Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Building a multi-goal encounter
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="MoutonRustique" data-source="post: 7306376" data-attributes="member: 22362"><p>The way I parse this situation, you have 3 avenues:</p><p></p><p>1 - set actions/goals that PCs can chose to engage with using their regular allotment of actions : i.e. SC, or single checks setup in the encounter.</p><p></p><p>2 - incorporate or design the "stuff you want done" into things that players could deal with by using their regular attacks/actions as a bit of an extra. An example of this could be like some terrain effects that trigger when you use a [fire] power on a creature within a zone.</p><p></p><p>3 - incorporate an extra effect into the "stuff you want done actions" that would equate to a player's usual power use as a "bonus" to using an appropriate skill on the "stuff you want done".</p><p></p><p><strong>(1)</strong> Certainly the most mechanically supported option - and thus the most straightforward. But perhaps not the most elegant, or resulting in the most satisfying product. If you can't seem to settle on something else, I would encourage you to fall back on this : it might not be <em>exactly</em> what you want, but they are known tools that you wield with expertise and will, most probably, give a good enough result (<em>important note: I use "good enough" in it's true meaning - i.e. good enough for an enjoyable result, not a "meh" result.</em>)</p><p></p><p><strong>(2)</strong> This is the approach that is probably the easiest to get your players to use. They'll figure out quickly that doing their thing "over here" and "over there" will yield better results. They probably won't feel "cheated" out of their actions. From the player-side, it has a lot going for it.</p><p></p><p>From the DM-side, it kind of feels "cheap" in a sense. But I've learned that the DM-side is a stupid side to be stubborn about: nobody but the DM sees it, and even <em>then</em> it <em>always</em> falls flat when players don't think of the "oh so clever/obvious clue" you left and they bypass the whole thing... But I get it : it's a stupid thing, but it's damned hard not to do it (I still catch myself doing it <em>waaay</em> too often...)</p><p></p><p><strong>(3)</strong> This is the one I find the coolest. However, I've learned that, when you "take away" attack powers, some players will feel let down. Some will love it! But some will find it chaffing... You know your group best : no else can make this call.</p><p></p><p>The best solutions to this are to make successes into partial successes : </p><p>- you don't negate the necrotic damage, you bring it down by 5 (or appropriate value - I've also found that having the player roll "damage" seems to really increase enjoyment in these kinds of skill checks. In a "reduce damage skill", you could have the PC roll 1d6+relevant modifier, or 1d8 + 1/4 skill mod, or something.) This way the following PC can keep at it if she wants.</p><p>- always use "shields" for effects : the first (or the first few) successes allow for the "core effect" to be engaged. Once "damaged", it either dissolves or puts the shields back up (depending on much effort should go into removing the effect.) Don't have the shields reset after a single round - or better yet, have the "shields" reset with a roll (such as a recharge). This gives players a certain form of agency in risk management. Plus, as soon as you make something a roll, you get a whole new avenue of design to tinker with said roll - who doesn't love to tinker? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin :D" data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></p><p></p><p>So, in the case of necrotic portal :</p><p>PC A - reduce the damage it deals. This prompts the summons of an undead attempting to claw it's way into reality.</p><p>PC B - attempt to keep the undead into the portal (Arcana again) or punch it back in (Athletics i.e. Bull Rush).</p><p>PC C - either destabilize the core of the portal (Arcana), or put a giant "boulder" as a block against further undead (Athletics)</p><p></p><p>But this is only if you want there to be 3 things to be done within a single round with regards to the portal. You could easily have the undead require a few rounds to get through. Or, if you use the escalation die, you could roll against it to have the undead get through - a success on an Arcana check to "shrink" the portal could increase the die you use (or add a die, or give you "disadvantage" on the roll, or... you get it.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="MoutonRustique, post: 7306376, member: 22362"] The way I parse this situation, you have 3 avenues: 1 - set actions/goals that PCs can chose to engage with using their regular allotment of actions : i.e. SC, or single checks setup in the encounter. 2 - incorporate or design the "stuff you want done" into things that players could deal with by using their regular attacks/actions as a bit of an extra. An example of this could be like some terrain effects that trigger when you use a [fire] power on a creature within a zone. 3 - incorporate an extra effect into the "stuff you want done actions" that would equate to a player's usual power use as a "bonus" to using an appropriate skill on the "stuff you want done". [B](1)[/B] Certainly the most mechanically supported option - and thus the most straightforward. But perhaps not the most elegant, or resulting in the most satisfying product. If you can't seem to settle on something else, I would encourage you to fall back on this : it might not be [I]exactly[/I] what you want, but they are known tools that you wield with expertise and will, most probably, give a good enough result ([I]important note: I use "good enough" in it's true meaning - i.e. good enough for an enjoyable result, not a "meh" result.[/I]) [B](2)[/B] This is the approach that is probably the easiest to get your players to use. They'll figure out quickly that doing their thing "over here" and "over there" will yield better results. They probably won't feel "cheated" out of their actions. From the player-side, it has a lot going for it. From the DM-side, it kind of feels "cheap" in a sense. But I've learned that the DM-side is a stupid side to be stubborn about: nobody but the DM sees it, and even [I]then[/I] it [I]always[/I] falls flat when players don't think of the "oh so clever/obvious clue" you left and they bypass the whole thing... But I get it : it's a stupid thing, but it's damned hard not to do it (I still catch myself doing it [I]waaay[/I] too often...) [B](3)[/B] This is the one I find the coolest. However, I've learned that, when you "take away" attack powers, some players will feel let down. Some will love it! But some will find it chaffing... You know your group best : no else can make this call. The best solutions to this are to make successes into partial successes : - you don't negate the necrotic damage, you bring it down by 5 (or appropriate value - I've also found that having the player roll "damage" seems to really increase enjoyment in these kinds of skill checks. In a "reduce damage skill", you could have the PC roll 1d6+relevant modifier, or 1d8 + 1/4 skill mod, or something.) This way the following PC can keep at it if she wants. - always use "shields" for effects : the first (or the first few) successes allow for the "core effect" to be engaged. Once "damaged", it either dissolves or puts the shields back up (depending on much effort should go into removing the effect.) Don't have the shields reset after a single round - or better yet, have the "shields" reset with a roll (such as a recharge). This gives players a certain form of agency in risk management. Plus, as soon as you make something a roll, you get a whole new avenue of design to tinker with said roll - who doesn't love to tinker? :D So, in the case of necrotic portal : PC A - reduce the damage it deals. This prompts the summons of an undead attempting to claw it's way into reality. PC B - attempt to keep the undead into the portal (Arcana again) or punch it back in (Athletics i.e. Bull Rush). PC C - either destabilize the core of the portal (Arcana), or put a giant "boulder" as a block against further undead (Athletics) But this is only if you want there to be 3 things to be done within a single round with regards to the portal. You could easily have the undead require a few rounds to get through. Or, if you use the escalation die, you could roll against it to have the undead get through - a success on an Arcana check to "shrink" the portal could increase the die you use (or add a die, or give you "disadvantage" on the roll, or... you get it.) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Building a multi-goal encounter
Top