How Dragonbane Pointed out the Clashing Desires of My Gaming Group

[AnotherGuy]

Don’t need the gatekeepy BS. Aramis erak is right.

And people can disagree.

 

[Spellslinging Sellsword]

I do have the occasional online game where I get to be a player. They're just not as frequent or lengthy as my home games, so the home games take precedence in my thoughts.
And, I mean, I could just run what they want and stop complaining. But I can't figure out what that is.

• Fast paced
• Tactical (more than 5e)
• High power level
• Competent characters
• Breeze past the roleplaying
• No inventory management
• But still an RPG (not a boardgame)

I guess it's just a differently run Level Up, 13th Age, or Soulbound? Maybe Savage Worlds? Run more like arena battles than a typical RPG with story and characters.

Maybe Pathfinder for Savage Worlds?

 

[mAcular]

@Retreater I think you can make 5e work with it using 3PP as you said. There are a lot of books that flesh out the tactics and treasures which make it a breeze. The important part is that is all on your side, which you can control and has nothing to do with their enjoyment or psycho analyzing them.

The talk about what the players want reminds me of this:

 

[John Dallman]

As she explained last night, her baseline power level is 4E D&D. I guess she can step it down to a more reasonable power level of PF2. Or high level 5E.

An actual superhero game might suit them better, and would also dispose of inventory management. Champions is strongly tactical in play.

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

I do understand that. There seems to be an idea in more modern gaming that the only challenge to a group is when the Initiative die is rolled and ends after the combat is over. That puts 100% of the job on the encounter balance to provide all the threat - to be just enough to make the characters use N% of their resources but not die - because that's really the only cost you can put in a combat.
If you don't have a full heal-up, you can have attrition. You can have pressure besides just what happens between initiative rolls.
If you have dwindling resources - rations in the wilderness or torches in the cave - that is additional pressure that isn't just HP loss in a single combat. (In Lord of the Rings, do they run low on food/arrows? In Die Hard, does he have to scrounge for gear and fight while injured? Yes to both. This stuff is also high adventure.)
I think this is ultimately what I wanted with Dragonbane. In 4E I was responsible for balancing every fight, making every aspect utterly thrilling with a variety of aspects, dynamic monsters used to tactical perfection. The perfect placement of traps and hazardous terrain that makes the field of battle spring to life like an opponent itself.
No one gave a darn about political stakes, about the story of the world, about forging alliances with different factions, of achieving personal goals. It was 100% on me to basically be a Baldur's Gate designer to create interesting battles every week.

My point is that just as not every encounter has to be a combat encounter, not every camp has to be a survival-roll-required camp. I believe it's better, in fact, if most nights spent camping are not survival-roll-required, with the exceptions being uncommon, unusual, and memorable, and therefore interesting rather than annoying.

As for running out of arrows or food, I see scrounging for arrows after a battle as a Fluff thing, rather than a Challenge That Threatens the PCs thing. Legolas didn't have to "roll scrounging or be screwed" to recover arrows in Lord of the Rings; he just did it. As for food in LOTR, running short only became an issue when Things Went Wrong, or when Frodo and Sam faced the Exceptional Challenge of crossing Mordor (which was more a water-shortage problem than a food-shortage one.)

As for HP attrition carrying over from encounter to encounter, I see that as a form of Hard Fun that I don't care for. PCs entering a new combat with only partial hit points are entering combat already partly defeated and dead. This only works for me as a special, exceptionally rare, Things Have Gone Horribly Wrong, scenario, and I'm just as happy if it never occurs at all.

And as for combat being the only challenge - why does that have to be a challenge either? From what you've said, your wife doesn't want combats for the challenge and the serious risk of her character dying, but for the vicarious experience of kicking ass.

It's time, I think, to repost an old USENET post, that's not by me but that I agree with:

--
RPGs and video games differ from most ordinary board games in that there doesn't have to be a loser. I think it's reasonable that they attract mindsets which aren't very interested in losing; and a lot of RPG groups successfully cater to this.

If I enter into playing, say, chess with the expectation I will never lose, I'm being an idiot and I'm bound to be disappointed. Not even the World Champion gets that. But if I enter into Heroes of Might and Magic IV (which is what I'm currently playing) with the expectation that I won't lose, I'm not hurting anyone, and it's not unreasonable that I may get what I want. (Especially if I turn the difficulty down--and I may yet do that, because the losses are really more annoying than challenging.)

Whether the player still wants it when she gets it is another question, but for at least some players in some situations the answer is "yes." I don't think I would still be playing Heroes if I lost even 1/3 of the time. In a board game, I know I have to give my opponent a fair shot, but here there's no such obligation; the only thing against winning all the time is that it may detract from the challenge, and for me, right now, I'd rather win than have a really strong challenge.

If this is a personality flaw it's an awfully common one; I think it's better just regarded as a preference.

A common problem with such games is that they are entertaining for the players but not for the GM. I get tired of having my NPCs wiped out time and again; I spoiled a campaign recently by engineering a TPK in the attempt to make things "a bit more challenging." Clearly I overshot, but by game contract I shouldn't even have been trying.
--

 

[FrozenNorth]

If it's any consolation, I think my group would enjoy your style of game mastering.

Honestly, I would have thought that made things worse.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

Right. But I think a skirmish style boardgame like Gloomhaven would be better for that than me busting my brain on a weekly basis to create dynamic encounters with a system not designed to do that.

I'll just assume you are not talking about 4e specifically since that seems to be off the table for you.

To be fair, it was "unsatisfying" to me. I think they were ok just coming and eating snacks, watching TikTok videos between their turns, etc.

Rule of thumb: never put more effort in than your players are willing to put themselves. It will just end in heartache.

Concerning my spouse being in my group, it's a blessing and curse.
There's a lot of blame put on me to deliver precisely what she wants. She's literally said things like "I don't care if you're having fun."

My condolences. There is no RPG or board game that can fix that particular problem. I suggest taking up some home improvement projects. You'll get the same response, but at least it will be more satisfying, and you'll have something to show for it.

 

[Retreater]

Have you tried pushing the research on them?

"Please let me know two or three RPGs you'd like to try out. We'll see where there are similarities."

At the very least, if they are playing an RPG they suggested they have buy-in.

The person I've spoken to the most about this is my wife. Her suggestions have been 4e, Pathfinder 2, Rifts for Savage Worlds, and 5e as a "good enough game - not her favorite but she'll do it."
My issue with most of those is that I don't have the headspace to run weekly sessions of 4e, Rifts, and probably PF2 (maybe I can do it) - not with work, my master's program, and other things. Plus, we've got 3 players - and I don't want to run an NPC to balance encounters for them in these strict, class-based games (even though that's less of an issue in Savage Worlds).
"Story player" didn't like 4e.
"Trad player" didn't like Savage Worlds.
Maybe the answer really is 5e - no one's favorite but a "good enough"?

 

[Jacob Lewis]

Maybe the answer really is 5e - no one's favorite but a "good enough"?

Achievement! You have discovered 5e's "secret sauce"!

 

[thullgrim]

Savage Worlds won’t require you to run an NPC character. In PF2 just I’d just spec out a heal bot cleric whose function is healing and as a plot delivery system. Minimal mental overhead. If your running an AP in either game most of the prep is done for you, especially if your just following along with the narrative.