellcaster be human/elf, every warrior be dragonborn, every thief be lacewing/goblin, every mechanic be dwarf, etc.

And if you divide things into classes, then you'll eventually run into someone what wants to play a character that the classes can't cover (ex. a mage with low INT and tons of STR and DEX for HP and Evasion), and you've hit a brick wall.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...