A Series of Concerns

[papa_laz]

Hi all,

I have a couple of questions/concerns which I have put into this one post for the sake of convenience.

1) I've recently started running a campaign in a homebrew setting which has so far gone fantastically. We've only had three sessions but so far the players and I have had a great time and the story and characters are progressing in ways I'd never considered. However I'm beginning to find the amount of preparation work required for each session to be something of a drain. On average for each hour of play I'm spending 3 hours designing the adventure, which to me seems like a lot. I'm something of a perfectionist and I'm quite meticulous with my adventure design and like to have every potential scenario covered. Also I like to write detailed descriptions of locales and lengthy chunks of NPC dialogue, things that the players have said are the best aspects of my adventures. For example, in the last session I had about 3 solid pages of descriptions and dialogue amongst the stat blocks and other technical details. I'm starting to feel that this level of detail is unsustainable as I have to do my uni work as well as fulfilling other commitments.

I'm getting better at coming up with descriptions on the fly, and I'm decent at ad-libing dialogue, but I would never try to run an adventure without a solid base to work with. So what I really need is some methods I can use to minimise my preparation time, specifically cutting down on the time I spend writing without losing any, or much, of the detail. I also find making NPC stat blocks very time consuming and tedious, even when I lift them directly from the DMG. I'm sure many of you have had to deal with a similar predicament and if so do you have any advice?

2) I've begun to toy with the idea of assigning XP on an individual basis for non combat encounters, such as bluffing, pickpocketing or whatever. During the first few adventures it became apparent certain players were pulling more weight than others, mainly in terms of roleplaying but also with their interaction with the world and willingness to be inventive to solve a problem. Because of this I decided to give a few hundred XP to individual PC's who'd used their initiative to solve a problem or made specific gains for the party or themselves using their wit. I've theorised that this may be an effective way to make all players engage with the world when they realise they will be losing out on precious XP if they are just content to coast along. Do people think this will work or will it break the game?

3) Also on the topic of XP. Last session the party spent nearly the entire adventure being tortured and interrogated, and a small amount of time travelling. During the interrogation they really achieved nothing, and in fact did quiet a poor job of saving their own lives. One PC was poisoned, suffering permanent strength and con damage, and also had an eye ripped out. This is not due to gratuitousness on my part, but was the fault of the character for being repeatedly rude to the torturers and even breathing fire on one of them.

The players then had the nerve to ask how much XP they earned at the end of the adventure even though the only thing they actually achieved was successfully tracking down the druids lost animal companion (which I will reward with a small amount of XP). I don't believe in handing out XP for no reason. To do so would render the entire rewards system meaningless. Personally I don't think almost getting tortured to death warrants a reward. If a session goes by without any actions that earns the characters XP then too bad. Escaping with their lives should be reward enough. What do you guys think?

4) During roleplaying between the PC's arguments and even fights are frequent due to their evil alignments. In one particular situation two PC's were arguing and neither could convince the other, so one PC decided he wanted to take an intimidate check against the other PC to try and bully him into submission. I couldn't see any reason not to allow this, so I let them make opposed intimidate checks to see who came out on top. Personally I thought it worked quite well, as there are times when things just can't be adjudicated without a dice roll, and the game mechanics are there for a reason. I also have no problem with having PC's being the victim of bluff and intimidate checks from NPC's. The way I see it the fate of the PC's is decided by the luck of the dice roll just like any other character within the world. In my game the players aren't special and aren't given any privileges that NPC's don't have.

I discussed this method of PC vs PC adjudication with one player after the game and seemed to think it wasn't the best way to do it and maybe it should have been handled with roleplaying. But as I said previously roleplaying had not resulted in a resolution, neither player wanted to back down, and I think having them make opposed checks worked quite well. After all If they wanted to fight each other they would roll dice, not jump around the room with plastic swords roleplaying the combat. What do you guys think about this method?

If you got to the end of all this then thanks for taking the time to read it.

Cheers

 

[roguerouge]

Do a list of talking points for dialogue, instead of blocks of text. You'll find it's easier to be responsive to the players and takes less time. Have a simple description of the character's goals and quirks, to enable you to ad-lib better.

For monsters, simply lift them from published adventures. There's hundreds of them out there. Look for a few that fit what you're trying to do, buy them and chop 'em up for useable parts.

 

[roguerouge]

2) I've begun to toy with the idea of assigning XP on an individual basis for non combat encounters, such as bluffing, pickpocketing or whatever. During the first few adventures it became apparent certain players were pulling more weight than others, mainly in terms of roleplaying but also with their interaction with the world and willingness to be inventive to solve a problem. Because of this I decided to give a few hundred XP to individual PC's who'd used their initiative to solve a problem or made specific gains for the party or themselves using their wit. I've theorised that this may be an effective way to make all players engage with the world when they realise they will be losing out on precious XP if they are just content to coast along. Do people think this will work or will it break the game?

This raises several concerns for me. Fighters have no ability to gain XP in this manner, unless you're awarding XP for a particularly fine climb check. And it makes little mechanical sense for them to be the prime point of interaction for the party, but you're providing a strong incentive for them to try and inevitably fail at diplomacy, for example. You're encouraging them to step on the skill monkey's role in the party. In addition, you may be punishing players for having a different play style than your own or who simply want different things from game night than you do. There's nothing wrong with wanting to kill things and take their stuff. It's an evils campaign, after all. Lastly, in evil parties, the guy nobody notices or regards as a threat is usually the one that lasts longest.

 

[roguerouge]

4) During roleplaying between the PC's arguments and even fights are frequent due to their evil alignments. In one particular situation two PC's were arguing and neither could convince the other, so one PC decided he wanted to take an intimidate check against the other PC to try and bully him into submission. I couldn't see any reason not to allow this, so I let them make opposed intimidate checks to see who came out on top. Personally I thought it worked quite well, as there are times when things just can't be adjudicated without a dice roll, and the game mechanics are there for a reason. I also have no problem with having PC's being the victim of bluff and intimidate checks from NPC's. The way I see it the fate of the PC's is decided by the luck of the dice roll just like any other character within the world. In my game the players aren't special and aren't given any privileges that NPC's don't have.

I discussed this method of PC vs PC adjudication with one player after the game and seemed to think it wasn't the best way to do it and maybe it should have been handled with roleplaying.

That's fine for you and one of the players, but you can see why it might suck to be on the other end of that, right? You're taking away the root power of the player at the table: this is how my guy reacts.

Sounds like you need to ramp up the reasons why "We're all evil together!", lest your table break apart. You might also have an OOG conversation with the players telling them to pull that kind of shenanigans on NPCs, not PCs.

Alternatively, you can put them on a quota: You get one party conflict per month. Once you've used up your quota, all party conflicts are resolved by a flipped coin, or something.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

For point 1:

Have you considered running more sessions, but shorter? That would help with not having to prepare as much for things that don't come up.

Also, for speeding up play/prep there is a pdf out (that I don't have, so can't speak to the usefulness). I can't find it, either, but maybe someone else can? Sorry bout that. It also has a 2.0 version for pathfinder... Maybe someone knows the name.


For point 2:

I wouldn't do it. A prior poster put it well. I also think that the "waving the carrot" of XP can backfire. If you have a group dynamic that works, don't change anything (some people LIKE the spotlight and some people LIKE to coast, or are shy). Second edition had individual xp. Third intentionally changed that to group xp.

And you want your group to work together (the players, not always their characters). It's less than ideal to create a metagame challenge/reward system for them to jockey for the one who talks the most, or accomplishes the most. That only encourages individual interest over group interest.


For point 3:

Now I am confused. You want to give xp for talking in point 2 but then they get nothing in a very frustrating, nearly purely roleplaying session? Why can't they get xp for being tortured? I know I personally would learn a lot about both myself and the villian if I had to endure that.


For point 4:

Hmmm. The challenges of an evil party. I'd say what you did wasn't a bad choice at all.


I think one thing you need to decide if this is a game where the PLAYERS are able to be selfish and evil with their characters, or if the PLAYERS decide to work as a group but their characters are evil and backstabby. You'll have a very different evil game. The former usually leads to a quick destruction of the game through infighting. The latter can lead to a more long term story driven campaign.

If you've seen buffy the vampire slayer later episodes, you'll kinda know what I mean (spoiler alert). Willow and Spike both become part of the party, but are arguably evil at points. But the writers find ways and reasons for them to remain part of the group.


As far as intimidate goes, I usually don't use it pc vs pc. If you have the first evil campaign going, it's really like each player has a pc AND EVERYONE ELSE IS AN NPC to them. In that sense, the stats rule, and I'd say it is advisable.

If it is the latter, I'd not use it. I'd have the players discuss (as people, not characters) how this gets resolved storywise. Maybe they stalk off from each other, the problem unresolved. Maybe they ask you, the DM for a random encounter to interrupt the argument, allowing them to set it aside due to the distraction. I guess the point here is to have a line where the players work together while their characters don't. Even if the characters can't resolve it, I'd say the players should be able to.

Good luck! (evil is hard)

 

[Kerrick]

Point 1: There are several online NPC generators you could use (free, even!) that cut down on time a LOT.

Point 2: Aberzanz has a point, but I like the idea of individual awards. In light of his point, though, I'd change my suggestion to award XP to players with especially good ideas, or something that generally makes the playing experience better. Even the shy guy can occasionally come up with something good - speaking personally here; I usually just sit back and let the more outspoken folks take the lead, but I've had to speak up with a solution a couple times already in our two-month campaign.

Point 3: Yes. They screwed up, they should suffer the consequences. I'd throw them a bone and give them a little XP, but just enough to let them know that they could've played it better.

Point 4: As rouge said, this really depends on if its the players arguing or the characters arguing - there's a world of difference. Even if it's the latter, sometimes players lose their focus and start to take it personally. Make a house rule - if IC arguments aren't resolved in five minutes or so, have them walk away, or figure out how to resolve it, so that a) it doesn't bog the game down; and b) it doesn't get personal. As far as the Intimidate check goes, if the players are cool with it, then by all means run with it. I personally see no reason why you can't use an opposed check like that, in limited circumstances (such as to break up a deadlock).

 

[papa_laz]

Thanks guys. These are all very good suggestions and I will definitely be taking them on board. As far as the nature of the group goes, they work well together when necessary and there is generally a level of party cohesion, but they bicker and bully each other constantly when not in danger. This is not something I'm going to try and moderate as it makes the game hilarious, also the players know if they don't work together I will have no qualms about killing their PC's. If the party splinters because of these internal divides then so be it. I like to give the players real choice in their actions, and if this results in an unplayable situation then so be it.

As far as the opposed intimidate checks I now realise I may not have handled the situation correctly. After reading your replies I think a better option would have been to let it either escalate or subside. The argument was started by the party cleric who was demanding that the druid give him a document the party had just acquired. The druid refused which led to an argument, and the cleric then requested to make an intimidate check. I guess the correct way to play it would've been to make the cleric roleplay this initimidation and make threats of violence, and possibly attack if he chooses (I highly doubt he would). After all the choice is ultimately down to the druid to either give him the document, walk away, or fight, and although he won the dice roll, if he lost it would've made him feel that his roleplaying actions were meaningless.

I'm still not entirely decided on this, and I feel that having ranks in intimidate should count for something in such situations. But on the other hand I think its more important to encourage meaningful roleplaying. In other situations that can't possibly be roleplayed such as one PC pickpocketing the other I'd use opposed dice rolls, but for negotiations and intimidation I'm not sure. I guess I'll have to play it by ear and see what works.

For point 3:

Now I am confused. You want to give xp for talking in point 2 but then they get nothing in a very frustrating, nearly purely roleplaying session? Why can't they get xp for being tortured? I know I personally would learn a lot about both myself and the villian if I had to endure that.

Aberzanzorax, I guess the difference is that I rewarded XP for a successful and meaningful bluff which was beneficial for the party. But they handled the torture scene badly, which resulted in one PC being crippled, which makes me think that they haven't earned a reward. I think I'm probably going to give them 100-200 XP for surviving, but even then I'm reluctant. What do you think is a reasonable amount of XP to reward level 5 characters who have survived the torture chamber? Or do you think I should give them nothing?

 

[Ariosto]

(1) Do you really need so much written down? One reason you'll find a lot of that in modules is that the designer is trying to impart information to people who have no access to it except by reading. You have direct access to your own mind. The clunkiness of 3E stat blocks seems to me part of the game. Again, how much do you really need when you've got a Monster Manual? Another thing to consider is whether you can "recycle" stat blocks. If the NPC serves no function except to appear in one encounter, then maybe less work is warranted.

(2) and (3) It really comes down to what purpose you see XP as serving in your campaign. Different people can have very different (and strongly held) views in this regard.

(4) I would not have PC role-playing determined by Intimidate skill checks, but again it's a question of what suits your group.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

Aberzanzorax, I guess the difference is that I rewarded XP for a successful and meaningful bluff which was beneficial for the party. But they handled the torture scene badly, which resulted in one PC being crippled, which makes me think that they haven't earned a reward. I think I'm probably going to give them 100-200 XP for surviving, but even then I'm reluctant. What do you think is a reasonable amount of XP to reward level 5 characters who have survived the torture chamber? Or do you think I should give them nothing?

(2) and (3) It really comes down to what purpose you see XP as serving in your campaign. Different people can have very different (and strongly held) views in this regard.

This is a great answer. It seems that there are some "behind the game" concepts that are different among different groups. It seems as though your group, or you as DM, have not decided exactly what you want the game to be.

I mentioned the "evil players versus evil characters" concept, but a better way to describe it would be: are the players storytelling or PvP? That's something your group should decide.

What does XP represent? Is it a way to give characters/players incentive to act a certain way? Is it a reward for success? Is it a "payment" for good roleplaying? Is it some other option?

I think if you are able to figure out the answers to the assumptions you have about this game, and the ones you want to promote for players, that will help things to move along more smoothly/get everyone on the same page. It will also give you more of a background on which to decide individual questions like the indimidate check question.


To answer your question about the XP, I give roleplaying experience (in some of my games. In others, rp is just expected.). Based on what you said earlier about the bardic success, I would give rp experience depending on how well the party portrayed their characters in the torture. But for me, xp is more about rewarding the player for doing a good job as a player (including not pouting when the dice try to kill them) as opposed to their character being successful (including several lucky 20's). I don't claim I have the "right" method of XP, but it works for my group. Other groups might reward the character who, through luck/random chance, critically hit the dragon 7 times in one battle, making them MVP. That's ok too, but my players would look at me funny if I did that, based upon our understanding of what earns xp.

 

[TerraDave]

A lot has been covered, I will just two small points from experience:

-individual and detailed XP works much better in theory then practice. As noted the XP "carrot" is sort of a blunt insturment. If pushed to far, especially when one player gets a lot more then another, it is much better at causing arguments then rewarding good behaviour.

-don't be afraid to use published material. Its often not that hard to put your own spin on it, and it can save quite a bit of time.