I Hit It With My Axe: Episode 33: The Dogs of War

Ian S

New member
Aug 31, 2009
61
0
0
FarSpace said:
Remember to do the dream sequences like Zak does.
Yeah. The dream sequences add flavor, don't they? I'm of the opinion that a DM's role is to be one part storyteller and one part referee. I've seen a few DMs who just go on a power trip and seem to punish players for the least little mistake or cavalierly kill them off. Needless to say, this kind of behavior tend to turn off the newbies. I always felt a good DM should be a little more helpful; offering subtle suggestions by saying things like, "Are you sure you want to do that?" Or, "Don't forget you have a _____ with you that could help." Sure that may take some of the challenge out of having the players figure it our for themselves, but I believe the main goal of the game is to keep it fun and to keep the adventure moving and to not frustrate the players too much. I'm sure others who DM would disagree with me, but that's my personal take on it.
 

Zak Sabbath

Porn Actor, Dungeon Master
Mar 16, 2010
170
0
0
Zergonapal said:
Zak, Zak, if your players start sucking you need the monsters to suck equally hard or a random encounter that is supposed to be a simple challenge will turn into a TPK.
Does anyone want to explain to this gentleposter the several thousand things wrong with this or do I have to do it myself?
 

Mr Smith

New member
Apr 22, 2010
98
0
0
Zak Sabbath said:
Zergonapal said:
Zak, Zak, if your players start sucking you need the monsters to suck equally hard or a random encounter that is supposed to be a simple challenge will turn into a TPK.
Does anyone want to explain to this gentleposter the several thousand things wrong with this or do I have to do it myself?
Because it's no fun for anyone (particularly the audience) when the DM wears kid-gloves?
 

GutsKid

New member
Oct 29, 2010
1
0
0
Mr Smith said:
Zak Sabbath said:
Zergonapal said:
Zak, Zak, if your players start sucking you need the monsters to suck equally hard or a random encounter that is supposed to be a simple challenge will turn into a TPK.
Does anyone want to explain to this gentleposter the several thousand things wrong with this or do I have to do it myself?
Because it's no fun for anyone (particularly the audience) when the DM wears kid-gloves?
I'm gonna completely disagree, and say I think that really depends on who you have at the table. Sure, for those old-hands who learned the game during 1st/2nd ed the last thing they are gonna want is to be babied. But for players new to the game or those who are really into the RP aspects of D&D, losing a character could completely turn them off the game. Some of the people I've played with put a ton of thought into writing compelling back stories to their characters, which I in turn start building sub-plots and side quests out of. Having to re-roll means throwing all of that work and starting from scratch. Some people might be able to deal with it, but I think you gotta read em carefully.

And as the DM it totally sucks if you have a lengthy adventure planned out and half the party eats it to some random encounter. Like if I have a huge dungeon crawl planned out and someone eats it on the second encounter, the party pretty much has to retreat and regroup. It would be awesome if that happened during the climactic final encounter, but it sorta wrecks the flow if it happens too soon. There are only so many forks I can write, and only so much improv I can do to adapt to what happens to the party.

That being said, 4e is super super lenient when it comes to death. Way too lenient.
 

Zak Sabbath

Porn Actor, Dungeon Master
Mar 16, 2010
170
0
0
GutsKid said:
Mr Smith said:
Zak Sabbath said:
Zergonapal said:
Zak, Zak, if your players start sucking you need the monsters to suck equally hard or a random encounter that is supposed to be a simple challenge will turn into a TPK.
Does anyone want to explain to this gentleposter the several thousand things wrong with this or do I have to do it myself?
Because it's no fun for anyone (particularly the audience) when the DM wears kid-gloves?
a lot of stuff
True true, but in this case, we're only talking about my players. And they like a challenge and come back from death smarter and eager for revenge, and that's all we need to say.
 

Feystar

New member
Jun 19, 2010
92
0
0
Zak Sabbath said:
Zergonapal said:
Zak, Zak, if your players start sucking you need the monsters to suck equally hard or a random encounter that is supposed to be a simple challenge will turn into a TPK.
Does anyone want to explain to this gentleposter the several thousand things wrong with this or do I have to do it myself?
I'll take a shot at answering it if that's ok.

One of the easiest ways to get a player to really invest in their character is to have them feel that their character is in danger and that the possibility of death is present in any encounter, not just the big ones. Without noticing it, they'll start caring about their well being and wanting to give it their all to survive any given situation. The best part is that this then starts the player thinking harder about how to beat those gnolls, or what they need to buy in the next town so they're better prepared for next time. I for instance always ensure my characters carry a flask of oil or two just in case I meet trolls. Because of this the player is actually more engaged in the game and while the loss of their character will be upsetting, it should spur them on to try again and improve.

Now if those big scary gnolls suddenly start doing a Laurel and Hardy sketch all of that lovely immersion that is selling the scenario gets lost, before you know it the players can just start charging in to things without any strategy safe in the knowledge that "hey it's only a random encounter, nothing can really happen to us".

It's the ability to tug at the players emotions that really helps get them engaged with the game and make it the roller-coaster ride of highs and lows that make people want to come back for more. I do sort of agree that in an ideal world the players should scrape through the encounter within an inch of their lives, but they should do it because of their own actions, not because of DM machinations. Let the dice fall where they may, even if they rolled under the sofa and you got snake-eyes.
 

trooper6

New member
Jul 26, 2008
873
0
0
Zak Sabbath said:
Zergonapal said:
Zak, Zak, if your players start sucking you need the monsters to suck equally hard or a random encounter that is supposed to be a simple challenge will turn into a TPK.
Does anyone want to explain to this gentleposter the several thousand things wrong with this or do I have to do it myself?
Here's my go at it.

But first let me contextualize myself. I've been playing and running games since 1984. Like most people back then, I started with D&D. But I quickly found Call of Cthulhu and nowadays I run GURPS almost exclusively (though I'll play a variety of things). GURPS character creation tends to result in detailed characters. My games are heavily focused on character development and RP. Players will spend hours and hours developing their characters. I generally do not use cinematic options in my games...which means combat is pretty deadly. And I never fudge.

Different GMs have different play styles. While I don't completely subscribe to it, The Forge divides up gamers into three types: Gamists, Narrativists, and Simulationists. Gamists focusing on the Game aspect of it: Resource Management, rules...people often think of D&D as a typical Gamist Game (think about the class/level system, the ways in which you had be plan out your character in gamist ways if you wanted this or that prestige class). Narrativists focus on doing what is best for the story, which might involve fudging so that players don't die at the hands of low-level NPCs...or making sure that someone dies at the dramatic ending. A number of the "indie" games out nowadays like Dogs in the Vinyard and often called Narrativist games. Simulationists create a game world and then try to emulate what would really happen in that world. Which means, for example, you could die unheroically if that is what would happen. But also, that the players are free to not follow the plot if they don't want to. GURPS is often considered a Simulationist game.

If using the GNS model, I am a simulationist. Fudging to keep players alive totally breaks my suspension of disbelief. It breaks the simulation. And it would really tick off my players. My players know that any combat is potentially deadly. They know there are consequences for every action. They know that the characters they are very invested in could very easily die...or be maimed. So, if they choose to enter into combat (which I also don't force on them), then they know they are really risking something. So my players are really good at talking their way out of combat, or manipulating the environment to their advantage. The tension any time the dice come out is amazing. That tension wouldn't be there if they knew some combats were less important than others. Every time you decide to get involved in combat with deadly force should be important...if playing in the sorts of games I tend to run (if I were to run a game with a different feel...perhaps a 1930s Pulp Cliffhangers sort of thing, I'd want a different feel. I still wouldn't fudge die rolls, but I'd make sure the players had the Luck Advantage and access to cinematic advantages that allowed them to turn the tables when they needed to).

Or...to be much shorter about the whole thing...and put it into a concrete example.

Set Up: Let's call it a gritty 1940s Noir game with the players being detectives and PC connected to the detective agency. So maybe we have 2 detectives, a secretary, and an investigative reporter. The detective and the secretary are walking down the street on their way to meet the other detective and the reporter at a bar to discuss their current case.

While walking they see an orphanage on fire with orphans trapped inside. What do they do?

In a fudging game they rush in and save all the orphans. Probably with little thought, because they know they aren't going to die saving some orphans. Either because they have a lot more hit points than fire normally does (gamist) or because they know this is not a dramatic plot moment (narrativist). So they save the orphans and are hailed as heroes. But are they really? For others yes. For me? No. If there really were no danger to their PCs...then it really isn't heroism.

In a non-fudging game, especially one without lots of cinematic rules (or one with maiming rules, etc)...the PCs are really going to have to decide if they really want to rush in there. Because if they do...they could very well die...or lose levels of attractiveness due to horrible burn scars, or get a broken leg...who knows what? So, knowing this...do they now run in? Maybe the detective decides he wants to knock on a house, use a phone and call the fire department. This leaves the secretary by herself. What does she do? The orphans are screaming?

As a GM...I don't know what she'll do. She may do nothing. Or she may decide to go in...really risking her PC's life. And maybe rather than just rushing in, she decides to take some precautions before she plunges in. Or maybe she has a dramatic moment with her detective boyfriend first before she plunges is. Then she runs in, with a handkerchief around her face. The detective waits outside, to afraid to face the inferno. What happens next? As a GM, I don't know...we see what plans the PC comes up with and what the dice say. But when all is said and done, if the PC saves some/all of those orphans...she will be a real hero....because she faced real risk. And the detective? Well, he's going to have to live with his choice as well.

My sort of game is not for everyone. But for the sort of game I run, fudging would ruin everything that we're doing.
 

Feystar

New member
Jun 19, 2010
92
0
0
Blimey trooper, and I thought my post was a little bit long! A lot of interesting stuff in there and I hadn't really run in to the cinematic stuff particularly before.

For my part I started roleplaying back in college in the early 90s and continued on through university and beyond. I started off with D&D, Cyberpunk and Battletech, then swiftly moved on to just about anything people would let me play. I've DM'd D&D, Star Wars, Deadlands (my favourite) and I've been meaning to run Nephilim but have never had the chance and the rules look rather involved.

At the moment my group consists of a couple of players who have dabbled in the past (my wife and my best friend) and two beginners (his wife and his son), although due to time constraints our RP evening has turned in to a DVD evening but I might start the ball rolling again at some point.

I do think it depends a lot on the group that your playing with as to what style best suits, after all we do this to have fun with friends. Zak's group loves the challenge that no holds barred D&D brings (makes it sound like some kind of cage match hehe), Trooper's party enjoys a high realism and quite gritty sounding experience, my motley crew love the emotional roller-coaster that I was on about earlier.

Please note that I'm not saying a game where the training wheels are on is bad, if that's what your party needs and wants then go for it, but I believe it should be a concious decision by the DM rather than a hard and fast rule for everyone.
 

0over0

New member
Dec 30, 2006
88
0
0
Good luck with your event Satine, hope it goes well!

I used to make it somewhat difficult for the characters to die (not so hard to be knocked unconscious, though), but that way I knew I could throw a lot at them and it would increase tension and drama and not just body counts, especially as I did not allow the others to know when the character would slip from unconsciousness to death.
New players always noted the pertinent house rules and scoff, saying things would be too easy, then they'd meet the angry giants with magical weapons and character levels....

It's all in the style, what sort of campaign a group has. Some want more cinematic, others more realistic. As long as people are having fun, there should be no tsk, tsking from the kibitzers.
 

C4N4DUCK18

New member
Jun 9, 2010
61
0
0
Yay! Vivre Québécois! I've really only started watching this when Bobbi joined (coincidence) so I don't how big of a loss it was when Frankie left.
Now I'm really starting to get into it, so I'll probably go back and watch the earlier shows.

Also I never considered using corpses as weapons! I'll be sure to consider that next time I face some Gnolls...

How much damage does a dead beaver do when thrown at someone?