"I don't cheat as a GM."

[alanschu]

......

 

I expect better from you Llyranor.

[Volourn]

"1) The orc manages to escape the PC."

 

Not the only one.

 

 

"2) Defeated, this orc returns to his tribe (no matter how long he waited), strolls into the camp and immediately begins spouting off lines to make a play for power."

 

Nonsense. You make it seem like he walked into the camp one fine morning, and told the orcs to join him against the orc. It most certainly did not. It took time.

 

 

"3) None of the orcs seem to question either the delay in the orc's return, nor his defeat."

 

Sure they did.

 

 

"4) The tribe more or less rolls over for a shaman who was not only defeated by a bunch of weak humans (an affront to Gruumsh), but then fled and hid (and even larger affront to Gruumsh)."

 

No, they don't roll over. The humans weren't weak. The tribe knows this 'cause a few of the other orcs that escpaed had already gone back, and reported what happen. Other orcs were sent to 'pnish the measily' humans... and, the PCs took care of them. So, they orcs knew they weren't 'measily humans'; but worthy (still stinky humans though) warriors.

 

As for Gruumish, you are correct. He was absolutely furious with the failure of running away, and he was appropriately punished (stripped of spells for awhile, and demands of sacrifice, and given one more chance to prove himself) ...hence another reason why Urgthu was motivated to avenge himself against the PCs. Tjis is also why he wanted the chief to attack the human village where it was known by that time (through scouts) that the PCs were at.

 

 

"As a player this orc wouldn't seem like a big bad, at all, and more of the comedic relief with 9-lives."

 

They would know he took over the orc tribe (as before then it was thought the orc chief was an overly large warrior), that eh threatened their home, threatened innocents (party was good/neutral), actually killed a friend (a PC as well as a few npcs), charmed one of them and made him betray his party, etc. So.. no.. they didn't view him as comedic relief. He's no Deekin.

 

 

"It's all very convenient, and hardly convincing."

 

Oh please. Like your example of Lord Soth wasn't as 'convinent'. Le'ts not mention some of the most popular CRPG villains like Irenicus, The Master, Sephiroth, and the list goes.

 

Just as often times it takes luck and convience as well as skill to create a hero (ie. farmboy becames hero who saves the world! tm); some of the best villains are made through skill, happenstance, and luck.

 

We could go back and forth like this. You making silly comments, and me refuting them all night if you wish.

 

It's all good fun. All I need to know is the players were into it, and at least one person here has commented that he likes it. Of course, the scenario isn't perfect; but ah well. That's the way the cookie crumbles.

 

 

"Leaders that lead simply because they are bigger than the other people don't maintain power that effectively."

 

Exactly.

 

 

"It would seem more plausible for your chieftan, given he's not very smart, to not exercise any restraint in wanting to kill humans. Especially when, psychologically, he's been reinforced that displaying his might (killing the previous chieftan) has allotted him more power."

 

He's dumb and violent; but he's not suicidal. In his mind, his tribe had suffered quyite a few losses. His plan was to 'grow' more warriors either by dominating other orc tribes or by making them then attacking the village. There's also the fact he wanted to deal with the PCs first since they had been a thorn on his (and his tribe's side for a while by then) And, in the past, the more bloodthirsty member sof the tribe *did* challenmge them.. they all got their necks snapped or chopped off... His hold on power was almost always wobbily...

Edited April 25, 2006 by Volourn

[Shadowstrider]

We could go back and forth like this. You making silly comments, and me refuting them all night if you wish.

 

What is it that you're always saying... rofl? Ahhhh yes, R00fles, that's it.

 

Volourn, you have proven my point. BB's who have very little concept need some sort of seemingly supernatural support to be a) enjoyable, b) credible. Your villain, as I said before, is not believable as a character or a BB.

 

I thank you. Now, continue to disagree with me just because, using your less-than-specious reasoning.

[Shadowstrider]

Please stop posting outright lies. You may think that they are vain attempts at being funny, but when it happens an uncountable amount of times, it just makes you look stupid. It does not reflect well on you as a person, and being a member of these message boards, it does not reflect well on... this forum.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

YOU LOSE!

Good day, sir!

[Volourn]

Yes, but Lord Soth is. HAHAHAHA!!!!

[Shadowstrider]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Soth

 

Good day, Sir.

[Volourn]

Yeah, I know. Lots of coincidences in his life story. A lot of (bad) luck to get him to the point of the Lord Soth we all know... His role in the books was cool; but his 'journey' there was/is far from believeable. LOLOLOLLIPOP

[Cantousent]

So Vol used an Orc Shaman as his big, bad, and ugly. So what? That's not a problem. The important thing is that his players had fun. I'm taking for granted that the players he cites were real, and so I'll gladly agree that he achieved his goals when the players were satisfied during the game.

 

The original question revolved around DMs bending the rules to encourage fun. It seems to me that Vol bent the rules in order to facilitate fun. He bent the rules of Orcish society, Gruumsh worship, and power politics in order to create his vision. That's perfectly fair.

 

I don't even hope that folks will answer this one, but I have a question. I do virtually every roll secretly. I don't show the players the dice, and I don't intend start doing so now. The question is, how often do you give the players a false roll? What I mean by false roll, is that I will often have the characters make a roll where there is no adverse side effect. A better roll will translate to better consequences, but a roll of 1 will not have any adverse affect.

 

I'll give an example. Recently, a bard in a campaign I'm running decided to sing to a barmaid. When he started to sing, I rolled for him and he rolled a 7. Now his singing, as a trained bard, was not going to have an adverse effect on the situation. He rolled a seven which I determined had a minor positive effect. I do this a lot, and I was wondering how other GMs handle these situations.

[Volourn]

"So what?"

 

The problem is that he didn't have any uber powers which accoridng to SS all UBB. must. have.

 

Only Knights turned Death like Soth or Godchildren like Sarevok qualify as 'interesting' or 'cool' or 'believeable'.

 

LOLOLLIPOP

 

P.S. Thanks for your support. :cool:

 

 

P.P.S. I don't think I broke any actual orc culture or Gruumish rule, however...

 

 

P.S.S. Like I said, 'dice cheating' shouldn't occur; but like always there are exceptions to this rule like most rules. I don't do it often; but in rare cases I do if I feel that fun would be ruined otherwise.

Edited April 25, 2006 by Volourn

[Shadowstrider]

So Vol used an Orc Shaman as his big, bad, and ugly.  So what?  That's not a problem.

 

Who said it was a problem?

We uncovered that Volourn fails at character development, which is the discussion currently at hand, rather than the original topic.

 

The important thing is that his players had fun.  I'm taking for granted that the players he cites were real, and so I'll gladly agree that he achieved his goals when the players were satisfied during the game.

 

You're willing to take steps I am not. I find it very hard to believe that Volourn's players simply smiled at this villain and were enraptured by this epic tale... because this villain sounds like a lacky, not a BB.

 

Now, to the issue at hand:

 

The original question revolved around DMs bending the rules to encourage fun.  It seems to me that Vol bent the rules in order to facilitate fun.  He bent the rules of Orcish society, Gruumsh worship, and power politics in order to create his vision.  That's perfectly fair.

 

I don't even hope that folks will answer this one, but I have a question.  I do virtually every roll secretly.  I don't show the players the dice, and I don't intend start doing so now.  The question is, how often do you give the players a false roll?  What I mean by false roll, is that I will often have the characters make a roll where there is no adverse side effect.  A better roll will translate to better consequences, but a roll of 1 will not have any adverse affect.

 

I'll give an example.  Recently, a bard in a campaign I'm running decided to sing to a barmaid.  When he started to sing, I rolled for him and he rolled a 7.  Now his singing, as a trained bard, was not going to have an adverse effect on the situation.  He rolled a seven which I determined had a minor positive effect.  I do this a lot, and I was wondering how other GMs handle these situations.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I never make rolls for PCs. In my experience they don't like it. If a player commits an act, they make the roll. I do allow "freebie" benefits, as you outlined, but they roll it themselves.

[Volourn]

"I never make rolls for PCs. In my experience they don't like it. If a player commits an act, they make the roll. I do allow "freebie" benefits, as you outlined, but they roll it themselves."

 

I see. So, you allow players to make hide/move silently rolls? So they'll likely know if they're being sneaky or not (ie. roll high or low).. right.... That gives the player a HUGE advantage....

[Shadowstrider]

Yes. They don't know what they're rolling for. I simply say "roll d20." They make the roll, but have no idea what it is for. Could be a perception roll, a stealth roll, tons of things.

 

I fail to see how that gives anyone an advantage.

[Tigranes]

To be fair, Volo's shaman is currently a lot less believable and a lot more artificial than he actually would have been, because we first got a CliffNotes version, which was tacked on with some extra detail as the argument progressed. The presentation, in other words, was actually horrible for any sort of identification / immersion / belief.

 

That said, I thought it was a decent concept, and would have worked well with good execution over a prolonged period of time (which it was). I don't really see the point in getting too hung up over the 'supernatural' onus: of *course* there is author intervention in the creation of a villain, you would need a real breathing world for a villain to emerge any more 'naturally'. When you call the shots, you've got to call the shots.

[Atreides]

I'd prefer if the game didn't cheat. It totally sucks. Have a special setup/trap or items, whatever but be subject to the same rules. Crank up the NPCs power or whatever but don't cheat. It may be hard but as long as its fair I'm ok with it.

 

The only case where I'd agree with tweaking if its crucial to the plot story. For example your script's said that whenever the villain's life becomes 0 or less, battle's over and set the guy's life to 1 so (s)he can deliver his/her speech before kicking the bucket. No point if the dude's chunked up and you lost the important info.

[Volourn]

"Yes. They don't know what they're rolling for. I simply say "roll d20." They make the roll, but have no idea what it is for. Could be a perception roll, a stealth roll, tons of things.

 

I fail to see how that gives anyone an advantage."

 

That's not too bad then. Though, espicially true in 3E, the higher the die roll the better it is - almost uniformlys o simply not telling them why they are rolling doesn't help.

 

For the record, for things like combat (attack, damage rolls, saving throws) or skills where the result would be obvious (most item crafting), I do allow players to roll.

 

 

 

"The presentation, in other words, was actually horrible for any sort of identification / immersion / belief."

 

In my defense on this, I'm going by memory of something that occurs a good few years ago. Think 2E. Of course it's garbled. I no longer have my notesnor am I spending hours trying to remember exactly... just what comes to mind.

 

 

Other than that, thanks.

Edited April 25, 2006 by Volourn

[Shadowstrider]

To be fair, Volo's shaman is currently a lot less believable and a lot more artificial than he actually would have been, because we first got a CliffNotes version, which was tacked on with some extra detail as the argument progressed. The presentation, in other words, was actually horrible for any sort of identification / immersion / belief.

 

That said, I thought it was a decent concept, and would have worked well with good execution over a prolonged period of time (which it was). I don't really see the point in getting too hung up over the 'supernatural' onus: of *course* there is author intervention in the creation of a villain, you would need a real breathing world for a villain to emerge any more 'naturally'. When you call the shots, you've got to call the shots.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So basically you're saying you like your villains served generic, and in the dark?

 

Not like any of the people I play with, and I'd bet if you were ACTUALLY playing in the campaign it wouldn't make sense either.

 

"Okay... so you now recognize the face of your enemy. It's the orc you chased off awhile back. Yeah, I know he hasn't been present in the story much, and there is no build-up, explanation, or delivery regarding why he is back, bigger and stronger than ever. He is, though."

 

The concept of a beaten shaman rising to power and returning for revenge, A.OKAY. Is Volourn's believable or convincing? Not as he is presenting it here.

[Shadowstrider]

"Yes. They don't know what they're rolling for. I simply say "roll d20." They make the roll, but have no idea what it is for. Could be a perception roll, a stealth roll, tons of things.

 

I fail to see how that gives anyone an advantage."

 

That's not too bad then. Though, espicially true in 3E, the higher the die roll the better it is - almost uniformlys o simply not telling them why they are rolling doesn't help.

 

For the record, for things like combat (attack, damage rolls, saving throws) or skills where the result would be obvious (most item crafting), I do allow players to roll.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Uh... relevence?

 

Who cares if they know what they rolled, so long as they don't know why they're rolling. If they rol a 20, the outcome is the same as if you had. The difference is you add a level of transparency and give players less bitching room.

[Volourn]

"Okay... so you now recognize the face of your enemy. It's the orc you chased off awhile back. Yeah, I know he hasn't been present in the story much, and there is no build-up, explanation, or delivery regarding why he is back, bigger and stronger than ever. He is, though."

 

Oh please. That's now how it occured, little one. When they first started struggling with him they didn't even realize who the orc was. In fact, the PCs were surporised that this particular orc had some sort of personal vendeeta against outside of the usual orc kill all stuff. They were also suprirsed when they eventually found the orc tribe and realized it wasn't the Big Bad Powerful Chief that they were told stpories about; but a cleric... which is why the first battle did not go well for the PCs...

 

The build up occured when the orc sent more organized orcs to hunt,a nd track the PC. The PCs even caught one orc who wasn't sent to attack them; but to spy... something the old chief would have *never* done. And, this orc wasn't suspectible to torture so they couldn't get much out of him. By the time they met the orc, the PCs only knew he was a threat to them, their loved ones, and their village. Only when the actual confrontation took place were they informed that this wans't some simple orc wanting to murder and loot all; but a personal revenge. And, in fatc, in their own way, the PCs had *created* the villain with their earlier bloodlust against the orcs.

 

 

"The concept of a beaten shaman rising to power and returning for revenge"

 

Oh please. it's not the first time a beaten enemy has returned 'stronger than ever'.

 

 

 

"cares if they know what they rolled, so long as they don't know why they're rolling. If they rol a 20, the outcome is the same as if you had."

 

Wrong.

 

A hide/ms roll, remove traps, etc.'s effect on the game can be ruined if the player knows they failed before the fallout of such a roll is given.

 

Example: Trying to find secret doors. Player rolls. They see they've failed... so they'll repeatedly try again (unless the Dm tells them no). Instea do the headache it's better for the Dm to roll the attempt so the player doesn't know if they failed or not so they'll move on.

 

Game over. Set. Match.

Edited April 25, 2006 by Volourn

[Tigranes]

In my defense on this, I'm going by memory of something that occurs a good few years ago. Think 2E. Of course it's garbled. I no longer have my notesnor am I spending hours trying to remember exactly... just what comes to mind.

 

That was my point.

 

So basically you're saying you like your villains served generic, and in the dark?

 

You are entitled to your opinion. I don't believe Volo's was that "in the dark", and besides, anything could be called generic. You don't want villains to have any supernatural ability or bonus, yet you don't want them to be the same as everybody else, and you want them to rise to power perfectly logically and without any author intervention, yet they cannot have some supernatural reason to do so...

 

Not like any of the people I play with, and I'd bet if you were ACTUALLY playing in the campaign it wouldn't make sense either.

 

Perhaps. In this, your guess is as good as mine.

 

"Okay... so you now recognize the face of your enemy. It's the orc you chased off awhile back. Yeah, I know he hasn't been present in the story much, and there is no build-up, explanation, or delivery regarding why he is back, bigger and stronger than ever. He is, though."

 

Agreed. But I was led to believe by Volo that there WAS a degree of buildup and explanation?

[Volourn]

"But I was led to believe by Volo that there WAS a degree of buildup and explanation?"

 

There was. Check above. SS is making stuff as usual.

[Shadowstrider]

"Okay... so you now recognize the face of your enemy. It's the orc you chased off awhile back. Yeah, I know he hasn't been present in the story much, and there is no build-up, explanation, or delivery regarding why he is back, bigger and stronger than ever. He is, though."

 

Oh please. That's now how it occured, little one. When they first started struggling with him they didn't even realize who the orc was. In fact, the PCs were surporised that this particular orc had some sort of personal vendeeta against outside of the usual orc kill all stuff. They were also suprirsed when they eventually found the orc tribe and realized it wasn't the Big Bad Powerful Chief that they were told stpories about; but a cleric... which is why the first battle did not go well for the PCs...

 

What, you just described illustrates my point, chuckles.

 

Seemingly ordinary orc is chased off and vanishes from the plot for an unknown time.

 

Some time later he comes back bigger and better than ever. Unexplained to the players, he just appears as a threat. the only difference is they thought X, and it was actually U.

 

OH TEH TWISTS THAY R A TURNIN!

 

Your so-called BB doesn't have a believeable backstory, but let's disregard that and go on just what the players know.

 

..."Okay... so you now recognize the face of your enemy. It's the orc you chased off awhile back. Yeah, I know he hasn't been present in the story much, and there is no build-up, explanation, or delivery regarding why he is back, bigger and stronger than ever. He is, though."

 

Thanks for, once again, disagreeing with me just because, yet actually illustrating my point.

 

What was going on in between this orc running off and his sudden, mysterious reappearance?

 

I'm still waiting for you to make a case for this UBB to be believeable, either in the back story or in the face-value... oh but there is another paragraph, so let's see.

 

The build up occured when the orc sent more organized orcs to hunt,a nd track the PC. The PCs even caught one orc who wasn't sent to attack them; but to spy... something the old chief would have *never* done. And, this orc wasn't suspectible to torture so they couldn't get much out of him. By the time they met the orc, the PCs only knew he was a threat to them, their loved ones, and their village. Only when the actual confrontation took place were they informed that this wans't some simple orc wanting to murder and loot all; but a personal revenge. And, in fatc, in their own way, the PCs had *created* the villain with their earlier bloodlust against the orcs.

 

So, basically, the "heroes" fought through these orcs having no idea who the UBB was, and it was revealed just prior to their defeating him? Okay. It isn't a terrible concept, and I can see why you didn't want them to know what was going on in the background; it made very little sense. Not a campaign I would consider particularly memorable, or fulfilling, and I doubt any of the guys I play with would continue playing through a game that seemed like "the orcs are attacking and you must stop them."

 

For someone who bashes IWD2, you sure do seem to use it as a base for your campaigns.

 

"The concept of a beaten shaman rising to power and returning for revenge"

 

Oh please. it's not the first time a beaten enemy has returned 'stronger than ever'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As usual, you make no sense, where did I say it was the first? Read then reply, it'll help, really.

[Volourn]

"So, basically, the "heroes" fought through these orcs having no idea who the UBB was, and it was revealed just prior to their defeating him? Okay. It isn't a terrible concept, and I can see why you didn't want them to know what was going on in the background; it made very little sense. Not a campaign I would consider particularly memorable, or fulfilling, and I doubt any of the guys I play with would continue playing through a game that seemed like "the orcs are attacking and you must stop them."

 

Are you even reading this thread? It was not revealed to them just 'prior' to their defeating him. The first tijme (well.. technically the second time), HE defeated them. They first got hints by the captured spy (before it refused to say anymore) that 'his Chief' really wanted to know as much as possible about them,a nd he really wnat them to suffer and die.. that he had a grudge aginst them... Then he stopped talking, and the PCs (well.. the more aggresive one) killed it. So, the course of what occured was brought to the PCs attention through a slow process. Remember, the campaign here took MONTHS. And, that's real time. In game terms, it was a good couple of years.

 

 

Remember, the PCs had many reasons to want to stop the shaman. Even more they found out who he was. Afterall, it was HIS motivation; not theirs.

 

As for how he went from 'just an orc shaman' to 'powerful shaman chief'; the same way the farmboy goes from commoner to hero or Soth goes from mere human to knight to death knight. A process that takes time...

 

Keep spinning though. Good fun.

Edited April 25, 2006 by Volourn

[MrBrown]

Now, for the actual topic at hand. Should NPCs be given a different set of rules than PCs?

 

Discuss.

 

Don't see any reason they need to. You just need a rules set designed for the type of playing you want to conduct. If you want drama, then you need a drama driving mechanic. A system that only has rules for stuff like how to hit opponents and skills checks will bring about drama only accidentally. In other words, very rarely.

 

 

 

 

In D&D, AC simply stops mattering for players, bad guys have to-hit bonuses that easily outweigh their AC.  So players are forced to rely on DR.

 

D&D 3E is designed to do this. Secondary attacks wouldn't make much sense unless it became alot easier to hit opponents. I'd say high level characters rely more on HP though, as that keeps going up more than melee damage (spells are another thing, though...).

[Shadowstrider]

Now, for the actual topic at hand. Should NPCs be given a different set of rules than PCs?

 

Discuss.

 

Don't see any reason they need to. You just need a rules set designed for the type of playing you want to conduct. If you want drama, then you need a drama driving mechanic. A system that only has rules for stuff like how to hit opponents and skills checks will bring about drama only accidentally. In other words, very rarely.

 

 

 

 

In D&D, AC simply stops mattering for players, bad guys have to-hit bonuses that easily outweigh their AC.  So players are forced to rely on DR.

 

D&D 3E is designed to do this. Secondary attacks wouldn't make much sense unless it became alot easier to hit opponents. I'd say high level characters rely more on HP though, as that keeps going up more than melee damage (spells are another thing, though...).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Absolutely, to both points.

 

However, on point 2, (D&D's intentional design), I'd call it poor design to essentially weed out 1 statistic in favor of 2 others. It seems ridicuous.

[MrBrown]

However, on point 2, (D&D's intentional design), I'd call it poor design to essentially weed out 1 statistic in favor of 2 others.  It seems ridicuous.

 

Agreed.

 

It's not only AC that does that though, D&D 3E seems to do a complete turn around when getting to high levels from low. Different things start to matter. It's weird.