|
Post by WxMAN on Feb 4, 2013 9:57:43 GMT -6
N8 says I am normally too hard on myself You are First encounter was fine. First encounter was better than 'fine' the area was reasonably interesting (fountain in the middle of the 'town square', 4 main avenues of approach)... Seemed relatively well balanced. The problem you have is one of us is playing one hell of a tank and the other has a minimum damage of 11 pts (and then Uzi is essentially a balance of the two of us)... At this low of level it is hard to make monsters balanced for the squishier members while keeping it a challenge for the melee machines... this situation would be hard for any GM, let alone someone on their first run... I wanted to do something a bit more creative with the bennies The bennies were definitely a reflection of you Some parts seemed like it dragged a bit, though I couldn't precisely put on finger on why, or how to fix it. Dragging isn't the word I'd use. If anything it felt a little bit like we were being led by the leash. I know the reasons for how this came about so I'll skip putting those here, but as to how to fix them that's a bit trickier. From my perspective you needed to work on giving the PC's a good reason to do something and have them be empowered to accomplish that goal. Part of the issue that both Rigil and Giger have lamented on is the players have tended to be more passive and let the GM almost force-feed the story to us... There are 'good' and 'bad' reasons the players are doing this but it all results in sometimes feeling like you are the are the Monorail Engineer on the Plot Express... I don't know if the level of treasure was appropriate or not. I think it was a bit on the generous side but with my campaign there isn't a ton of opportunity to receive treasure so I figured I would be generous when the opportunity presented itself. It is all personally and campaign based as to what is enough and what is too much. ie, if you wanted a campaign feel to be 'scraping by and earning every thing you have' it'd be a lot different than a 'heroic romp through the lands of mooktopia'... Just think of the different feel a typical post apocalyptic game has compared to Dispendables... in one you should be risking your life for a couple bullets and some shitty spam, in the other you are fully stocked with the best money can buy and the only thing that matter is 'accomplishing the mission'... Two different feels for how 'loot' is given This is a hard campaign to really gauge that stuff in, but so far it seemed fine, especially if things will be harder to find later on.. Worse comes to worse, always under-equip the PC's as it is easier to give then to take away! Once you got to Kingsport, things felt a bit rough. Probably because from that point on I really didn't have anything prepared.... Zebulon was a very last minute addition. This is all about improv, something that takes natural talent and/or a lot of practice.... You haven't had any practice in it so this will come in time I shall reserve judgement for now, but I think that I like writing campaigns a lot more than I like GM-ing them. It takes a lot out of me to be GM, and I could feel that I was waning by the end of the evening. I think it is wayyy too early to say you don't like GMing.. The 'feeling spent' at the end of the night happened to me each night so that may be a constant feeling (old guard agree?)... It didn't help you were already on your last leg from the work Overall I give myself a 7 out of 10. Probably above average for a first time, but I still have a way to go in order to achieve a performance level that I am satisfied with. I'd say that is a fair assessment, it is always very difficult to accurately judge ones performance, especially when you know all the times you 'screwed up' that sometimes the players didn't see
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Feb 4, 2013 10:24:19 GMT -6
- I thought it went fine for a first run. Don't recall anything dragging horribly
- Cliffhanger cleanup wasn't too Deus-ex-Machina-ey
- Combat balance is tricky; I do think we need to up the ante a bit, so the heavy-hitters feel like it means something, but if you do, someone's inevitably going to get killed—and maybe we just need to accept that
- We have a tendency sometimes, in this group, to overcompensate for the Monty Hall effect, and give out too little loot. But how much is too much/little? Interesting related article
- It seems to be a given, lately, that you don't start hitting your GMing stride until the second session
|
|
|
Post by LabRat on Feb 11, 2013 13:24:48 GMT -6
So I must say that I saw major improvement when you compared last week to this week. I felt much more at ease and prepared because we got into the meat and bones of what I had been working on for the last few weeks.
I thought that the encounters went pretty well. The one with the badgers was really just a randomly generated encounter that I rolled earlier on Friday. I expected it to be rather easy, and you guys pretty much walked through it.
The bar fight was just something that was supposed to be more fun than anything. Take some time out to roll some dice and hit things. Hopefully it set up the atmosphere on how I imagined the culture of the dwarves to be. Plus you got a bar fight in...yay!
The rock slide encounter was really supposed to be to just move some rocks and get the dwarves out. However, since you guys did so well last week, I wanted to test you a little bit, as well as flex my now defined yet still puny GM muscles. As second level characters you guys did over 140pts of damage to kill those spiders. So that’s really cool. And you rolled really well in order to move the rocks. I was a bit hesitant to go forward with the encounter because it could have been a rather nasty battle, or the dwarves could have conceivably died because they were overcome by noxious fumes. It was one of those large risks/large rewards situations. To the players, it might have seemed like a normal encounter but I was rather proud of thinking up that one.
Roleplaying was improved. Hopefully those awkward moments of RP from last week were diminished. I tried to get into character a bit more than narrating to you what the character said. It’s still not where I want it to be, but I am improving. I still need more from Walen. Maia kind of stepped up during the “faceman” moments when it should have been Walen’s time to shine.
I think the pacing went a bit better. I tried to let you guys off the leash. Granted it’s still a railroad in terms of plot points but getting to those points was more open. There were plenty of moments where someone would do or say something that I hadn’t prepared for, so I had to improvise. So that was a good thing.
Probably the best part of this is that I have some inspiration going. I am reworking the next two sessions so that it is a bit more entertaining/challenging. But overall I think that I did much better than last week. As much as I want to give you guys some entertainment on Friday night, it is also important to me to overcome all the internal stuff about being a GM. I still want to improve though so if you could let me know if there’s anything I can make better than I would appreciate it. So yay! Score: 8.3/10
Additional bit that I need to improve on other than the obvious: Start actually using/reading obsidian portal. I keep forgetting it is there for whatever reason. I am writing session overviews right now, so hopefully I can have both of them up today. I am starting character wiki’s tomorrow (I will have them finished by this weekend)…it all depends on how work goes, as to when I can get them up.
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Feb 12, 2013 9:54:03 GMT -6
Typical second-session improvement, it seems—sensing a pattern, here.
Fights were fine. The spiders seemed to be a real threat, which is good—whether or not it's true, we should believe we're going to die, unless that's not the point. To the other end, got the impression that the bar-fight was just for fun, so the point was properly communicated; surprised you didn't know the rules on that one, but you have the rest of us for a safety-net.
The "rockslide" is the only thing that stands out to me as "rough." I've taken a dislike to the tendency (not just yours) to roll Str checks to lift/move weight, when that's not how it works—but it's so much easier to just roll the dice. I get what you were trying to do, though; still thinking about how I would have done it.
On a similar note, I've noticed you have another common tendency I've witnessed of late, amongst all GMs I've played with (not just this group), that is, rolling the dice for every little thing, without (seemingly) any idea of the consequences. Most commonly, Spot checks (or Perception, in GURPS). What happens if we don't make the DC? We know we missed something, because we just rolled for it. When I was running, I used the "passive check" more often than not, and didn't bother with a die-roll unless there was a specific effect to success/failure that would be immediately apparent.
FWIW
|
|
|
Post by zenwolf on Feb 13, 2013 12:21:23 GMT -6
On a similar note, I've noticed you have another common tendency I've witnessed of late, amongst all GMs I've played with (not just this group), that is, rolling the dice for every little thing, without (seemingly) any idea of the consequences. Most commonly, Spot checks (or Perception, in GURPS). What happens if we don't make the DC? We know we missed something, because we just rolled for it. When I was running, I used the "passive check" more often than not, and didn't bother with a die-roll unless there was a specific effect to success/failure that would be immediately apparent This is something i have been thinking about lately as well. There is a pass/fail mentality on skill checks and the like that are built in to many systems. Sometimes that duality works but all too often it doesnt. Many times one or both options are simply uninteresting. I have started to look at die rolls (skill checks, combat) as answering story questions. Now there are 5 different answers to a story question: "yes", "no", "yes but", "yes and furthermore", and "no and furthermore". Combat in D&D provides rules for 4 of these: Do i hit? "yes": Do your damage "no": Whiff! "yes and furthermore": Crit! "no and furthermore": Consult the crit fumble chart (not in the rules but by way of illustration) "yes but": do your damage but your sword broke. Now i think that in skill checks there are two problems. First, calling for a skill check when both "yes" and "no" answers are unintersting (e.g. Do i climb the rope?). In these cases I think it is best to just use a passive check. The other problem is when a no answer stops the flow of the game, leads to an unacceptable outcome or is simply uninteresting (e.g. Do i find the clue? Can I jump to the next building while being pursued? Do i open the lock?). In these cases i think something to consider would be a "yes"/"yes but" duality instead of a "yes"/"no". Though it may not have been conceived as such a great example of this was in Rigil's Pathfinder campaign. Our dwarf companion was dangling from a rope and being attacked. He was in bad shape and we were unable to pull him up. In a desperate, foolish, and heroic move Raegar leapt off the cliff. Story question: Does Raegar save him? "yes": Raegar grabs the rope, slides down and smites the creature with his mace saving the day. "yes but": Raegar misses the rope, drops his mace but saves the day by using his weight and thick skull to slay the beast while also knocking himself unconscious. (that is yes he saved him but he lost his mace and his consciousness) "no": Raegar misses the rope, drops his mace and plummets to his death. I got the "yes but" result instead of a "no" that by the RAW I probably should have. And now i have an epic RPG memory as a result. Something to think about anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Feb 13, 2013 12:38:58 GMT -6
Ah, the good times… Actually, the dice serve a couple of specific purposes: a randomizer (duh), for situations where the result isn't obvious or arbitrary; and a tension-building device, where the outcome should not be certain, for dramatic purposes (as is the case with most "combat" applications). Maybe others. IMO, if the situation doesn't fit one of those, there's no point in rolling dice.
|
|
|
Post by zenwolf on Feb 13, 2013 14:11:17 GMT -6
Actually, the dice serve a couple of specific purposes.Maybe others. IMO, if the situation doesn't fit one of those, there's no point in rolling dice. My point may not have been stated well. I should have said: in certain situatuions (to hit rolls, certain skill checks) i have found it fruitful to consider, in addition to the normal functions of dice, the story question before consulting the dice. If nothing of impotance rides on it, be it story question answer or other dice function, dont roll. When there is a story question to be answered many times a "no" answer doesnt move the story forward in a significant way and should be discarded from consideration.
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Feb 13, 2013 14:22:00 GMT -6
When there is a story question to be answered many times a "no" answer doesnt move the story forward in a significant way and should be discarded from consideration. Ah. That goes back to one of my GMing rules: if failure will derail the story, do not ask for a die-roll. One of the more irritating examples of this for me is with the Saturday game, in the Traveller campaign: the Players say they want to contact that ship over there, and the GM calls for a roll on Electronics Operation (Communication) to make the call…completely unnecessary, no plan for failure (I presume), and the rules specifically say that a roll is not required for "normal" operation. So why does he do that? Reflex. You feel like you aren't doing it right if you aren't rolling dice.
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Feb 13, 2013 22:11:50 GMT -6
I have comments, both about last week's session and the other stuff, but I've been afflicted with a severe case of nomotivationwhatsoeveritis, so my comments may be delayed. I hope to have them up before Friday...
|
|
|
Post by zenwolf on Feb 14, 2013 9:11:18 GMT -6
Ah. That goes back to one of my GMing rules: if failure will derail the story, do not ask for a die-roll. yes i agree that in situations where a "yes" answer is mundane or uninteresting that a roll should not be called for. But what about when the "yes" answer is interesting and involves risk? in these situations adding a "yes but" option is IMO very worthwhile. Fiction is full of "yes but" answers and they often drive the plot in interesting directions. i am looking at ways to apply them to gaming. another example I thought of is actually in RAW, in star wars fringe benefits there were a couple of times the group was in a dire situation and Ondo was the last man standing and had to use a Dark Side point to save everyone. So i achieved victory but at high price. Unfortunately to my memory this type of option is only available to force sensitive characters. i am interested in opening up these kinds of options to all players. there are several ways of implementing this but i think i might offer a rule where a player could request or a gm could suggest a "yes bu" option in a dramtic or cinematically appropriate moment. i realize that this might just be a matter of gaming taste and might not be applicable to all gasmes/players but i found it interesting and will likely try to incorporate it when i run again
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Feb 14, 2013 9:32:18 GMT -6
First the review:
Overall a definite improvement as you went more into the meat of your story. You were also visibly more comfortable being at the center of attention... No surprise as the second session is much easier than the first, I would expect some pretty consistent improvement next week and (if you continue running) thereafter...
You did a good job handling the unplanned use of Bluff and Diplo-mancy by Walen and Maia to get Uzi's sentence put on hold..
Maybe it was just me but the reasoning behind the king sending what was essentially a diplomatic envoy to check up on internal dwarven affairs seemed a little... odd...
The bar fight was good fun.
The spider fight was intense and generally fantastic... though I am a little wary of the oxygen running out that quickly for the dwarves... given we had 10 rounds to remove 5 'rocks' that means they would have suffocated to death in 60 seconds... that is really fast...
But those are just minor niggles on an otherwise great run... 8.31/ for you!
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Feb 14, 2013 9:47:42 GMT -6
But what about when the "yes" answer is interesting and involves risk? That situation you described doesn't fit "total derailment"—failure didn't screw the whole thing. A good example of what I'm talking about is a locked door to a campaign-centric dungeon—if the rogue can't get it open, the campaign goes nowhere. Of course, the better option is not to put the campaign in that situation in the first place. What you're describing fits better with another article I read many moons ago that suggested "Failure, with a Twist"—where failure at a check or whatever still occurs, but is mitigated to a less-disastrous result. FREX, in my old "Make Failure Fun" blurb, I suggested that a failure to get through "that door" could have you end up meeting an NPC you otherwise wouldn't.
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Feb 14, 2013 9:55:52 GMT -6
What happens if we don't make the DC? We know we missed something, because we just rolled for it. When I was running, I used the "passive check" more often than not, and didn't bother with a die-roll unless there was a specific effect to success/failure that would be immediately apparent. I'd like to note I was considering having the GM do the majority of rolls for the PC's... ie, spot, appraise, search, etc so the players couldn't metagame and it would allow for a bit more mystery... "I know I am good at trap checking, but how good was this last check?" But decided to put it off at the time as I had enough juggling to do on my first run to throw more duties on my shoulders... Furthermore, at least during my run on a good portion of the rolls I had people make there were consequences good and bad for checks... Now this wasn't all of them, but I tried to have 3 or more 'DCs' involved with a check... As an example a spot check: DC 10, failure: You see halfings running down the hill DC 15, lowest success: You see goblins running at you over the mountains DC 20: Those goblins seem to be drawing weapons DC 25: You see a goblin king behind them beginning to cast a spell In the above example there wasn't a real binary pass/fail and drastic failure has consequences such that you see something wrong which misleads you (kind of like failure on an appraise check misleads you of the value of an item) Another example I thought of is actually in RAW, in star wars fringe benefits there were a couple of times the group was in a dire situation and Ondo was the last man standing and had to use a Dark Side point to save everyone. So i achieved victory but at high price. Unfortunately to my memory this type of option is only available to force sensitive characters. i am interested in opening up these kinds of options to all players. I think there is that option for all characters, but not in RAW. Our characters should change and be affected by things and we need to remember that... Assume Tesla was the last 'man' standing and had to do something really questionable to save the crew... 1. Will this make her question what a person she is becoming and force her to stick to a stronger code of ethics which may mean she would no longer do what she did to save the crew if it were to happen again 2. Will this give her a taste of 'power' and 'freedom' when she no longer restrains herself and she begins down a darker path 3. Will this not overly affect her as she sees what she did was necessary and she'd do it again, but only in life threatening situations... and how does that make her crew/others view her? Too often I think our characters are guided too strongly by the hands of the player to the point where they will only be affected by things that the player has preordained that is the path they'd like to take the character... there are several ways of implementing this but i think i might offer a rule where a player could request or a gm could suggest a "yes bu" option in a dramtic or cinematically appropriate moment. I like the idea, it'll be interesting to see how it works in game though will likely try to incorporate it when i run again You're up next week... Be there by 7pm sharp
|
|
|
Post by LabRat on Feb 14, 2013 11:07:35 GMT -6
Maybe it was just me but the reasoning behind the king sending what was essentially a diplomatic envoy to check up on internal dwarven affairs seemed a little... odd... These characters that I have created aren't 2-dimentional. They are rather well developed. However, how can they give you any information if your characters do not ask them? Plus, if I remember correctly Walen volunteered you guys to go check it out as it would help expedite Bramblebeard's agreement to offer aid. The spider fight was intense and generally fantastic... though I am a little wary of the oxygen running out that quickly for the dwarves... given we had 10 rounds to remove 5 'rocks' that means they would have suffocated to death in 60 seconds... that is really fast... I did share my concerns with you about this encounter and was really hoping I didn't kill people. However, I can't test the boundaries unless I do something like this and learn from the experience. This taught me that you guys can handle some tough situations if you have a night of good rolling. I took that into account and adjusted future encounters accordingly. But I agree with the air thing, that is why I added that poisonous gasses were leaking out as well. You could make the case that it would do irreversible damage in about a minute. To me this falls into the whole skewed category of 6 sec. a round thing. Most encounters last less than a minute, which has always felt a bit odd to me. It was difficult to convey urgency, and add that extra layer of suspense, unless I played by D&D rules. There wouldn't have been much of a point waiting five-ten minutes for the air to run out when you guys pretty much cleaned house in 54 "in game" seconds. I have comments, both about last week's session and the other stuff, but I've been afflicted with a severe case of nomotivationwhatsoeveritis, so my comments may be delayed. I hope to have them up before Friday... I understand that, but I would appreciate comments for my first set of sessions. I can't get any better if I don't get feed back. That being said, Chris III, you haven't left any comments at all. If you expect the same courtesy from me when it is your time to run, then I would appreciate it if you make the effort to leave something constructive. Regarding the rolling skill check thing. After last week I will admit that I do have you guys roll too often. Part of it is because it is a pathetic attempt to keep people engaged (Hey if I keep having them do stuff, they will pay attention), the other part is that I feel like I have been using skill checks in the wrong fashion. Whenever I ask for a spot check or whatever, there are consequences behind whether or not the party makes it. You guys just don't know it because I only tell you one outcome, but usually I have 3 or 4 potential results for that one roll. Depending on the roll depends on what you guys see...or think you see. It didn't help that you guys were rolling really well last week, but if you were having more of an average day the skill checks could have provided some interesting results. However, I now understand what Daniel is saying, and after some critical thinking, I am going to amend how I approach the skill checks. Most of them will now be just passive observation, so how you handle what you see is going to be the deciding factor on providing the best outcome. Also, I am just going to put a disclaimer up now. As much as I want to be a good GM for you guys, the sessions of my first run is kind of self serving in that I want establish encounters that a new GM should experience. That being said, the bulk of this week's session may not be everyone's favorite pastime, but I think it is important for me to gain experience in how to manage this particular encounter.
|
|
|
Post by thedefiantbudah on Feb 14, 2013 11:12:26 GMT -6
I like the idea of the GM doing the skill check rolls for passive/plot related stuff so you can push thru certain aspects and when the PC's are taking the initiative they make their own rolls, and leave the saves, checks, and attacks to the pc's
|
|
|
Post by thedefiantbudah on Feb 14, 2013 11:22:33 GMT -6
I really like how things flowed with this week, the bar fight was fun and I like the way it was handled by everyone...I really enjoyed the spider fight (and i'm really glad walen decided to not go exploring lol) as far as the "limited time" before the NPC's died...there also is the time it took to get to the mine, I'm pretty sure (if memory serves) it wasn't right next to us, but rather a little ways off...factor in a couple of minutes to get there and then actually getting down into the mine...and then removing the rocks...it was an appropriate time frame I thought...and honestly...I hadn't actually thought about the actual length of time it would take to get them out vs the time it took for them to die from lack of oxygen and the presence of toxic fumes
I thought that I had stepped up with the Bard/Diplomat part of Walen but will step it up a little more
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Feb 14, 2013 11:53:16 GMT -6
Just as a caution, I would describe my "unnecessary die-rolling" bit as a "rant," so take it FWIW.
WRT the rant, the point is less about the results of the die-rolls, and more about the dramatic appropriateness of them. If the Spot check isn't really relevant to the story, IMO, it should be bothered about. It could be that all of Shelley's Spot checks were adequately prepared, and dramatically appropriate—with or without our knowledge—but I know that it is often not the case, in the broader scope of my experience.
As to better ways to handle it: I've taken to using pre-rolls for appropriate checks, for GURPS, and in my brief experience with D&D, the passive checks were just as good. I've also taken to using "retroactive" Spot checks. As an example of both, I (a) retroactively determined that the party had seen the Giant Eagles as they left Elfwood, and (b) didn't bother with any actual checks, passive or active, because I wanted them to be seen, and dramatic tension wasn't applicable—if I had called for a check, it might have failed, and nobody would ever know about them, which would have made the story somewhat less interesting.
|
|
|
Post by zenwolf on Feb 14, 2013 12:12:12 GMT -6
What you're describing fits better with another article I read many moons ago that suggested "Failure, with a Twist"—where failure at a check or whatever still occurs, but is mitigated to a less-disastrous result. FREX, in my old "Make Failure Fun" blurb, I suggested that a failure to get through "that door" could have you end up meeting an NPC you otherwise wouldn't. "Failure with a twist" is similar to what i am getting at but not exacly. It would correspond to a "no but" in the lexicon I'm using. I hadnt considered that option but it is interesting, sort of a consolation prize. On a different note, I should say that although I kind of hijacked the "critic's corner" (sorry Labrat) I was not intending to criticize anyone. I also wasn't trying to pretend I was bringing down tablets fom the mountain. So if it came across that way to anyone, I sincerely apopogize. I just saw an oppurtunity to have a discussion with you guys about gaming and share some of the thoughts I had been having on it. I am having serious gaming withdrawals. lol WxMAN yeah i agree that people have the option to do those sorts of things, but without a mechanic or something like that it is all too easy to pass over moment without thinking about it. I was thinking about drawing attention to those types of decisions so that there is a framework to where the potentiality becomes actuality. Also very interested incorporate a way to model "character growth" in addition or in place of "character power growth". I have seen a couple of systems that do this but havent tried any of them out.
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Feb 14, 2013 13:41:41 GMT -6
Regarding the Session: I enjoyed it and thought, exactly as has been stated, you settled in nicely as the GM. All of the major points have been covered - I had less problem with the two dwarves potentially asphyxiating in 60 seconds because I know how krunked up D&D can be (what's that? You're 1000 feet up when your fly spell wears off? Well guess what? You fell that 1000' in 6 seconds and took ridiculous amounts of damage. No, I don't care about terminal velocity and how long it would really take to fall that distance ...) You could easily state that it wasn't just lack of oxygen that was the threat: it was the rocks that had fallen and were pinning the dwarves to the ground, so they could not actually inhale due to the crushing weight upon them. The bar fight was also amusing. I don't want you to think I wasn't enjoying it because my character didn't get involved - I did that mostly because A) my dice had been screwing me all night and continued to do so later in the evening, and B) a random Chaotic bar fight didn't seem to fit Alain's Lawful mindset. Besides ... it gave him the opportunity to finish off his excellent spiced potatoes. The spiders thing was well done ... though my constant fighting of those big ass things in Skyrim might have flavored my mental image. Sure, I would have liked to be more of an actual threat in the fight (exactly as I expected and stated, on the Saturday game, my luck swung the other way and I could not be touched in a fight while I killed lots of bad guys), but that was the dice's fault, not yours. Thus far, you (and WxMAN as well) have done an excellent job as new GMs. Now, shifting gears to the players, LabRat makes an good point, one that I think Giger has made previously, and that's the proactivity of the PCs. We have two very charismatic PCs and at least one (mine) who is pretty above-average in that regard, yet we (all of us) are still defaulting to the rail shooter mindset. I know that me and WxMAN probably have the most forceful personalities in real life (we're both loud assholes, I guess. Can I get a "so say we all", WxMAN? ), but our characters aren't ... which is why I've still been hesitant about pushing forward and sort of "taking over" as the quasi-leader. What we're running into, I think, is the same sort of problem we encounter when we're playing a ridiculously intelligent PC - honestly, how do you run someone with an INT of 20+? With Mazrim (who has a 22 or 23, I think), I struggled quite frequently about what he would do and was capable of, so I get how hard it is to play a character who is so much better than I am in one regard, but we probably need to figure out how to make both Maia and Walen more ... forceful. Both of them have CHA of 18 so that means they should be very likeable and have powerful presences. What I'd recommend is that all players work together to help the super charismatic PC with recommendations and suggestions that might not occur to the player. Is everyone okay with that? Regarding the rolling for every little thing, I must admit that, even though I didn't like a lot in 4e, I thought the Passive Insight/PER thing was brilliant. With everyone's approval, I'd like to suggest we amend our House Rules to utilize those. Thus, - Passive skills are 10 + Bonus. Recommended Passives are Insight (for "Crap. The players need a freaking clue."), Listen, and Spot.
- Unless a Player actively declares they are doing something (e.g., "OK, I'm going to look around." or "I'm sticking my head to the door and Listening."), a GM will consult the Passive score.
Good to see you again, zenwolf. Gonna be rejoining us soon? With Baby Gordon, right?
|
|
|
Post by LabRat on Feb 14, 2013 13:41:46 GMT -6
On a different note, I should say that although I kind of hijacked the "critic's corner" (sorry Labrat) I was not intending to criticize anyone. I also wasn't trying to pretend I was bringing down tablets fom the mountain. So if it came across that way to anyone, I sincerely apopogize. I just saw an oppurtunity to have a discussion with you guys about gaming and share some of the thoughts I had been having on it. I am having serious gaming withdrawals. lol No worries, this is really a place where people talk about how GMs can improve so you're actually in the right spot. And you didn't come off as criticizing, actually the experience has been rather enlightening, as I've made some my adjustments on how I approach spot checks. This is the type of conversation our group needs. And if the withdrawals get too much to handle...you could always come back
|
|
|
Post by zenwolf on Feb 14, 2013 16:34:29 GMT -6
Good to see you again, zenwolf. Gonna be rejoining us soon? With Baby Gordon, right? you could always come back I wish I could. My reappearance is still a few months away at the very least. lol
|
|
|
Post by LabRat on Feb 17, 2013 11:23:46 GMT -6
First off I would like to apologize for the shortness of this session. I was in one of those awkward places within the campaign that would have made the session go on forever if we kept going, so I had to end it a bit early.
Last week was interesting because it let me do something that I really hadn't planned for, and that was doing a lot of improv. Everything you guys did up until the Assassin vine was essentially made up by me on the fly. In a way, it was kind of scary but kind of fun at the same time. Now that I experienced that, I am beginning to understand the difference between leading the players along and leaving them to their own devices. So that was a good lesson for me.
Originally, the quick sand was more of an obstacle to get around instead of going in there and getting a corpse from the middle of the quick sand. I usually get my pictures when I am waiting for something to get done at work, so I am working on my little netbook. Usually the pictures are rather small so I don't see certain details. I didn't notice the cloak until you guys wanted to pull it out, so I just rolled with it.
I think the assassin vine was one of those rare occurrences where everything worked out beautifully for that encounter due to a good dose of dumb luck. I was going to skip it because we were pressed for time, but since you guys wanted to bury the quicksand corpse in a tree, it was just the perfect opportunity.
Fissure was inspired by the conversation about how far a player could go and still remain at 0 BAB. I was like, well how about I just make a dwarf who just wants to do everything since he's trying to find his place in life. I think Nate or Rigil made that comment last night, so kudos for figuring out the connection.
I tried to keep spot/search/listen checks to a minimum and just go off of a basic perception check for most things. So hopefully those were toned down a bit.
I think I need to work on encounter mechanics a bit more, I get caught up on what other people are doing that I don't play the 'bad guys' with as much skill as I would play my own character. I also need to do a better job at remembering the order of the encounter, that is now twice where I flubbed up.
This part of the session has a lot of niggly bits that I am dealing with behind the screen. I am kind of juggling a lot that may not be apparent yet. With that being said, I don't like the information Ilde gave you about her son when you asked about him. So I am going to amend that conversation in the campaign discussion thread, and try to give you a bit more information about him. Also, I will also include another tidbit that I failed to mention during your travels. I am sorry for that but it just slipped by my radar.
Overall, there wasn't a whole lot going on during this session if you look at it at face value. This was kind of the fluffy stuff that happens before you get to the "big adventure". However, behind the screen I was being exposed to many things that were unfamiliar to me, which was highly beneficial. So giving this a rating is kind of difficult. I think it went well, but it wasn't anything extremely special or entertaining to the player.
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Feb 17, 2013 12:50:23 GMT -6
I get caught up on what other people are doing that I don't play the 'bad guys' with as much skill as I would play my own character. A common issue I also need to do a better job at remembering the order of the encounter, that is now twice where I flubbed up. Use the computer, or get someone else to do it for you (Rigil's done that for McN, if you recall; keeping the turn-order in Hero Labs). The less bandwidth you have to reserve for things like that, the more you have for the above. Also, I will also include another tidbit that I failed to mention during your travels. I am sorry for that but it just slipped by my radar. Something I haven't done in a while, but I used to, is put checkboxes next to all the items in my notes; I would check them off when they were "used"
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Feb 19, 2013 9:03:08 GMT -6
I think overall things went well, if a bit short - but that was for a multitude of reasons beyond your control.
Your improv'ing went rather well as I couldn't tell what you were and weren't making up on the fly. Very well done...
It is very difficult to get all the details in, especially when in progress of running... I know it is one of the biggest things I want to work on
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Feb 19, 2013 12:35:29 GMT -6
Use the computer, or get someone else to do it for you (Rigil's done that for McN, if you recall; keeping the turn-order in Hero Labs). Yes, I can do that if you like. Even still, there are always going to be encounters that end and you realize after the fact that you should have done X or Y. It only gets worse as you run higher level characters. Spells and feats are so easy to forget if you don't run the character regularly: imagine a human fighter 9 - he or she has ten feats and not all of them are going to passive (like Toughness.) Throw in a template that gives him supernatural abilities, and a crapload of magic items ... yeah. So don't be surprised when you (general, not specific) miss something. And then, sometimes, the PCs do something stupid that works out perfectly for you... As you have probably noticed, there is also this terrible GM curse of "I have this wicked awesome backstory for Character X ... but the PCs either <A> don't care about Character X or <B> didn't ask the correct questions to find out this backstory." I've been gaming forever and it still drives me nuts - without the character suddenly providing information they have no reason to, sometimes, it makes no sense at all for the PCs to learn the awesome backstory you created. Don't stress over the shortened session. I've had those games as well and you've done a fantastic job thus far.
|
|
|
Post by LabRat on Feb 19, 2013 13:53:19 GMT -6
Use the computer, or get someone else to do it for you (Rigil's done that for McN, if you recall; keeping the turn-order in Hero Labs). Yes, I can do that if you like. That would be great. It would give me a bit of time to pull up monster stats and think over strategy. Here...have a wish for your troubles. Even still, there are always going to be encounters that end and you realize after the fact that you should have done X or Y. Yeah, that's one of the reasons why I am messing with monsters and melee guys. I been avoiding spellcasters on purpose because I am the most unfamiliar with them, and feel like I wouldn't play them as effectively just yet. And then, sometimes, the PCs do something stupid that works out perfectly for you... Stupid may be a bit harsh, but yes, and those moments are great. As you have probably noticed, there is also this terrible GM curse of "I have this wicked awesome backstory for Character X ... but the PCs either <A> don't care about Character X or <B> didn't ask the correct questions to find out this backstory." I've been gaming forever and it still drives me nuts - without the character suddenly providing information they have no reason to, sometimes, it makes no sense at all for the PCs to learn the awesome backstory you created. This has probably been one of the more enlightening problems for me. As a GM, I know everything, so it is difficult for me to remember how much the PCs don't know (if that makes sense). Some of these characters that I have, could really turn into a quest in and of itself, but I found out more often than not, that doesn't come into fruition. I am not trying to brow beat anyone for not asking the right questions, or doing the right actions, etc. etc. It just amazing me how I spend this time fleshing out these characters and how difficult, and in some cases impossible it is, to get the players to learn what I know, without it being bloody obvious. It was an obstacle I wasn't expecting (thought now I am kicking myself because how could it not be unexpected), and one that would require some thought in possible solutions,.
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Feb 19, 2013 14:14:38 GMT -6
It just amazing me how I spend this time fleshing out these characters and how difficult, and in some cases impossible it is, to get the players to learn what I know, without it being bloody obvious. The approach I took when doing my stuff - which may be wrong as I only have one extra session under my belt and that will disappear three days... I give a very very broad overview of a character... ie, Wanda Thatcher is a tough wife that does some apothecary on the side to make extra coin... general attitude and place in life, etc etc... If the PC's take interest I will flesh her out more, if not... I only 'wasted' a few minutes thinking up her general disposition to the PC's, attitude, 'alignment', motivation, etc and if they start to really like her (or hate her), she gets more development in future sessions (which may be behind the scenes)... I definitely wouldn't waste time in developing huge storyline and details the PC's will never see or really be affected by... This isn't to say I want by NPC's to be all shallow, just that until the PC's take the first step in showing interest in an NPC, they will stay in the 'background' and won't have be given a ton of developmental time... Think of it like looking at a microbe in a microscope... At very low zoom levels its just a fuzzy blob, but as you step up the zoom levels more and more detail comes out...
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Feb 20, 2013 11:30:47 GMT -6
In this case, though, I think it has more to do with a central NPC who is driving the story. There is a motivation and back-story behind "The Plot" that has to be fleshed out beforehand (or not, as most television shows demonstrate. BSG oft said "And they have a plan." But they didn't.) It's that sort of thing that is what I was referencing.
For most NPCs, you are correct in that you should only have a broad overview about her, but in the case of other NPCs, it becomes (for me) important to know more about them, their goals and the like.
YMMV
|
|
|
Post by thedefiantbudah on Feb 20, 2013 21:29:37 GMT -6
the shortness didn't bother me, and I had fun, I apologize but I don't remember a lot of what happened (gotta love school) but nothing stood out that bothered me or that I thought could've gone better...really enjoyed your run so far and looking forward to the cliffhanger
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Feb 21, 2013 9:28:51 GMT -6
BSG oft said "And they have a plan." But they didn't. Sure they did... It was: 1. Destroy all humans, except for some which we need to impregnate... but it has to use true love... unless we paint ourselves into a corner and have another kid born from a "original" cyclon and human and then need to throw a BS affair in there (hotdog? really?! HOTDOG?!?)... well except maybe humans aren't so bad and we shouldn't genocide them... yes they are very bad genocide them... wait, what the hell are we doing again? 2. 3. Profit!
|
|