SableWyvern
Adventurer
Femerus the Gnecro said:
Ah, but if the Hero rulebooks are only two pages long, and one page is taken up with this essay, Mr Omega would have used far more than the 5 or 10% or whatever that is allowed under fair use.
How to Ruin Your Campaign
Ah, but if the Hero rulebooks are only two pages long, and one page is taken up with this essay, Mr Omega would have used far more than the 5 or 10% or whatever that is allowed under fair use.
drnuncheon
Explorer
Re: Re: Re: Re: How to Ruin Your Campaign
Nah, it's only railroading when "that the players don't agree with" turns into "...and the players can't do anything about it."
After all, you can railroad to a happy ending as well as to hosing your players.
J
hong said:
Nah, it's only railroading when "that the players don't agree with" turns into "...and the players can't do anything about it."
After all, you can railroad to a happy ending as well as to hosing your players.
J
Last edited:
Henry
Autoexreginated
True, but nitpicky, SW.
Seriously, I think the essay brings out some very salient points, and thanks to Black Omega for quoting them.
Railroading, however, is different for folling through on consequences. If the Players ignore obvious clue that what they plan is suicidal, then by all means consequences should be observed.
What will you do when the players of 1st level characters decide they are going to overthrow the local lord, and they will start by urinating on him at an audience at court?
Seriously, I think the essay brings out some very salient points, and thanks to Black Omega for quoting them.
Railroading, however, is different for folling through on consequences. If the Players ignore obvious clue that what they plan is suicidal, then by all means consequences should be observed.
What will you do when the players of 1st level characters decide they are going to overthrow the local lord, and they will start by urinating on him at an audience at court?
Re: Re: How to Ruin Your Campaign
Ysgarran -- two questions.
1) What is the "Four from Cormyr" ambush scene?
2) Are you honestly telling me that the ambushers stole all of the characters' equipment, but didn't kill them? And they stole ALL the equipment, right? Not just some of it?
Ysgarran said:
Ysgarran -- two questions.
1) What is the "Four from Cormyr" ambush scene?
2) Are you honestly telling me that the ambushers stole all of the characters' equipment, but didn't kill them? And they stole ALL the equipment, right? Not just some of it?
Black Omega
First Post
I'll take that bet.Savage Wombat said:
The closest thing you will find to this in current Hero Games material is page 344 of FREd, the 'Deadly Don'ts: How to ruin your campaign with things players's hate'. It lists six points and takes nothing straight from this list. So, they've covered the same ground, but with a new list making different points like 'Don't take the PC's prisoner more than necessary.'
Berandor
lunatic
Let the dice fall where they may:
I don't know. It depends on the game and current story arc. I feel that D&D is meant for a heroic game, and that would make me fudge some rolls in such a scene (I won't betray players for trying something cool).
The same goes for Adventure!, a pulp action game.
On the other hand, in Vamire, or (to a lesser extent) Trinity, I play a fairly realistic game (you could say gritty). Then, I would let the dice fall. Most of the times. (see below)
The problem is when you fudge, where you fudge. When you fudge once, it's tough to explain why you didn't fudge in a different scenario, when the plot broke down, or a PC died.
Recurring Villain:
I feel that a strong villain is a plus in a good campaign. Sometimes they have to come back. I agree that players start to hate the villain, and sooner or later he'll have to die. But the players invest far more in his death than in some nameless slub.
When the RV gets away, that doesn't mean the players lost. Imagine Blofelld from the Bond movies - he was thwarted everytime. Still, when you saw the chair, the hand and the white cat, it added excitement to the film
When I see the possibility for a recurring villain, I might fudge the dice for him to get away and see the players' reaction. That's where I'd fudge in a realistic game (and when I really enjoyed or admired a player's game).
So, I'm a fudger, and a recurrer. I'm a bad DM, it seems...
B
P.S.: Note that the WW games I mentioned are far less roll-heavy than D&D (imo).
I don't know. It depends on the game and current story arc. I feel that D&D is meant for a heroic game, and that would make me fudge some rolls in such a scene (I won't betray players for trying something cool).
The same goes for Adventure!, a pulp action game.
On the other hand, in Vamire, or (to a lesser extent) Trinity, I play a fairly realistic game (you could say gritty). Then, I would let the dice fall. Most of the times. (see below)
The problem is when you fudge, where you fudge. When you fudge once, it's tough to explain why you didn't fudge in a different scenario, when the plot broke down, or a PC died.
Recurring Villain:
I feel that a strong villain is a plus in a good campaign. Sometimes they have to come back. I agree that players start to hate the villain, and sooner or later he'll have to die. But the players invest far more in his death than in some nameless slub.
When the RV gets away, that doesn't mean the players lost. Imagine Blofelld from the Bond movies - he was thwarted everytime. Still, when you saw the chair, the hand and the white cat, it added excitement to the film
When I see the possibility for a recurring villain, I might fudge the dice for him to get away and see the players' reaction. That's where I'd fudge in a realistic game (and when I really enjoyed or admired a player's game).
So, I'm a fudger, and a recurrer. I'm a bad DM, it seems...
B
P.S.: Note that the WW games I mentioned are far less roll-heavy than D&D (imo).
Last edited:
I don't fudge, I roll all my dice in front of the players. Hasn't ruined the game yet. Some PCs die from unlucky rolls (eg Ettin staggered at 0hp made 1 last attack, Critted and killed the PC heroine), others from bad choices. Likewise villains succeed, die, or fail but escape as the dice fall. I think this gives the game much more interest, and a more heroic feel, than a fudged game. I would actually think a combat-oriented game like D&D is much _less_ amenable to fudging than is a storyteller game like Vampire.
Bran Blackbyrd
Explorer
I'm pretty sure having players is the fastest way to ruin your campaign.
Having said that, having no plot whatsoever is a deathsentence. I played in a campaign that the DM hadn't thought through very well. A few sessions in he completely ran out of plot. For the next two years (real life) we basically just wandered through the woods with no way to renew our supplies or get new information. Ugh.
Constantly hosing the player's abilities is a bad thing too. In that same campaign, another friend was playing a fighter who was totally built around mounted combat. The DM killed his mount three times for no apparent reason. Not to be mean, not for the sake of the story, just because he hadn't thought of anything better to do. It takes a long time to find a new mount when you are wandering through the woods, and the fighter was nearly useless without his horse.
Having said that, having no plot whatsoever is a deathsentence. I played in a campaign that the DM hadn't thought through very well. A few sessions in he completely ran out of plot. For the next two years (real life) we basically just wandered through the woods with no way to renew our supplies or get new information. Ugh.
Constantly hosing the player's abilities is a bad thing too. In that same campaign, another friend was playing a fighter who was totally built around mounted combat. The DM killed his mount three times for no apparent reason. Not to be mean, not for the sake of the story, just because he hadn't thought of anything better to do. It takes a long time to find a new mount when you are wandering through the woods, and the fighter was nearly useless without his horse.
Chimera
First Post
Man, you guys are giving me seriously bad flashbacks. I'm probably going to dream about this tonight. (Aaaiiieee!!!!)
RVs are generally good, if they have a point. But I'm having serious pain at the thought of one badly named RV from a past campaign I played in who would pop in from nowhere at random times, pop off a few major spells and vanish. Hitting him below -10, grappling him, *nothing* we did could get rid of this guy. We finally had to tell the GM that we weren't playing anymore if this guy didn't stay dead.
(At this point, Chimera falls to the floor in a fetal position, sweating profusely and pitifully crying "Railroading...Railroading... ")
RVs are generally good, if they have a point. But I'm having serious pain at the thought of one badly named RV from a past campaign I played in who would pop in from nowhere at random times, pop off a few major spells and vanish. Hitting him below -10, grappling him, *nothing* we did could get rid of this guy. We finally had to tell the GM that we weren't playing anymore if this guy didn't stay dead.
(At this point, Chimera falls to the floor in a fetal position, sweating profusely and pitifully crying "Railroading...Railroading... ")
Mouseferatu
Hero
Of course, I think that in all ten "methods," we have to assume an unspoken "more than your players like" tacked to the end of it.
My plots are always complex, even convoluted. But I've never had anyone fail to enjoy them, because I make sure to leave enough clues and drop enough hints that if the players miss one, they'll find another. In fact, they enjoy figuring out the plot more than they do actually playing their characters.
So have I violated rule 5? No, because, at least for this group, it's not "overcomplicated." However, the exact same plot, run for a group that's less inclined to look for plot twists, might indeed be overcomplicated.
Similarly, I hate when DMs fudge just to keep a PC (or favorite NPC) alive, but I also hate boring encounters. 95% of the time, I'm a "let the dice fall where they may" type. But I will fudge rolls--sometimes for the PCs, sometimes against--if it's necessary to make an encounter more interesting, not just for me, but for everyone. Again, my players understand this, and since I don't do it often (and they never know when I'm doing it anyway), they don't mind.
That's only a problem if you let the players know that you're fudging. If they don't know, there's no problem. That's why I still roll dice behind the screen. As I said, the vast majority of the time, I abide by 'em, but I want to reserve the option of fudging, just in case.
My plots are always complex, even convoluted. But I've never had anyone fail to enjoy them, because I make sure to leave enough clues and drop enough hints that if the players miss one, they'll find another. In fact, they enjoy figuring out the plot more than they do actually playing their characters.
So have I violated rule 5? No, because, at least for this group, it's not "overcomplicated." However, the exact same plot, run for a group that's less inclined to look for plot twists, might indeed be overcomplicated.
Similarly, I hate when DMs fudge just to keep a PC (or favorite NPC) alive, but I also hate boring encounters. 95% of the time, I'm a "let the dice fall where they may" type. But I will fudge rolls--sometimes for the PCs, sometimes against--if it's necessary to make an encounter more interesting, not just for me, but for everyone. Again, my players understand this, and since I don't do it often (and they never know when I'm doing it anyway), they don't mind.
That's only a problem if you let the players know that you're fudging. If they don't know, there's no problem. That's why I still roll dice behind the screen. As I said, the vast majority of the time, I abide by 'em, but I want to reserve the option of fudging, just in case.
Similar Threads
