General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
The reason to not attack a random NPC shouldn't be because the PC's are weaklings. It should be because the PC's are heroes -- or failing that, because they aren't pyschopaths and treat NPC's as if they were people, or failing that, because they know the campaign is dynamic and killing the manor lord will bring down outlawry (inability to get any help from NPC's) and the full force of the law and bounty hunters down on them. That is -- have a campaign world and use it as a real world. It's more fun and emersive for the players than "everybody is too tough to fight". Keep the PC's special, but not too special -- they still have to live with the consequences of their actions.
Unlike the other points, this makes assumptions about the "right" way to play. My players are playing D&D to play villains not heroes, so they would chafe under the "act like a hero" and "don't be a psychopath" solutions. In addition, some of your substitutions for high level NPCs appear to be... more high level NPCs. For example, to avoid giving the NPC lots of levels, you suggest giving the NPC high level bounty hunters as backup, instead. That's "six of one, a half dozen of the other."
Lastly, don't forget the rule of multiple hints. It's actually not called the rule of multiple hints. It's from an article that talks about how DMs should build in multiple people/items that can lead players to a quest or to the resolution of a quest.
aboyd, if your players are as wantonly destructive as you say, how do you motivate them? If their only driving forces are murdering innocents and plundering loot, then I would claim that nothing can be done to protect "questgiver NPCs," other than to make them powerful enough to not be murdered and plundered.
It seems like the gist of many of these suggestions are "make it too costly to kill this important guy," but using social/moral consequences instead of the more obvious physical ones. If your players throw social/moral concerns out the window, then the only consequences that remain are those of violence.
To the OP --
Spellcasters aren't the end-all devastation machines they once were, so a way to design interesting encounters around them is to give them support. Use highly advantageous terrain or traps that the caster has prepared beforehand (since he's likely a pretty smart and diabolical dude). Have the PCs burst in on him when he's just finished summoning some brute-type demons to help with the fight. This is true of any controller-type monster that you want to keep alive for more than 3 rounds, really - you'll find that controller NPCs are incredibly squishy, and not very scary by themselves.
Last edited by segrada; 30th May 2009 at 04:55 AM..
aboyd, if your players are as wantonly destructive as you say, how do you motivate them? If their only driving forces are murdering innocents and plundering loot, then I would claim that nothing can be done to protect "questgiver NPCs," other than to make them powerful enough to not be murdered and plundered.
Right. Exactly. That's why I'm defending making at least some NPCs ridiculously powerful. And I'm not making them immortal. I don't like playing @ epic levels, so most important NPCs are level 10-20. They will eventually be killed off by the players. Near the end of the campaign, I suspect the climax will be the utter extermination of anyone that ever stood in their way, and then brutal acquisition of power -- enslaving entire towns, etc. I'll let 'em do it, and even make it "canon" for my campaign. I'll let those players go with thanks (in a couple of years) get new players, and have them be heroes in this horribly oppressed world. Their campaign will take 2 or 3 years, and will culminate with the overthrow of the vile original PCs. Or... maybe those new players will like what the PCs did, side with them, and consolidate power. It'd be pretty rare to side with your oppressors, but I'd allow it.
And I won't be "toning down" the original PCs when my new campaign starts in 2010 or 2011. I'll let them remain at epic levels, and if the new players attempt to overthrow them too early, TPK, start over.
To me, this is fun. To my players, it seems to be a hoot. Is this not fun where everyone else is from?
It's about 14 combat encounters to level up (in D&D 3.5), right? And we do about 3 on average per game session, so after 5 games they level up. That's 10 weeks IRL, since we only play every other Saturday. So 3 years after starting, they'll be around level 15-18.
If you're playing weekly or daily or having 24 hour marathon weekends, you should certainly expect to level up waaaaaaay faster. One marathon weekend would accomplish what normally takes us 10 weeks.
One reason for my earlier flippant reply was because I wanted to offer advice as somebody who has been GMing for almost 28 years but I find that much of it is not applicable to a PbP game. Things like pacing or ignoring rules for a quick resolution in the middle of a session are meaningless in that context. So there are people much better qualified to offer advice for that medium.
However, from observation, running good combats is not the principal skill required for a good PbP game. It seems to me that they are much more reliant and focused (in general) on a strong setting that hooks in good players and an intricate plot, laden with hooks, to keep the players coming back for more.
Honestly I don't much care for PbP games for myself. I feel the need for some level of real-time interactivity with the participants in the game, even if we're not face to face with each other. But I've played one before and read along with a couple more as they progressed. The ones that seem to work best start with and maintain a fast pace of posting over an extended period of time.
That is difficult to do with a combat focused game because inevitably you have somebody who can't post as frequently as the others do at a given time. And the creates a problem because, unless you plan to "skip" them when it is their turn in the battle, you can only move as fast as your slowest person.
Non-combat situations seem far more forgiving in that respect. The PC's can roleplay off of each other and make a few skill checks without everybody needing to participate at the same level. To facilitate this you need either a really good plot with lots of interesting aspects to it or really good players who will take any shred of plot and run with it. You aren't guaranteed the latter so its better to make sure you have as much of the former as possible.
As a new GM, (and relatively new player), start at level 1, Learn the game from the ground up.
Leveling in real RPGs is real time slower than CPRGs. I suspect that its could be a similar amount of hours spent, but you log 12 hours in WOW more easily than you can in D&D. This supports my basic XP rule: hand out less XP for more frequent gaming sessions, more XP for less frequent sessions. People like to see change, and if a session is 4 hours, playing every week, you might not mind leveling up every 4 sessions. Playing once a month, that would mean only gaining 3 levels in a year. That means you don't feel like you accomplished much. So you pad the XP to make the players feel like they're gaining something. It's a psychological thing.
D&D is not a CRPG. There's not a literal entity that exists as a "quest giver". There's no such thing as a quest. These are all constructs we fabricate. The sandbox guys would probably more strongly agree with that thought. In my "I write up an adventure ahead of time" model, I make up a problem. Usually a bad guy with a plan, a location, minions, and put them in action. I then work out how many different ways I can make the bad guy's stuff intersect with the players in a fashion that will INTEREST them.
That means I don't use a blunt instrument of the "high level NPC who asks the party to stop the bad guy." Instead, the party runs into a caravan of refugees who are fleeing their diseased village. NPCs known to the PCs might talk about rumors of the place. NPC patrons of the PCs might ask them to look into the matter, or reveal information that the bad guys actions impact the PCs. For instance, if the players own stock in a tea trading company, it turns out, a profitable flavor of tea comes from that village. He's losing money every day that village is empty.
The point is, there's not quest givers, there are plot hooks. You want your plot hooks to be something the PLAYERS and PCs would be interested in pursuing, not being coerced into.
What I find works, is that the first session I bring the PCs together (in bar for example), and then bring on an event that affects the whole party and gets them into the action. Sweep them up in a problem that directly affects them (the village that the bar is in is under attack by orcs). No quest giver, it's an event that crosses their path. This gets them MOVING, and they will then drive the action, by reacting to what I set in motion. From there, the first adventure is stopping the attack (which might actually just be a raid), and then they will probably track down the raiders, which can lead to a small dungeon crawl. They find the head orc, fight him, game over, hand out XP.
Then you ask the players what they think they will do next. You write the next session based on their declarations of intent, mix in some complications and some bad guy shenanigans that have nothing to do with the PCs but crosses their path anyway, interfering with their original plan. From that, you have a formula for making adventures based on what the players want to do and mixing in your ideas for stories as well.
PbP is slower than molasses. Combat shouldn't be. Watch how others do combat in PbP and pick the methods that work the smoothest and fastest. Also, avoid doing as much combat. You can't literally stop the PCs from attacking anything, but you can avoid time wasting combats. Skip the mook fights and random encounters. PbP shouldd have more role-playing, with sword play being the climax with the villain.
Stopping the random violence by PCs. Step one, filter out the PCs during char-gen. Tell them you are running a heroic campaign, no evil PCs. Evil PCs are less predictable, whereas a good PC will almost always rescue the princess when presented with on that needs it. Step 2, have consequences for random killing. Namely, the law. The difference between having every NPC be high level to protect themselves from PCs, and sending higher level guards after PCs when they kill low level PCs is carrot and stick. With every NPC being tough, it is an arms race that you have to take ridiculous precautions for, even for a carrot farmer NPC. Using the guards as stick method, you get to make your NPCs realistically. Yep you can easily kill that farmer. But if you do, the cops will hunt you down. Just like real life.
That's odd. I so easily hand-waved this. I think I just said, "They're busy. They delegate." And it never came up again.
As a player I'm not too keen on running minor errands for the uber-NPC who could do it himself far more easily, but can't be bothered because he's 'too busy'.
My last campaign, I took the opposite approach. King Thongar the quest-giver was old and feeble, the PCs were the kingdom's Big Damn Heroes. If they refused the missions, the bad guys would triumph and the kingdom go down the toilet. And the kingdom was a point of light in a world of ruins and howling wilderness. So the players never had any trouble with their motivation.
In addition, some of your substitutions for high level NPCs appear to be... more high level NPCs. For example, to avoid giving the NPC lots of levels, you suggest giving the NPC high level bounty hunters as backup, instead. That's "six of one, a half dozen of the other."
You're missing the point. The OP's assumption was that the only way to keep her PC's from killing the NPC who gives them a quest -- a goal she announced as wanting to do -- was to make the NPC uberpowerful compared to the PC's. I was pointing out there are other ways to prevent the PC's from going on a psychopathic rampage -- again, a goal she seemed to already have -- than having every NPC be more powerful.
What I was trying to explain is how to use the campaign setting, the milleau, to make a world where the PC's aren't constantly overshadowed, but also are discouraged from psychopathic destruction of everything in sight. Discouraged, but not prohibited, much like in the real world -- if you want to kill the first person you meet, you can, it's just there are a consequences, so most likely you won't chose to do that, even if you could "take him in a fight". That makes more sense than pretending everyone else in the world is an unkillable superhero.
And I won't be "toning down" the original PCs when my new campaign starts in 2010 or 2011. I'll let them remain at epic levels, and if the new players attempt to overthrow them too early, TPK, start over.
To me, this is fun. To my players, it seems to be a hoot. Is this not fun where everyone else is from?
I do the same thing -- retired PC's that were in Greyhawk are NPC's in my Greyhawk and appear occassionally. The differences are:
- I never ran an evil party in Greyhawk (did once in Mystara, but that doesn't matter since I'm not playing there).
- Only a few PC's made it to "epic" levels.
- The most significant changes by the PC's were defeating the giants and drow and killing Lolth, not changing the nature of countries.
- The retired PC's are scattered around fairly lightly and mostly in the background. The current PC's (2 parties worth) have only met:
-- The retired cleric, who is a healer at the national capital's fortress and raised a dead current PC who was brought there.
-- The retired paladin, who is a guard there and occasionally does special missions
-- The retired ranger, who wanders the wilderness near the Keep on the Borderlands
PCs overthrowing retired PC's does sound fun . . .
As a player I'm not too keen on running minor errands for the uber-NPC who could do it himself far more easily, but can't be bothered because he's 'too busy'.
My last campaign, I took the opposite approach. King Thongar the quest-giver was old and feeble, the PCs were the kingdom's Big Damn Heroes. If they refused the missions, the bad guys would triumph and the kingdom go down the toilet. And the kingdom was a point of light in a world of ruins and howling wilderness. So the players never had any trouble with their motivation.
Agreed. Let me think through the origins of the "quests" for my two current parties:
1) Cleric is dispatched by his anonymous superiors to the Keep on the Borderlands to investigate murders along the North Road. Two friends from a foreign country are traveling the same way, and fall in with him. At the keep, they discover the problem is humanoid attacks, and recruit more PCs and NPC's, who are local residents, to help investigate the Caves of Chaos. Later on, on a resupply trip to a nearby city, they meet more PC's in a tavern and have them join up.
2) The Keep having been rescued, a wounded merchant comes in. He's been robbed penniless, and his daugther and teamsters have been captured by humanoids. Off the PC's go.
3) The old man in the tower in town, who has been providing training for the PC's and generally runs adventuring groups for the country, wants a job done. A magic item that creates food would be useful for the war effort -- go fetch.
4) The old man in the tower in town wants another job done. An isolated neutral town that supplies the dwarven colony in the mountains is no longer in contact with the outside world, and the dwarven company that investigated never came back. The PC's are Tier 2 escalation for the country's problems now.
5) The old man in the tower in town wants to make the PC's nobility, but he needs them to deal with a current noble who hasn't provided the required troops for the war. Some lame excuse about orcs and wolves. Beneath the PC's station, but the real mission is to straighten him out and get the troops moving -- and the hint is the PC's get to keep the manor if the noble doesn't straighten out. Also, they hear rumors that a bard was singing about their last adventure in town and now has gone up river . . . since the baddy who escaped last time was a bard . . .
6) The bad guys in the last episodes weren't orcs and wolves afterall, but orcish werewolf commandos trying to cause political disruption. Some have escaped . . . others were captured and told about who hired them and where they entered the country . . . so the PC's go after them. Cue the chase and investigation of the infiltration route, which is a whole separate adventure.
Second party;
1) PC's go to a wild party, and are hired by an masked group to take out some bandits. (Three Days to Kill adventure.)
2) Arrested for possession of stolen goods (from the bandits they killed) and suspected of being members of a rival gang, the PC's are arrested and given a mission in exchange for being let go (much like the scene in "Conan: The Barbarian").
3) Having completed their mission, the PC's are free and rewarded. They decide to investigate a scroll they found, that mentions a lost dwarven fortress. The old man in the tower, a retired adventurer, and a dwarven jeweler they deal with all give them clues, and they set out in search of adventure.
I have some advice from a player's perspective. I have never DM'd (unless you count the really lame games I ran for just my sister when we were in middle school and had just discovered the game), but these are qualities I value in a DM, or things I enjoy that DMs do.
1) Try to maximize fun. Everything you do should be to make the game fun for you and your players. Think about long-term fun, too. Things that are fun once may not be fun if you continue to allow them to happen. For example, preventing a character from dying seems like a good idea, but doesn't maximize long-term fun. Most people find that losing the threat of dying makes the game less fun. It's rarely fun to lose a character, but without that threat the whole "fun quotient" of the game goes down.
It can take you a while to figure out how to get the most fun out of a game, but if you keep this rule in mind whenever you DM you'll be on the right track to being an awesome DM. It's really the most important thing a DM can do, I think. Everything should take a backseat to fun. If a rule is getting in the way of your fun, ignore it, or change it. That's really why we're all here playing this game, and why the rules were created - to have fun. If following the rules to the letter is not fun, don't do it!
2) Encourage player creativity. One of the best ways to do this is to say "yes" as much as possible, but remember tip 1 above - make sure it'll keep the game fun in the long run. Like others have said, this usually means your "yeses" will end up being "yes, buts" or "yes, ands". One of the wost things a DM can do is to keep saying "no" to creative players because they'll eventually stop trying to be so creative, and that won't be fun for anyone.
3) Listen to your players, both to what they say and what they do. Ask for feedback, and try to take what they've said into consideration. Try not to take criticism personally. If a player says something bad about your DMing style they're usually not trying to hurt you, they're trying to make you into a better DM.
Look at how your players have designed their characters and give them challenges that the characters have been designed to overcome. If a player creates a character that has a lot of abilities focused around dragonslaying then that player probably wants to fight dragons, so toss in a dragon every now and then. Try to give every player a little bit of what they want. You don't have to give everybody everything they want all of the time, but if you can give at least one person what they want each adventure and you keep spreading the "love" around evenly you'll be doing great.
4) Don't be afraid to change things the players don't know. I remember reading some awesome examples of this on EN World before, but I can't think of any specific examples right now. Basically, if you have something planned out and the PCs somehow get it into their heads that something different is going to happen, feel free to wave your magic DM wand and make what they think into the real truth, especially if what they came up with is way cooler than what you had originally planned. If you get good at this they'll never even know you changed anything. It makes the players feel smart because they figured out your grand mystery and if their idea was better than yours it can also make the whole adventure more fun.
5) Make the world react. The PCs should have a real, tangible effect on the world around them. Have them overhear NPCs discussing things the PCs have done in neighboring towns. If they failed to pick up on a quest hook let them find out what happened because they didn't take action. If they saved a village let them hear events that have gone on in that village after it was saved. Adding little details to make the PCs know they had some effect on the world around them adds greatly to the immersion and make the players feel like what they did really mattered.
__________________ Adventure is not outside; it is within. --Found in a fortune cookie on game night
Strangely I think I'd be okay with having a PC die by a bear exploding out of his head. --Awayfarer, after having his PC put a furry ball from a Bag of Tricks into his mouth.
I am more interested in character development and role playing than hack-and-slash dungeon crawling. Thanks!
If I may be so bold as to interject here. A role playing game is about what the players are interested in. A DM will reserve their real interest and discover the players interest as their own instead. A role playing game can evolve into a Campaign. A Campaign is when the players ask you for more. This is also the clue that players are comfortable and their interests are being realized. In the presence of this rare gift of permission the players may allow you to start bringing your real interest in. Even enjoying them.
If I may be so bold as to interject here. A role playing game is about what the players are interested in. A DM will reserve their real interest and discover the players interest as their own instead. A role playing game can evolve into a Campaign. A Campaign is when the players ask you for more. This is also the clue that players are comfortable and their interests are being realized. In the presence of this rare gift of permission the players may allow you to start bringing your real interest in. Even enjoying them.
Tigh
That is one perspective.
I think that conversely the GM's enthusiasm is contagious and sets the tone for the game. An GM excited and engaged with the game they are running tends to encourage involvement from the players. If the GM isn't having fun from the start then the game is already in jeopardy.
You're missing the point. The OP's assumption was that the only way to keep her PC's from killing the NPC who gives them a quest -- a goal she announced as wanting to do -- was to make the NPC uberpowerful compared to the PC's. I was pointing out there are other ways to prevent the PC's from going on a psychopathic rampage -- again, a goal she seemed to already have -- than having every NPC be more powerful.
No, I'm not missing the point. I understand that there are other solutions. However, my post was made to point out that one of your "other ways" was actually "the same exact way."
To recap, your alternative to having an uberpowerful quest giver was to have uberpowerful bounty hunters.
That's still just bullying the players into compliance via uberpowerful NPCs. As such, it's not an alternative at all.
A role playing game is about what the players are interested in. A DM will reserve their real interest and discover the players interest as their own instead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rel
I think that conversely the GM's enthusiasm is contagious and sets the tone for the game.
I think they're both important. Both the GM and the players should be having fun. If you're in a situation where the GM and the players want different things and you can't or won't split up the group then you need to compromise. Telling the GM to bow completely to player wishes or the players to take whatever the GM gives them is a way to end up with a burnt-out GM or bored players.
Nobody can get what they want all the time, but everyone (players AND GMs) should get what they want some of the time.
__________________ Adventure is not outside; it is within. --Found in a fortune cookie on game night
Strangely I think I'd be okay with having a PC die by a bear exploding out of his head. --Awayfarer, after having his PC put a furry ball from a Bag of Tricks into his mouth.
If I may be so bold as to interject here. A role playing game is about what the players are interested in. A DM will reserve their real interest and discover the players interest as their own instead. A role playing game can evolve into a Campaign. A Campaign is when the players ask you for more. This is also the clue that players are comfortable and their interests are being realized. In the presence of this rare gift of permission the players may allow you to start bringing your real interest in. Even enjoying them.
Tigh
I disagree (as do some other folks).
It's all about supply and demand. DM's are rare. Players are not. Therefore, a GM gets to run the game he wants. Because he does all the work, and there's not likely anybody to take his place.
Now that doesn't mean you go to the extreme of the GM can run a bad game and the players have to take it. Obviously, players can quit.
Additionally, a good GM does observe what his players want, and incorporates it into his game.
But technically, it is a GM's market. If the GM wants to run a heavy RP campaign, then the players kinda have to take it or leave it. Odds are good, they'll take it, because they have no alternative. Unless a campaign totally sucks, a player will play a campaign type they are less interested in, just because they want to game.
Yes thank you for that example, this was another thing i wanted to bring up. At higher levels in 3.5 DnD Arcane magic is arguably the thing that makes and breaks combat. So then, how do i design mid-high level spellcasters to be a challenge but not (as you say) go on a PC murder spree.
I am under the impression that things like Finger of Death and Mordekainen's Disjunction are bad?
Save or dies are not necessarily bad. In 3.x, they can add variability and excitement to the game. Being in an aura or an area effect that does 10 damage every round and getting hit for 15 damage while you slowly bleed hp off the bad guys is somewhat predictable but it is not necessarily more fun than making a save against magic that would have slain you instantly and then watching the bad guy be consumed in fire after failing the save against your destruction spell. Save or die spells create problems when:
A. The character is essential to some part of the plot or other. If you are playing a p&p Baldur's Gate II and the Bhaalspawn character dies, then the game is over. If you are not trying to make a character (or each character's) backstory essential to the plot, this should not be an issue.
B. The character is not easily replaceable. If you are in the middle of the temple of elemental evil and everyone around you is an enemy then replacing the dead PC will be difficult. OTOH, if the character dies in the last fight in the Moathouse, the player can just bring in a new character when the party gets back to Hommlet. Maybe he sees the PCs fighting and his mysterious masked stranger jumps in and helps them. (Of course, he has to introduce himself afterward and find out that they are pursuing a similar goal). Perhaps the hero-worshipping kid brother of one of the PCs starts tagging along after him right after they get into town. ("Get lost kid." "No, way, this is fun.")
C. The character can't be brought back from the dead. If you are level 13+ and have the components for a resurection spell, then having a character die is not necessarily a big deal. Just bring him back. Some DMs don't like characters returning from the dead but in the core rules, easy resurrection shows up shortly after the save or dies start flying.
So, you will want to use save or die spells sparingly, but don't toss them out of your arsenel just because the 4th edition designers thought that they were bad. (4th edition designers had a lot of ideas about balance and game design and they tossed most of them aside five minutes after the first book was finished).
Mordenkeinen's disjunction is a different story. It is bad, not because it is a save or die but rather because it is a pain to roll out, always works on active spells, and messes with the economy of the game.
1. Pain. How many magic items do you have? Make a save for each of them. Fifteen minutes later, you're still rolling. Hey, here's my luckblade. I'd forgot I had that. I'll use it to reroll the save for my main sword. Yet another roll.
2. Always works on active spells. So the dragon is all spelled up and ready to go--Mordenkeinen's disjunction and all his spells go down, automatically. Automatically reducing the targets to a completely unbuffed state is too good.
3. Messes with the economy. In 3rd edition, your character's items are a large component of your abilities. (It's true in 4th edition too--try making a level 30 fighter without magic armor and see how long you last). Now, if you suppose that you have a fairly good save and thus lose 1/4 to 1/3 of your items on each casting of mordenkeinen's disjunction, you will have to get a lot of treasure each time it is cast just to stay where you were. No-one wants their +5 ancestral sword of awesomeness to go away, but it's even worse if you hit level 18 and your equipment is not as good as it was at level 17.
Now, it can show up every now and then without ruining the game. Kyuss used it in the final encounter of the Age of Worms campaign that I played in and it didn't ruin the game. But the spell should not be in normal use.
So, those things aside, how do you use arcane spellcasters in mid to high level 3.x. Here are some design principles I have found effective.
A. Very rarely have a spellcaster alone. Put the spellcaster in the room with a summoned devil and a nightmare and a horde of peons. Rather than having the BBEG be a wizard 3 levels higher than the PCs as an EL=Party level +3 challenging encounter, have the BBEG be one level higher than the PC but give him a summoned devil with a CR two levels lower than the PCs, a high priest two levels lower than the PCs, and a half-dozen elite guards four levels lower than the PCs (who make up for that level deficit with careful construction and support from the devil, priest, and BBEG).
B. Always have an escape plan. Your wizard will be grappled. He may be silenced. Always max his concentration ranks. You don't need freedom of movement (always) but have a minion with benign transposition to get him out. Give him dimension door. Give him a rod of silent spell. Etc.
C. Buff your allies. Those six orc elite guard fighter/barbarians four levels lower than the PCs will pack a good punch when the BBEG casts haste on them. (Especially if his cleric cast recitation and the devil included them in an unholy aura).
D. Battlefield control is your friends. Use wall of force to separate the party. Better yet, ready a wall of force to separate the party for use when the cleric is about to cast a spell. That way, his spell probably won't hit (if an attack) or benefit (if a buff) its intended target AND the party ends up split. Use wall of ice and wall of fire similarly. Bigby's grasping hand and evard's black tentacles are similarly ridiculously effective. Acid fog does a little bit of damage but it will stick PCs in the time out box for long enough for you to get the upper hand on their allies.
E. Good old fashioned area damage is still effective against PCs. Empower that fireball. Double points if it also heals your allies at the same time. Empowered fireball on the PCs and the iron golem they are fighting for the win. (Lightning bolt if you have a flesh golem ally and mass inflict serious wounds if you have undead allies).
F. Debuff. Dispel the party's wards and buffs. The fighter who was confidently fighting in your allied Mezzoloth's cloudkills won't be so cocky when his heroe's feast takes a hike. Nerf the party. Ray of enfeeblement (also comes in highly effective quickened and empowered varieties). Let's see if you can even stand up in your platemail with a -12 strength penalty. Enervation also stacks up quite nicely.
G. Save or screw. Who needs save or die? Glitterdust and the PCs are blind. The barbarian isn't so scary with a 50% miss chance, is he. (Uncanny dodge means your rogues won't sneak attack him to death but you can't have everything). Greater Command to halt and gloat as the paladin spends ten rounds watching his friends die. (Admittedly, this may be painful for the paladin's player, but that's what allies are for--a dispel magic, dispel evil, or even just a save buff should help him unless he is horribly unlucky, and if he is horribly unlucky, then he just would have spent ten rounds whiffing anyway).
H. And don't forget the finger of death. To make it more effective, rather than simply casting it, use it as a readied action to disrupt a spell. Made the save? OK, well you still take damage. DC 10+3d6+caster level+spell level concentration check or lose the spell.
My boilerplate advice for OD&D Referees is: Don't Lie, Don't Cheat.
If a DM makes stuff up at the table, then they are just making every action taken by the players of the game irrelevant. It's not like folks decide to switch around the arrangement of the board in a 1000 hour wargame between play sessions in the name "more fun". It's the exact same deal with RPGs. Making a player's sword a +4 instead of a +1 simply invalidates the game. So, in effect, don't use things like Rule Zero, DMG p.42, or any kind of DM fiat.
__________________ Apparently Reagan never played RPGs ...but he liked to watch.
Spoiler:
Participants in the Pentagon simulations were sometimes of very high rank, including members of Congress and White House insiders as well as senior military officers. The identity of many of the participants remains secret even today. It is a tradition in US simulations (and those run by many other nations) that participants are guaranteed anonymity. The main reason for this is that occasionally they may take on a role or express an opinion that is at odds with their professional or public stance (for example portraying a fundamentalist terrorist or advocating hawkish military action), and thus could harm their reputation or career if their in-game persona became widely known.
(cut)
...former US president Ronald Reagan was a keen visitor to simulations conducted in the 1980s, but as an observer only. An official explained: "No president should ever disclose his hand, not even in a war game". Para,6
Wow i am new aren't I.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
