"I don't cheat as a GM."

[Cantousent]

It'll be a bit before I can catch up with the thread, but I would like to point out that players naturally like to make their own rolls. Nonetheless, players will buy in to these things if you sell it to them. When you sell it to them and then they play it for a while, it's much much better to do the majority of rolls hidden.

 

Folks complain that skill checks make role-playing incidental? Then do the rolls hidden and then play out the consequences. Sure, sometimes the thief knows he didn't quite make it into the shadows. Sometimes, he hears the twig he just cracked. Sometimes, he thinks the other guy didn't hear him, but, surprise!

 

No, I was asking about the nature of the rolls, not whether hidden rolls are good. They are good in my experience.

[Volourn]

Eldar wins as always.

[alanschu]

After looking through Volourn's continued explanation of his Orc Shaman backstory, I have come to the conclusion that he's making it all up as he types it.

 

My 2 cents.

[Volourn]

No.

[Shadowstrider]

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...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I never said I don't want them to have any supernatural ability or bonus, and I didn't say I don't want them to rise to power without author's intervention.

 

I was attributing author's intervention to the supernatural. The closest I said to no supernatural is having them follow the same rules as the player. Who said the player won't have supernatural abilities or bonuses?

[StillLife]

Main enemies shouldn't always be God-like in their resilience. A villain like Lord Soth? Definitely. He was a bad ass Knight of Solamnia as a human, then got all sorts of super powers to go along with that upon his undeath. The nefarious mage leader of a cult, for example should only be powerful as an ordinary mage of an appropriate level though. Primary antagonists don't always need to be artificially tough for the protagonists to enjoy bringing them down.

 

I don't think I enjoyed taking out any villain in Fallout 2 for example, as much as the president and he was a **** - like an old guy with a twisted world-view in a suit should be. It would have been horrifyingly cheesey if he had put up much of a fight. But he was still pretty much the mastermind behind the Enclave.

[Tigranes]

I never said I don't want them to have any supernatural ability or bonus, and I didn't say I don't want them to rise to power without author's intervention.

 

I was attributing author's intervention to the supernatural. The closest I said to no supernatural is having them follow the same rules as the player. Who said the player won't have supernatural abilities or bonuses?

 

Well, what IS your complaint with Volo's shaman then? I do seem to recall you called him up on his claim that it had no supernatural element, then labelled it a generic one. I suppose you could simply have beef with what you see as an artificial and illogical character, but I might note that one could take apart nearly any character and slap 'illogical' or 'implausible' or 'unbelievable'.

[alanschu]

Main enemies shouldn't always be God-like in their resilience.  A villain like Lord Soth?  Definitely.  He was a bad ass Knight of Solamnia as a human, then got all sorts of super powers to go along with that upon his undeath.  The nefarious mage leader of a cult, for example should only be powerful as an ordinary mage of an appropriate level though.  Primary antagonists don't always need to be artificially  tough for the protagonists to enjoy bringing them down.

 

I don't think I enjoyed taking out any villain in Fallout 2 for example, as much as the president and he was a **** - like an old guy with a twisted world-view in a suit should be.  It would have been horrifyingly cheesey if he had put up much of a fight.  But he was still pretty much the mastermind behind the Enclave.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Frank Horrigan, immediately after the president, was more the "big boss" IMO.

[Tigranes]

Yes, but I didn't give a titty about Frank Horrigan - for me he was just part of that 50's postapoc style / primitive Bond that dictates a huge baddie must always come when the ship is about to blow. The president was the satisfaction for the 'hero'.

[alanschu]

I disagree. The President seems like more of a lacky IMO.

[Volourn]

I am will StillLife. The President was a much more effective, and worthy villain than Horrigan was. The funny thing is you see Horrigan and the aftermath throughout the game, and the President only in his room.. yet he was more memorable and fun.

 

Horrigan was an okay thug; but mian villain or end boss? Cheesy as heck.

Edited April 25, 2006 by Volourn

[Tigranes]

I disagree. The President seems like more of a lacky IMO.

 

Lacky of who? And he still can't be more of one than Horrigan himself.

[alanschu]

I disagree. The President seems like more of a lacky IMO.

 

Lacky of who? And he still can't be more of one than Horrigan himself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I'll have to play through the game again.

[alanschu]

I guess I just don't remember feeling as though the President was the climax of the game.

 

The detail that went into Horrigan's death animation alone made me think he was the intended final villain. Especially when we had encounters with Horrigan earlier in the game.

[StillLife]

I guess I just don't remember feeling as though the President was the climax of the game.

 

The detail that went into Horrigan's death animation alone made me think he was the intended final villain.  Especially when we had encounters with Horrigan earlier in the game.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I just thought Horrigan was the out of control muscle - the last roadblock to the resolution.

 

The climax for me -- and the true ultimate encounter in the game -- was the revelation that the government had still been hanging on and the man who was responsible for the Enclave's madness was standing before you. Then the satisfaction of blasting his cold, inhumane ass to pieces and effectively destroying all that the Enclave was.

[Tigranes]

He was. But were you, who did not feel the president was significant, satisfied by the Frank Horrigan Is Boss ending?

[alanschu]

I can't really remember, because I was a few years younger at the time.

 

 

Right now? Not any less satisfied than the conversation with the President.

[Kaftan Barlast]

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

 

Discuss.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

In my opinion:

• Every entity in a game must follow the exact same rule system
  
• NPCs must compete on the same terms as the players for the game to be fair and balanced
  

If you bend the rules in your favor the players WILL notice, and they WILL feel like youre railroading them, and that it will end in the way you want it, no matter what they do.

[Hassat Hunter]

SS just bitching for the sake of doing so.

 

Alanschu disagreeing without actually having any good indication what he disagrees about...

 

How "didn't I see this last night too"...

 

Anyways; I find Volourn's BBE far better than what alot of games, movies, TV-shows, books etc. have thrown against us, or the Villains SS seems to hold so dearly. What is better than facing an actual enemy that has been part of the story all along and you yourself have GIVEN reason to blast the hell out of you (and that inside the game too, not before) than some wacko boss type with

Edited April 25, 2006 by Hassat Hunter

[deganawida]

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

 

Discuss.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

NPCs and PCs should both operate by the same set of rules. This extends, however, to fudging the rules; if you fudge the rules for the PCs, fudge them for the NPCs as well, and vice versa.

 

The job of a DM is two-fold. First, the DM serves as a referee, interpreting rules and making certain that no cheating is occurring, so that all players may enjoy the game. Second, it is the DM's responsibility to create a compelling world and story for the players to have their PCs do great things. If that requires fudging the rules so that a PC doesn't die due to a bad roll, or so that an NPC isn't one-shotted, so be it, if it means a better play experience for all involved.

 

The role of DM is tough, and requires a great deal of judgment. That's something that can't be taught through books or reading articles, but must be built through experience.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Anything is ok if it makes for a more dramatic story. PC's dying at the wrong times were always a pain. Not only because no one wants to have a "useless" death. But also the break in gameplay needed to roll up a new character and come up with a background.

 

You could think of it a little like the reaper trait. You may escape a kobold sticking a bolt through your head in the first encounter. But that would put you on borrowed time.

 

As a DM you should never just kill someone. Not only is that no fun (too easy when your DM too) it's also an abuse of your responsibilities. But offestting someones death to a more dramatic moment. It's good for the story and it makes the player feel like they died for a purpose.

[Kaftan Barlast]

One thing that our regular GM always does with his villains (that Ive repeatedly told him) is that he always chooses to have us battle a single TBB without any cronies, which always result in us bunching up on him and killing him without much trouble.

 

10 Beastmen is a lot more dangerous than a single Chaos Champion.

[Calax]

in the situation presented before I'd have fudged the rules a little so that he either jumped or rolled but not quite quickly enough and the knife hit the villian in a certain spot that didn't insta kill.

 

 

As to weather to truly mess with the rules and make the character like a DBZ guy (screams and all of a sudden stats go through the roof) I'd say no. but you could always screw with the world around them so that the town watch or somthing runs and tries to kill you because you were attacking an "innocent" man.

[Cantousent]

If you bend the rules in your favor the players WILL notice, and they WILL feel like youre railroading them, and that it will end in the way you want it, no matter what they do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's simply not true. Changing specific items in a ruleset and making command decisions to override the rules has always been a part of Dungeons and Dragons. Since day one. Since I had my first copy of DnD, which was before the all glorious red cover basic set some of you remember.

[BicycleOfDeath]

It heavily depends on what the group your is interested in. I find it really hard to enjoy PnP with a DM style that I and my companions dislike. Players can be whiney and perceptive with the wrong things. Unfortunately with the groups I've played with they always strayed from the plot to dwell on their own characters. Wasn't very fun. So it's really a combination of what the DM & players want.