My God, It's Full of Clones

[pawsplay]

I have unlimited wishes . . . whee! . . . Hey, this game is boring. Everything is too easy to beat. Huh?

Look at me, I metagame, my characters have no motivation or personality of their own, how fun.

EFREET: I will now grant you three wishes.
ROGUE: No, thanks. I'm only 6th level, I think that would rob my life of challenge.

And, of course, I love the logic that because something in the game is broken in the hands of certain players, the problem is obviously with those players. "This ability is only a problem if you use it the way it was written." Ha!

 

[Raven Crowking]

Lesson learned: "Don't put a something in an adventure unless you want the PCs to take it."

That's the First Rule of DMing!

 

[hong]

Otherwise is sort of smacks of taunting your players with the vaunted "npc only" effects.

Nothing wrong with "NPC only" effects. In the end, they need to roll atk + d20 > AC to hit, and save + d20 > DC to save, just like everybody else.

 

[Nail]

I believe the term for that is 'greyhawking'.

Ah! I *though* I had heard that before.

Yep: Greyhawking. Kill things and take their stuff. All of it.

 

[jensun]

Are you vehemently opposed to all house rules?

No, not at all. I make extensive use of House Rules when I run, mostly to patch up stuff that otherwise doesnt work or breaks the game. I also find that the more material I allow beyond the Core then the more I need to House Rule.

I do however believe that NPC's should work on the same basis as PC's. That doesnt mean they can only do whats in the Book but if they do something beyond the books there needs to be a logical reason for it. And if there is a reason for it existing then the players may well get access to it. In fact, if its a new spell or somesuch then they probably will get access to it if they can find it and take it.

What I despise is some of the deux ex machinae stuff you find, both in earlier editions and occasionally in the current one.

A classic example is the 1e Tomb of Horrows.

Player: "I walk through the doorway"
GM: "You appear naked stood outside the dungeon, all of your gear stripped from you."
Player: "..."

The 2e return module wasnt much better in that regard.

 

[jensun]

Look at me, I metagame, my characters have no motivation or personality of their own, how fun.

How on earth is it metagamimg for a level 11 Wizard with an Int 24, a Knowledge: Arcane skill of 21 and a Knowledge: planes skill of 21 to use Planar Binding to conjure Efreets in order to obtain "pseudo"* free wishes.

And what that has to do with motivation or personality is frankly beyond me.

*I say pseudo as these scenarios never account for the fluff or campaign elements such as said Efreets getting pissed off and seeking revenge. Or gating in said annoying Wizard in order to perform humiliating house cleaning chores in the City of Brass.

 

[James McMurray]

No, not at all. I make extensive use of House Rules when I run, mostly to patch up stuff that otherwise doesnt work or breaks the game. I also find that the more material I allow beyond the Core then the more I need to House Rule.

Yeah. They don't playtest books against each other, just the core rules. Assuming they playtest at all these days.

I do however believe that NPC's should work on the same basis as PC's.

I agree in the vast majority of situations, but if something is going to be fun I'll toss that rule out the window (like with Ravager of Time).

What I despise is some of the deux ex machinae stuff you find, both in earlier editions and occasionally in the current one.

Same here, mostly.

A classic example is the 1e Tomb of Horrows.

Player: "I walk through the doorway"
GM: "You appear naked stood outside the dungeon, all of your gear stripped from you."
Player: "..."

The 2e return module wasnt much better in that regard.

I loved running RttToH, and my players loved playing it. It's a lot easier when converted to 3.x though. In 1e/2e they were designed as tests of player skill and caution. If you made it all the way home with the treasure it was because you worked your butt off for it and never took anything for granted. In 3e it was more a test of your ability to roll your search skill for the rogue. At least the main tomb, the return boxed set involved a lot more than traps, and was a lot more fun because of that and the story involved, at least IMO.

 

[jensun]

I loved running RttToH, and my players loved playing it. It's a lot easier when converted to 3.x though. In 1e/2e they were designed as tests of player skill and caution. If you made it all the way home with the treasure it was because you worked your butt off for it and never took anything for granted. In 3e it was more a test of your ability to roll your search skill for the rogue. At least the main tomb, the return boxed set involved a lot more than traps, and was a lot more fun because of that and the story involved, at least IMO.

I've ran it twice now and enjoyed it both times, once in 2e and once in 3e.

It doesnt so much demand caution as require the players to be utterly paranoid about everything single thing they do.

The end Tomb was better than the first although the very first trap was just ridiculously excessive and unfun.

As for the 3e version, do people actually roll Search? Thats what taking 10 is for.

 

[James McMurray]

My players took ten most of the time, but rolled every now and then. I'm not sure why.

 

[Raven Crowking]

My players took ten most of the time, but rolled every now and then. I'm not sure why.

No doubt they hoped for a "20"!

Randomness is sometimes more fun than the static "Take 10".