![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Prepping For Thursday
Jul. 25th, 2010 07:31 pmTomorrow I'm going to post a "teaser" for Thursday's session, describing the scene the PCs see when they enter the inn, with a tiny bit of action. There will be a bit of interaction in the text involving one of the PCs whose player I've already spoken to.
This is just to get some exposition/stage-setting out of the way, and to let the people who are less confident roleplayers have some time to get in-scene/in-character before we begin. Future "in-game" posts like that may allow for between session play-by-post for people who want to investigate things or interact with other characters more often than a couple hours a week, but this one is meant to lead right into the action on Thursday.
Something I forgot to mention earlier... I doubt it will be an issue for anybody, especially as over half the group has played with me before, but some threads I've followed about DMs having problems with PC motivations made me feel like I should be addressing it just in case.
I make use of a concept I call "assent to adventure". Simply put, your character can have any alignment, personality, and set of motivations that you think fits... so long as they don't prevent you from participating in an adventure that's set before you.
The whole campaign is not going to be on rails and there may be a time when it makes sense for your character to abstain from a course of action you find objectionable. But if your stock response to every situation is "Why should I*?","I don't think my character would be interested in that.", or "Fuck that, I'm staying in/burning down the tavern."... well, my ruling is that a character who has so little reason to be there isn't there.
TL;DR - I'm interested in crafting a story for larger-than-life heroes, not providing a simulator for people to live out their random burning-and-pillaging fantasies. I'm going to be making up what are hopefully interesting and challenging things for your characters to do. Please oblige me by making up reasons for them to do them.
(*That's not to say that I veto mercenary characters. As I said, you can have any personality you see fit. If you're playing a greedy or cynical character, roleplay it, but be prepared to find a reason... grumble over the proffered reward if it's in character, but accept it anyway. Take the excuse to look for treasure. Or whatever.)
This is just to get some exposition/stage-setting out of the way, and to let the people who are less confident roleplayers have some time to get in-scene/in-character before we begin. Future "in-game" posts like that may allow for between session play-by-post for people who want to investigate things or interact with other characters more often than a couple hours a week, but this one is meant to lead right into the action on Thursday.
Something I forgot to mention earlier... I doubt it will be an issue for anybody, especially as over half the group has played with me before, but some threads I've followed about DMs having problems with PC motivations made me feel like I should be addressing it just in case.
I make use of a concept I call "assent to adventure". Simply put, your character can have any alignment, personality, and set of motivations that you think fits... so long as they don't prevent you from participating in an adventure that's set before you.
The whole campaign is not going to be on rails and there may be a time when it makes sense for your character to abstain from a course of action you find objectionable. But if your stock response to every situation is "Why should I*?","I don't think my character would be interested in that.", or "Fuck that, I'm staying in/burning down the tavern."... well, my ruling is that a character who has so little reason to be there isn't there.
TL;DR - I'm interested in crafting a story for larger-than-life heroes, not providing a simulator for people to live out their random burning-and-pillaging fantasies. I'm going to be making up what are hopefully interesting and challenging things for your characters to do. Please oblige me by making up reasons for them to do them.
(*That's not to say that I veto mercenary characters. As I said, you can have any personality you see fit. If you're playing a greedy or cynical character, roleplay it, but be prepared to find a reason... grumble over the proffered reward if it's in character, but accept it anyway. Take the excuse to look for treasure. Or whatever.)
D&D Night: How's it going to work?
Jul. 22nd, 2010 07:45 amOkay, so a few questions have been put to me about how things are going to work in the D&D game, in terms of practicalities of using text. I've been meaning to make a post like this anyway.
The most important thing: We're playing D&D, not Simon Says. So while I'm going to suggest a consistent format for things, your ability to follow it perfectly is not going to affect whether or not your actions "count" in the game.
( Talking/describing your actions. )
( Rolling Dice )
( During Your Combat Turn )
That's probably a bit longer and more rambly than it needs to be, since I wrote it. If you need anything above clarified, please comment before the session begins. If you have a question that I didn't answer, same deal.
The most important thing: We're playing D&D, not Simon Says. So while I'm going to suggest a consistent format for things, your ability to follow it perfectly is not going to affect whether or not your actions "count" in the game.
( Talking/describing your actions. )
( Rolling Dice )
( During Your Combat Turn )
That's probably a bit longer and more rambly than it needs to be, since I wrote it. If you need anything above clarified, please comment before the session begins. If you have a question that I didn't answer, same deal.
Inn Campaign Prelude: On The Road
Jul. 18th, 2010 05:23 pmNote: This post is intended for the people who will be playing in the D&D game on Thursday nights. I'm leaving it (and subsequent posts) as a public post because some people have expressed interest in following these adventures.
( Cut for campaign-specific nerdity. )
( Cut for campaign-specific nerdity. )
The Inn Campaign Roster
Jul. 18th, 2010 12:37 amAt this point I have heard from the two people I was waiting on, and so the party composition for the Inn Campaign is now pretty well set. If somebody applies with a really interesting and non-Divine sourced Defender sometime Sunday I might add them, but I feel good about where the group is now.
I'm going to post the whole list at the bottom of this post, with links to the character sheets. Please note that your characters do not know each other, but I'd rather that players have a chance to get some familiarity with the other characters for two reasons:
1. Your characters can see each other the very moment they first meet. With a large group it can be hard to do introductions in a way that'll stick fifteen minutes later ("Wait, you're a Warforged? And he's a Gnome? Who was the Shifter, then?"), so, you know, we're starting the introductions early.
2. Combat and similar perilous situations will go smoothly if you have some ideas of what you have to work with on the teamwork front. This won't matter to everyone, but if your abilities play off of what other people can do you might want to do some research.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
kynn's Human Great Weapon(s) Fighter Optima Brand
stormcaller3801's Goliath Warlord/Bard Carrog The [Superlative]
amethyst83's Razorclas Shifter Night Stalker Assassin Lady Scarlet Moonbane
xaddom's Human Predator Druid Janus
imaginedechoes's Warforged Vestige Warlock "Specter" Archimedes Lens
gamingdragon's Deva Tinker Artificer Gallifreya Kasterborous
moofable's Gnome, Ahem, Bravura Warlord Harlan Vulpini
josol's Wilden Seeker Dunbar
luke_licens's Eladrin Storm Sorcerer Toben Brausen
There's a really good spread of skills, I think. No Divine characters, which is an interesting bit of happenstance that will surely prove to have no further significance.
And in terms of combat, we've got two melee-only characters, three "skirmishers" who have both melee and ranged, and four people who will probably stay towards the rear. The skirmishers all have ranged attacks that can out to far range (10 squares, in map terms), so it's kind of flexible in terms of artillery. There is very little "burst" ability in the party, but since I'm planning on focusing on more intimate combats with smaller amounts of (potentially tougher or more interesting) opponents that need not be a problem. Fewer foes to corral will also make the solo Defender's job a little easier without me having to go easy on the party.
So basically I think I'm going to have fun with this group.
If you're in the game, please comment with your Google account or IPlay4E Handle (you can set up a handle if you don't want your Google account info to be public) so I can add you to the campaign file. If something has come up and you won't be able to participate Thursdays at 9:00 PM Central Standard time, please post here to let me know.
I'm going to post the whole list at the bottom of this post, with links to the character sheets. Please note that your characters do not know each other, but I'd rather that players have a chance to get some familiarity with the other characters for two reasons:
1. Your characters can see each other the very moment they first meet. With a large group it can be hard to do introductions in a way that'll stick fifteen minutes later ("Wait, you're a Warforged? And he's a Gnome? Who was the Shifter, then?"), so, you know, we're starting the introductions early.
2. Combat and similar perilous situations will go smoothly if you have some ideas of what you have to work with on the teamwork front. This won't matter to everyone, but if your abilities play off of what other people can do you might want to do some research.
kynn's Human Great Weapon(s) Fighter Optima Brandstormcaller3801's Goliath Warlord/Bard Carrog The [Superlative]amethyst83's Razorclas Shifter Night Stalker Assassin Lady Scarlet Moonbanexaddom's Human Predator Druid Janusimaginedechoes's Warforged Vestige Warlock "Specter" Archimedes Lensgamingdragon's Deva Tinker Artificer Gallifreya Kasterborousmoofable's Gnome, Ahem, Bravura Warlord Harlan Vulpinijosol's Wilden Seeker Dunbarluke_licens's Eladrin Storm Sorcerer Toben BrausenThere's a really good spread of skills, I think. No Divine characters, which is an interesting bit of happenstance that will surely prove to have no further significance.
And in terms of combat, we've got two melee-only characters, three "skirmishers" who have both melee and ranged, and four people who will probably stay towards the rear. The skirmishers all have ranged attacks that can out to far range (10 squares, in map terms), so it's kind of flexible in terms of artillery. There is very little "burst" ability in the party, but since I'm planning on focusing on more intimate combats with smaller amounts of (potentially tougher or more interesting) opponents that need not be a problem. Fewer foes to corral will also make the solo Defender's job a little easier without me having to go easy on the party.
So basically I think I'm going to have fun with this group.
If you're in the game, please comment with your Google account or IPlay4E Handle (you can set up a handle if you don't want your Google account info to be public) so I can add you to the campaign file. If something has come up and you won't be able to participate Thursdays at 9:00 PM Central Standard time, please post here to let me know.
Note: If you see this on Facebook and would like to join, please comment on the Livejournal version of the post.
( Cut for ever-increasing amounts of nerdity, and to make the additions at the bottom stand out more to people who've already read it. )
Update on 7/16:
The group list is almost set, see the next post for details. I wouldn't mind having another character or two who can fight on the front line/in melee, again, see the next post for details. Please follow the instructions above to apply with them. If you've already applied and didn't make the list, you can submit a new character.
( Cut for ever-increasing amounts of nerdity, and to make the additions at the bottom stand out more to people who've already read it. )
Update on 7/16:
The group list is almost set, see the next post for details. I wouldn't mind having another character or two who can fight on the front line/in melee, again, see the next post for details. Please follow the instructions above to apply with them. If you've already applied and didn't make the list, you can submit a new character.
ACME Test...
Jul. 10th, 2010 12:38 am...went pretty well. There were some connection issues that may stem from my current set-up that will have to be addressed one way or the other.
At one point my east-west aphasia did lead to a momentary confusion about how many zombies were still undead and kicking, but all in all the test went better than I expected in that area. I know how I made the mistake and can watch out for it in the future. It was also in the more complex of the two battles that I staged.
(I had four planned, but with the connection issues things took about twice as long as they should have.)
The ACME rules seemed to work well. There was some distance-fudging and some judgment calls involved, but that was expected. Nobody pulled out a power that made me go, "Wait, how can this be applied?" I rarely had to think before answering when somebody asked who they could reach.
One thing I had planned on doing but forgot about (and thatmoofable, who observed the session to give me a neophyte's perspective on the proceedings, noted to me that this would helpful) was giving a textual update of the combatants and their positions after each round and after major changes/upheavals. That I think would speed things up for the players and help prevent errors on my part.
Those are procedural things that can be easily fixed/improved. I think the rules are playable and ready. I have some concerns that it might be too easy to target blasts with the narrow/wide rule, butit's not something I think needs immediate adjustment. It'll take repeated play to really determine that, and the best way to do that would be to "go live" with the rules and play them repeatedly....actually, I have been thinking about this since the test ended, see below.
The connection was really bad by the time we gave up (and right before a big climax: giant zombie bear versuskynn's spirit bear) so I didn't get to have a whole big breakdown session at the end or anything, but I think the playtesters enjoyed it. I'm sure they'd agree that getting a text summary of the battlefield would help.
For running actual games the connection thing might be an issue... I could solve it by making the games text only instead of voice, or by taking a computer downstairs where I can plug it in directly to the router. I'll take a look at both solutions. Now that I know the rules are playable I'm getting eager to start.
Playtesters: If you have any comments, questions about why something went a certain way, or other feedback, feel free to drop it here.
Update on close blasts: after some time reflecting on how wellgamingdragon was able to use Howl of Fury as a minion cleanser, I've decided that the "narrow blast" mechanic does give players too much of a "shotgun scalpel" without giving enough up. Catching three enemies in a Close Blast 3 isn't a bad deal most of the time.
So to fix that, and more closely emulate how blasts get dropped on the map in regular play, it's going to work like this: you can pick one adjacent character (or "empty square") and say it's the origin square. Anyone else who's adjacent is safe. After that, it'll be resolved using the threat rules and common sense about who's where. There wasn't a time in the game that a blast was used where I didn't have a good enough sense of who was where to know if the Wizard was inside the tent pissing out or the other way around, as it were. In most situations where it wouldn't be possible to figure out who would or would not be hit (because everyone's all bunched up), it wouldn't be possible to drop a Blast 3 and not hit allies anyway.
Basically I overthought things. Blast doesn't need a lot of special handling, and the handling I used made it more powerful than it was meant to be.
At one point my east-west aphasia did lead to a momentary confusion about how many zombies were still undead and kicking, but all in all the test went better than I expected in that area. I know how I made the mistake and can watch out for it in the future. It was also in the more complex of the two battles that I staged.
(I had four planned, but with the connection issues things took about twice as long as they should have.)
The ACME rules seemed to work well. There was some distance-fudging and some judgment calls involved, but that was expected. Nobody pulled out a power that made me go, "Wait, how can this be applied?" I rarely had to think before answering when somebody asked who they could reach.
One thing I had planned on doing but forgot about (and that
moofable, who observed the session to give me a neophyte's perspective on the proceedings, noted to me that this would helpful) was giving a textual update of the combatants and their positions after each round and after major changes/upheavals. That I think would speed things up for the players and help prevent errors on my part.Those are procedural things that can be easily fixed/improved. I think the rules are playable and ready. I have some concerns that it might be too easy to target blasts with the narrow/wide rule, but
The connection was really bad by the time we gave up (and right before a big climax: giant zombie bear versus
kynn's spirit bear) so I didn't get to have a whole big breakdown session at the end or anything, but I think the playtesters enjoyed it. I'm sure they'd agree that getting a text summary of the battlefield would help.For running actual games the connection thing might be an issue... I could solve it by making the games text only instead of voice, or by taking a computer downstairs where I can plug it in directly to the router. I'll take a look at both solutions. Now that I know the rules are playable I'm getting eager to start.
Playtesters: If you have any comments, questions about why something went a certain way, or other feedback, feel free to drop it here.
Update on close blasts: after some time reflecting on how well
gamingdragon was able to use Howl of Fury as a minion cleanser, I've decided that the "narrow blast" mechanic does give players too much of a "shotgun scalpel" without giving enough up. Catching three enemies in a Close Blast 3 isn't a bad deal most of the time.So to fix that, and more closely emulate how blasts get dropped on the map in regular play, it's going to work like this: you can pick one adjacent character (or "empty square") and say it's the origin square. Anyone else who's adjacent is safe. After that, it'll be resolved using the threat rules and common sense about who's where. There wasn't a time in the game that a blast was used where I didn't have a good enough sense of who was where to know if the Wizard was inside the tent pissing out or the other way around, as it were. In most situations where it wouldn't be possible to figure out who would or would not be hit (because everyone's all bunched up), it wouldn't be possible to drop a Blast 3 and not hit allies anyway.
Basically I overthought things. Blast doesn't need a lot of special handling, and the handling I used made it more powerful than it was meant to be.
Under the theory that more eyes are better than fewer, I've decided to post the draft of my abstract combat system for D&D. This system owes a debt of inspiration to the "SARN-FU" system (detailed here), for showing me a good model for handling abstract distances. My original plan was to use SARN-FU, but I had a few issues with it:
While I started out just adding rules for blasts/bursts and forced movement stunts to SARN-FU, when I was finished the only thing it had in common was the basic idea of using relative distances, so a new name (and better acronym) seemed to be in order.
This has not been playtested. It has not even been thoroughly checked by anyone who isn't me.
( Cut for nerdery that may or may not be relevant to your interests. )
Some Explanations, or What I Was Thinking:
It would be the DM's job to keep track of where everyone is and give an overview of the combat field every round. This should ideally be presented in a visual form that players can refer back to, rather than having to keep the whole battlefield in their head. My thought is that for an online game, I would describe the battlefield positions in a block of text and for an offline game I would list the clusters on a white board or a sheet of paper.
The change to flanking (that you can't flank while being flanked) is to keep the number of flanks going on at one time, since each one is something that has to be kept track of (unlike in a tabletop game, when you glance at the board and see that your opponent is flanked.) The flanking rules and boxing in rules together are designed to create a sense of a dynamic combat with warriors jockeying for position, as tends to happen in 4E tabletop games. They also give more meaningfulness to the "shift" mechanic, since so many powers allow free shifts.
Guarding is meant to allow Defenders to do their job without the game devolving to something even worse than "I shot you!"/"No, you didn't, you missed!" -- "I stood in your way!"/"No, you didn't!"
- The movement system is unnecessarily mathematical and precise. If things are abstract, let them be abstract. My system has more of a fudge factor when it comes to movement and distance.
- The flanking system (though refreshingly simple) seems like it would be brutal in combats with large numbers of enemies.
- I wanted to have clear guidelines for adjudicating bursts and blasts, to keep them from either being total DM Deathtraps ("Oh, too bad... you hit your entire party with a fireball. Again.") or laser-guided multiwarhead for the players ("I position my fireball so that it hits every Kobold but misses all of us.")
- Likewise, I wanted rules for doing interesting things with forced movement that didn't turn pushes and slides into the equivalent of a Green Lantern Power Ring.
While I started out just adding rules for blasts/bursts and forced movement stunts to SARN-FU, when I was finished the only thing it had in common was the basic idea of using relative distances, so a new name (and better acronym) seemed to be in order.
This has not been playtested. It has not even been thoroughly checked by anyone who isn't me.
( Cut for nerdery that may or may not be relevant to your interests. )
Some Explanations, or What I Was Thinking:
It would be the DM's job to keep track of where everyone is and give an overview of the combat field every round. This should ideally be presented in a visual form that players can refer back to, rather than having to keep the whole battlefield in their head. My thought is that for an online game, I would describe the battlefield positions in a block of text and for an offline game I would list the clusters on a white board or a sheet of paper.
The change to flanking (that you can't flank while being flanked) is to keep the number of flanks going on at one time, since each one is something that has to be kept track of (unlike in a tabletop game, when you glance at the board and see that your opponent is flanked.) The flanking rules and boxing in rules together are designed to create a sense of a dynamic combat with warriors jockeying for position, as tends to happen in 4E tabletop games. They also give more meaningfulness to the "shift" mechanic, since so many powers allow free shifts.
Guarding is meant to allow Defenders to do their job without the game devolving to something even worse than "I shot you!"/"No, you didn't, you missed!" -- "I stood in your way!"/"No, you didn't!"
