EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
Even Tucker's kobolds aren't really enough to take down a full level 20 party. Spells of level 6th+ are hard to ignore.
D&D General How much control do DMs need?
- Thread starter Clint_L
- Start date
There's a lot of accusations of people stating "your playstyle doesn't work". I don't see it. If I'm one of the people being accused it was certainly not my intent. There's a huge difference between something does not work for me and stating that it doesn't work for others. In other cases it is not the case or simply the case that people don't phrase things in the best possible way.
I think there's a lot of miscommunication that wouldn't happen in person. Or maybe it still would and I'm just being overly optimistic.
I just about took out a level 19 party (6 PCs, 1 sidekick) with 3 CR 17 monsters in the first encounter after a long rest. I had a decent chance of killing at least a couple, but they were unintelligent beasts so the tactics weren't exactly spectacular. They were still under the effects of a heroes feast and there's a paladin in the group. So ... how exactly is it that you can't challenge a party? This wasn't even a deadly encounter by my calculations.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
I think the bigger difference, here, is that PbtA does not consider between-campaign things as part of its structure. That is, if you're going to do this, it would generally be part of the premise of a new campaign, rather than something unexpectedly sprung. For example, previous game comes to a close, GM says, "I think we all had a lot of fun in this overall world. How do you guys feel about our next game happening in <nearby region>?" And the players say sure--we heard interesting stuff about what was going on out there. They figure out what they want to play, and work with the GM to use those things to develop details about the region that weren't known before (since I doubt even the most ardent of worldbuilder GMs is doing things like laying out the full dynastic politics or economic rivalries or midlevel ministerial bureaucracy for a place no one in the previous campaign's party was from and none had visited at any point during that campaign.)
Then, at that point, the GM sets about developing Fronts, which (naturally) will be at least partially unknown to the players at the start. Some of these Fronts will almost surely connect to the PCs, because that's one of the classic ways to get a party together--give them common enemies--but the exact nature and interests of these Fronts will become apparent as the constituent entities (people, organizations, powerful creatures, natural disasters, etc.) unfurl and develop. A perfectly acceptable Front is an invasion from an outside source, especially if it's already known amongst the players (hence "no-myth") that this region is dealing with political instability and social unrest. Perhaps the Blue Turban Uprising (a group of violent rebels with legitimate grievances but not particularly legitimate tactics) is secretly--even to its own members!--funded by the <imperialist-colonialist country> military as a means to soften up the region for invasion. Perhaps diplomatic overtures from said country are secretly espionage actions in disguise, designed to reveal military strengths and weaknesses, undermine industrial and agricultural capacity, and acquire local assets that can provide intelligence or turn coat once the invasion begins. Etc.
More or less, you can totally have an invasion! But having it be a total blindside surprise--no "grim portents," as DW puts it, and no ability for the players to respond until it is Already Here--isn't really copacetic. Either the invasion should unfold naturally as a sequence of events that the players can try to influence ("play to find out what happens"), or it should be baked into the "pitch" of the game as a thing that HAS happened, making it an explicit part of the premise that that is true and the characters will need to respond to it.
Dungeon World leads to plenty of surprises. I would know. More than half of the "plot" of the game I run is stuff I would never have considered myself--only occurring because the players declared actions and I responded. I, for example, would never have predicted that the Bard (originally conceived as the typical "wine, women/men, and song" type) would not only become a double cambion (effectively, Because Magic, half-devil, half-demon, half-human) in two acts of profound self-sacrifice, but to further embark on a quest to accept his role as the prophesied messiah-figure of an assassin-cult in order to reform them from within and make them into an organization he could be proud of. And that's just the story of that one character! We've had five other similarly dramatic stories move in directions I never considered.
The point of Tucker's Kobolds is that they are, quite literally, Level One, from the days when "level" was literally synonymous with the level of the dungeon you were on--so "20th level" enemies were those you would expect to find having delved down to the "20th floor" of the dungeon. They have 1-4 HP.
Tactics can do an awful lot. They can't do everything. And they're not really going to turn "a tribe of maybe 100 kobolds" into something equivalent to CR friggin' 17. Just one meteor swarm from the party Wizard is enough to guaranteed slay all of them. Even in the very unlikely event that 100% of the kobolds make their save, and the Wizard rolls the absolute lowest damage possible, that's still 10 bludgeoning and 10 fire damage. They'd have to have more than just resistance to both damage types in order to not instantly die. And, sure, that's a 9th level spell that the Wizard might not have--but it illustrates how a 20th level party could quite easily stomp these kobolds simply because they have so little HP. Holing up in the warren isn't effective when the enemy can magically torch the place and just leave.
I'm not saying you CANNOT challenge a party. I'm saying that, very specifically Tucker's kobolds, would not present a challenge to a 20th level 5e party. Because high-level spells are just that powerful. (Edit: And they don't even have to be THAT high-level. Sunbeam would be wonderful against a kobold warren. Only 6th level, and it creates sunlight around the caster, which gives the kobolds disadvantage, negating their Pack Tactics feature and pretty much guaranteed killing every kobold in the repeatable line AoE--it does ~13 damage even on a successful save, CR 1/8 kobolds have 5 HP.)
Last edited:
It's been a long day, I misunderstood.
However the point is that Tucker's kobolds would never open themselves up to a lot of the big damage spells. Meteor storm doesn't do a lot if 99% of the kobolds are hiding in tunnels. Nope, they'd be hiding in small tunnels that shrink down to tiny spot that even they need to crawl through while using hit-and-run tactics and preset traps. I think it would be an interesting experiment, but if you can't target a creature it's hard to kill them. I think they could still be a challenge if you stack the environment enough in their favor, which was the whole point.
Enrahim2
Adventurer
I am back! I found it impossible to read everything properly, but I think I have gotten the gist of what has been going on. But there is a point I feel has been a bit hanging. I think @Aldarc made a very strong argument how rule 0 is likely a dead end when analyzing RPGs today in context of real GM power. Indeed the observation that 5ed seemingly do not have it written down in any recognisable form is also very interesting to me.
However if rule 0 is actually irrelevant and non-existent, that opens the question-from where do the DM/GM derive the authority and deference they seem to be enjoying in most games with a GM/DM?
I do have limited experience with non traditional GM based games, but in those I have played, the players has in general been looking toward the GM to resolve situations that might arise. This in contrast to my experience with board games where any players having read the rules normally tend to go to the rulebook rather than for instance defer decission to for instance the one that brought the game. In other words there appear to be a different social dynamics at play. I am curious if thise of you that have played in particular a lot of PtBA games with different groups have experienced something similar there?
My working hypotesis is that the GM authority is inherited trough tradition. As such 5ed and DW are both similarly "tainted" with regard to what role the GM actually plays compared to what is strictly outlined by the written rules. So while DW are modulating this by adressing certain aspects of it, there are still some crucial element of GM authority at play at most tables, even if not immediately recognisable. Even on a table striving for total consensus, there might be unconcious biases toward aligning with the GM.
If this hypotesis is right, interesting follow up questions could be around what this authority actually allow for? And if it is indeed possible to say how well a GM based RPG would run without such a social authority to grease the wheels? (Which ties into the original question - to what extent can a GM give up "powers" - is this authority something that would be possible to get rid of? If not, wouldnt still in one way any player contributions be at the GMs mercy on a certai social level?)
However if rule 0 is actually irrelevant and non-existent, that opens the question-from where do the DM/GM derive the authority and deference they seem to be enjoying in most games with a GM/DM?
I do have limited experience with non traditional GM based games, but in those I have played, the players has in general been looking toward the GM to resolve situations that might arise. This in contrast to my experience with board games where any players having read the rules normally tend to go to the rulebook rather than for instance defer decission to for instance the one that brought the game. In other words there appear to be a different social dynamics at play. I am curious if thise of you that have played in particular a lot of PtBA games with different groups have experienced something similar there?
My working hypotesis is that the GM authority is inherited trough tradition. As such 5ed and DW are both similarly "tainted" with regard to what role the GM actually plays compared to what is strictly outlined by the written rules. So while DW are modulating this by adressing certain aspects of it, there are still some crucial element of GM authority at play at most tables, even if not immediately recognisable. Even on a table striving for total consensus, there might be unconcious biases toward aligning with the GM.
If this hypotesis is right, interesting follow up questions could be around what this authority actually allow for? And if it is indeed possible to say how well a GM based RPG would run without such a social authority to grease the wheels? (Which ties into the original question - to what extent can a GM give up "powers" - is this authority something that would be possible to get rid of? If not, wouldnt still in one way any player contributions be at the GMs mercy on a certai social level?)
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
No worries. With the events going on in my life right now...I get it. Very, very much.
Meteor swarm does not require that you can see the target. It just hits an area: "Each creature in a 40-foot-radius sphere centered on each point you choose must make a Dexterity saving throw. The sphere spreads around corners." (It also notes, no creature may be affected more than once by the spell, but that's kind of irrelevant.)
As noted in an edit, sunbeam is even better, since it's repeatable for the spell's duration. Illusory dragon is quite nice because, y'know, kobolds and dragons--you might be able to take the kobold warren by having the illusion command the kobolds to surrender. Incendiary cloud basically lets you burn out the whole thing in one fell swoop, since it lasts for 10 rounds, spreads out, and explicitly goes around corners. Maddening darkness allows you to negate any efforts at ranged attacks (and works super well if you have a Warlock who can see through magical darkness.) Delayed blast fireball can essentially work as turning traps against the kobolds; advance far enough to upset them, drop the fireball, retreat. You don't even need to do anything necessarily; a creature touching the fiery bead is enough to set it off, and as with all of these, it spreads around corners.
High-level spells are just really powerful. And several of the spells mentioned above are on multiple casters' lists. And a spellcaster's save DC at this level should be 8+6+5 = 19. The kobolds' best save is Dexterity, at...+2. They're only making that save on 17, 18, 19, or 20. At a 20% chance to succeed on their best save...yeah, those kobolds are screwed if they get hit by AoE effects.
Right, but I'm saying the kobold are in tunnels underground. Something like cloudkill would be pretty effective if the caster knew to prep it ahead of time. But Meteor storm won't affect anything in the tunnels. Some of that does depend on how a DM runs it and whether or not there are above ground openings.
It would also likely be a long boring slog. Assuming individual kobolds popping out to attack, PCs would have to rely on readied actions to attack. Depending on the situation there are spells like firewall that could be effective but only in certain directions.
Tucker's kobolds work because they don't play fair. They snipe, the use traps and tricks. They never attack in formation, or stay out in the open. It's all about avoiding being attacked while attacking, preferably while hidden.
However they'd need a 20 to hit many PCs with attacks and even then they wouldn't do much damage.
I think I could come up with a scenario that would technically work, but I can't think of any way to make it interesting.
This can very easily happen in AW too.
The difference is in the process of play. In the approach that @Lanefan has made clear he prefers (he has made his preference clear in this thread and many previous thread), the "recurrence" is decided by the GM independently of what the players do, and could produce a hard move that has no grounding except in the GM's imagination (ie from the players' perspective it comes from nowhere).
In AW, the GM makes a hard move when a player fails a roll, or when a player hands a golden opportunity to the GM (mostly, this will be not attempting to avoid or prevent the consequences of a soft move that signals an immediate threat or risk). Only when such a possibility arises, can the GM then make a hard move which might involve the recurrence of a GM-controlled actor (say, a NPC, or some sort of impersonal force).
The analogue of this in AW is GM preparation of fronts. But as per what I said earlier in this post, a front does not give the GM licence to make hard moves willy nilly.
There is also a bigger picture aspect to AW (and similar games), which is that the GM is expected to follow the lead of the players in establishing their fronts, their NPCs etc. There are different ways this can be done. In AW, the starting point for building these up is the first session, in which the game is focused on following the PCs around, seeing what conflicts they get into, which NPCs they clash with, etc (and the process of PC build and other elements of the GM instructions more-or-less guarantee that conflict and clashes will occur).
So it wouldn't be typical, in AW, for the GM to just introduce an invasion by another hardhold without the players having played some role - whether via the play of their PCs, or via direct communication to the GM, in making that salient.
You attributed a belief to other posters which no one has expressed, and which as far as I know no one holds, namely that GMs are "power hungry" and "abusive" and therefore need to be reined in by rules.
I am wondering why you attributed that belief, and whether - once it's pointed out to you that no one holds it - you will retract the attribution.
Well, in AW the reason that players would look to the GM in this respect is because the rules give the function of establishing consequences to the GM.
