Staple Spells Used against Genre Conventions

jodyjohnson said:
Normally I want my players to win or at least have fun losing.

For a while our game was sliding towards "smart" play rather than "role-playing" and certainly not sticking to genre (rather than heroic it was efficient).

Why is this against genre, per se. It seems to me a lot of sf/f/adventure fiction are about the good guy outsmart the bad guy.

Of course, it gets dull if the same trick works every time, but some people play just so they can feel clever. It's part of the entertainment value. So long as the game remains challenging, are you really wise to want to rob them of something that entertains them?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

shilsen said:
Only if your definition of a hero is fairly narrow. To use an example from fiction, most people would see Indiana Jones as a heroic character. Does the scene from "Raiders of the Lost Ark" where Indy faces a guy swinging a big sword and proceeds to shoot him make Indy stop being a hero? Not for me. Maybe it does for you.

I love that scene.

It makes Indy more of a believeable (human) hero, and ... it breaks the convention. Which is what makes it memorable and amusing.

That scene wasn't scripted that way - I'm sure he was supposed to overcome the challenge by some means within genre (run away, whip v. sword, sword v. sword, help from a bystander, etc.). But it wasn't.

Harrison Ford was just tired and ad libbed. And Spielberg liked it (and so did I).

However if the whole movie was about breaking the genre conventions it would not have been a heroic movie for me. You can't play against what doesn't exist.

It's like using betrayal or deception in a campaign where NPCs are never loyal or honest. There's no dramatic weight to it.
 

jodyjohnson said:
I love that scene.

It makes Indy more of a believeable (human) hero, and ... it breaks the convention. Which is what makes it memorable and amusing.

That scene wasn't scripted that way - I'm sure he was supposed to overcome the challenge by some means within genre (run away, whip v. sword, sword v. sword, help from a bystander, etc.). But it wasn't.

Harrison Ford was just tired and ad libbed. And Spielberg liked it (and so did I).

However if the whole movie was about breaking the genre conventions it would not have been a heroic movie for me. You can't play against what doesn't exist.

It's like using betrayal or deception in a campaign where NPCs are never loyal or honest. There's no dramatic weight to it.

But as far as I can tell, no one in your game, good guy or bad guy, can ever do anything like that. Who gets to use betrayal, deception or anything else you consider dishonorable? Can a player in your campaign be the Indiana Jones who shoots the guy in the marketplace? If so, when? When is it acceptable to be dishonorable?

Can a bad guy be the one who shoots the guy? "That's not fair!" the players will yell. "Why not?" "Because we can't do that even if we're shooting the bad guy." "But he's a bad guy; you would expect him to do something like that." "But the rules say he can't because we can't."
 

jodyjohnson said:
However if the whole movie was about breaking the genre conventions it would not have been a heroic movie for me. You can't play against what doesn't exist.

Heroism is generally in the goals, not necessarily the means. Indy wasn't a hero necessarily because he used heroic methods to accomplish his goals. He was a hero because of what his goals were.
 

Storm Raven said:
Heroism is generally in the goals, not necessarily the means. Indy wasn't a hero necessarily because he used heroic methods to accomplish his goals. He was a hero because of what his goals were.

A good example of this is the founding of the United States. We Americans hold up our forefathers as heroes yet, if you look at it from a purely historical perspective, they lied, they cheated, they stole, they murdered, they engaged in guerilla warfare, etc. all in the name of freedom. I find that notion, freedom in the face of tyranny, to be very heroic indeed although anyone could view some of their actions as anything but heroic.
 
Last edited:

jodyjohnson, I think I understand what you're getting at, and I humbly suggest that the folks jumping up and down on you step back for a moment and take a breath.

If I understand what you're saying, you would prefer that your players were more like Beowulf - grab a sword, go into the monster's lair, and battle with Grendel - and less like the "normal" D&D hero - draw a +5 flaming bursting vorpal sword, wait for the cleric to cast bless and bull's strength, the druid to cast barkskin, and the wizard to cast greater invisibility on said hero, allow the rogue to sneak into a flanking position in the shadows in the lair, go into the monster's lair, and kill poor Grendel with a critical before he knows what hit him.

Would that be a correct summary?

This is not an uncommon problem - in fact, there is an article on the d20 Modern website all about this phenomenon.

I agree that what passes for "heroic fantasy" in D&D is a genre all its own - it's one of the reasons I don't really play D&D anymore, except with a pretty select group of like-minded people. Many players approach D&D like it's a SWAT exercise, so I'd rather play d20 Modern or Mutants and Masterminds where this sort of meta-thinking is more palatable and closer to the genre, and where I don't mind thinking in these terms myself in my role as the GM.

It may be playing "smart," it may be using all the tools available in the system, and it is thoroughly endorsed by the current crop of designers (as evidenced by the sequence of buffs listed for just about every NPC in any given published adventure), but I don't care for it either, jodyjohnson - IMHO it robs heroic fantasy of its heroism and turns it into a tactical exercise, and for that I have other game systems.

I personally don't limit characters options in quite the same way to achieve this end - for example, I use alternate magic systems so that sequences of buff spells simply aren't available and I utilize story awards including roleplaying bonuses in place of XP for monsters "overcome" (=killed).

I don't know if any of this was helpful or not, but I hope it was. Good luck in capturing that elusive feel of heroic fantasy!
 

I think the folks who are suggesting a change of game mechanics are on to something, though you may not need to do anything so extreme as buying new rules sets. ;)

Many of your concerns involve using spells and abilities in ways that I (and nearly everyone else) find "normal." The very fact that these spells exist in the game suggests that they should be used in conflict. And let's face it: most of the spells in the PHB are combat-oriented.

You could:

(a) Remove some or all of the spells from play. House-ruling these spells out might be a useful solution (though you'll need to have a heart-to-heart with your players to make sure they aren't upset about the change). Or, perhaps you could implement the Recharge Magic variant listed in Unearthed Arcana. Make spells like entangle take a looooong time to recharge so they characters might not be able to use it again right away.

(b) Tactics. Others have mentioned it, but it's fair to say that if your party uses a certain tactic, then bad guys will hear of it and use it, too. Yes, it's circular. Welcome to "real" life. Emulation may be the sincerest form of flattery. But consider this: all of today's kids watching "reality" TV shows are learning that the winner is often the person who lies/cheats/steals/manipulates the most. Why not throw in a few NPCs to appeal to the character's "good nature" and ask them to prevent some kind of "moral decay?" Once the players have had a taste of their own medicine (or worse) they may willingly participate in efforts to fight honorably.

Another thing to consider is that you might not be having enough combats in a given time-period. Do your players have enough time to rest after each combat that they're back up to full? Why not hit them with four orcs (nothing special about them, just four orcs straight out of the Monster Manual) so they buff the heck out of themselves? Then, after that, let the "elite" orc guard come in and fight them. Uh oh... They've used all their spells on a combat that didn't matter. Now they have to fight harder with fewer resources. Perhaps they need more of a challenge to help them scale back some of their tactics?

(c) Implement the Reputation rules in Unearthed Arcana (or roll your own, since what's in the book is fairly abstract). Let's face it: we always hear about how adventurers are supposed to be disliked by the general public. Why? Maybe it's because they have a reputation of fighting dirty. If your PCs' base of operations isn't some Old West style town, them walking into a tavern fully armed and armored is likely to result in a response akin to, "Black Bart is here! Everyone run!" The bartender will not appreciate the loss of business, and before long, you'll have the local constabulary asking your PCs to remove their weapons or get outta town.

Once the PCs have been run out of enough towns, they'll start to get the picture. But if they need more help, what if Lawful Good churches refuse healing to folks who regularly slit the throats of helpless opponents? Wizards refuse to sell them a new magic wand because they don't want to be associated with "mindless killers."

If enough baddies run away from the PCs after they've flown into murderous rages, slaying everything they see standing, isn't it possible that the local band of orcs will try to form an alliance with the goblins? Or the trolls? or the dragon outside of town? or...? If the bad guys are feeling seriously threatened, and the PCs have a reputation as ruthless killers, they may decide that all the tactics in the world won't save them. When in doubt, use attrition. You have 5 guys, I have 100. I'll just have my guys aid another on a few big brutes, grapple you, wrestle you to the ground, and then slit your throats before you can kill us all off.

* * *

You might even think about combining some of the above solutions. Imagine for a moment that you're an adventuring party of middling success. You've looted a couple of ruins, slain some evil orcs, and rescued the mayor's daughter while managing to amass a respectable fortune and groupie following. Then, from the next town over, you hear news of a new adventuring band. These guys don't play fair. They paralyze folks and slit their throats, entangle foes and cut them down with bows and arrows despite their cries for mercy (this might not be true, but rumors aren't always true, are they?), shoot fleeing combatants in the back, and walk into town fully armed and intimidate the populace into giving them free room and board and free supplies (again, maybe not true, but rumors can play hell on a reputation).

Suddenly, your honor is at stake. Your groupies aren't so sure you're as heroic as your own stories about yourselves indicate. The local mayor gets jittery around you, constantly eyeing your "peace-bonded" weapon. Merchants are suddenly "closed" whenever you venture over to check out the new wares. And you notice a group of the local militia seems to be keeping an eye on you from a "safe" distance.

Those jerks in the next town are ruining this heroism thing for you! What are you and your buddies going to do? Why, head on over and bonk that other group of "heroes" on the head. Sure, you'll be as honorable as you can, but you'll be mean and nasty and tell them that if they don't shape up, you'll come back to kick their cowardly hides! So, whallop them, leave them bloodied and bruised (but alive), and head back to your own home base praising your efforts and singing songs about how you gave hell to the cowardly adventurers the next town over.
 

jodyjohnson said:
They were overkilling the mooks so bad that I made the end boss run away because it was so obvious to him that there was no contest.

End result: no challenge, and no resolution with the end boss (orc chief), no reward.
So why not abolish all XP awards for combat entirely?

I'm serious about that. Switch to story awards. Let your players know that XP will be awarded for accomplishing things: if they figure out who the bad guys are, if they foil their opponents' schemes, if they perform heroic deeds which have an impact on the world around them, then they get XP. If they just slaughter a bunch of dudes, that's not worth anything.

Then hang another carrot in front of them, and let them know that XP will also be awarded for good roleplaying, for "heroic acts," and for willingly complicating their own characters' lives. Suddenly, that encounter with a bunch of orcish mooks and an Orc Chief isn't just an exercise in pounding the snot out of them as efficiently as possible, it's a set of opportunities that they can exploit. They might try to take prisoners, they might try to drive the orcs into a retreat and track them back to their village, they might take steps to fortify the nearby village and train the townspeople to defend themselves (thereby making the orcs want to move somewhere else where the pickings are easier), or any number of other things. Or, y'know, they could bust out the spell artillery, make a pile of orc corpses in three rounds or less, and get absolutely nothing for their efforts.

Doesn't matter if it's a goblin or a dragon or a full-on high-and-mighty god, just hacking it into itty bitty chunks gets you zero XP. The story award only gets doled out when they actually do something that matters.

--
of course, they'll still get to take the stuff of the guys they kill, but xp > loot
 

Some observations:

1) Its the DM's job to create set the campaigns tone. If you want encourage a certain style of play, then its up to you to describe a world in which "the right" behaviors are rewarded, say where honorable players win the hand of fair princesses, the patronage of powerfulk lords, and the lottery...

2) It's up to the DM to be sensitive to their players styles of play. Making "honor above all" the default assumption for the narrative isn't smart for group that wants to play ruthlessly efficient murderers...

3) Trying to establish playstyle through a layer of metagame restrictions on PC actions is clumsy. I can't see it working. It inherently draws a player out of game, making the scene subordinate to the (house) rules...

4) Subtly trying to encourage a playstyle through rewards, like action points, or simply beneficial NPC allies, is far better...

5) Its really unfair to label the meticulous and cautious style of play "smart". Some people who play brash, dashing heroes are exhibiting a preference for a specific kind of play... they're not neccessarily "dumb" players. Give me a party of foolhardy madmen (and women) over a paranoid, map-happy, S.W.A.T-team full of engineer/accountants any day...
 

"Sometimes you lose, and I can live with that." - a very rare adventurer.
Yep, rare alright. If losing means TPK as often as it does in some campaigns (a lot of monsters run faster than PCs), it's somewhat surprising that this losing adventurer is still alive.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top