The Dungeon Masters' Foundation Mk.II

[LilMissKittyn]

@LMK
Yeah becuase I'm sure the Total War company is just going to hand me their engine that they spent year upon year developing....

Calm down. Just an idea, and since I don't know the games well and most games will let you build your own missions, I thought it may be possible. I know that if they did the situation would be a little...obvious, but hey, sometimes everyone needs the obvious pointed out to them.
[sblock] Me more than anyone else, as you well know. I'll be on later tonight. Have fun playing WC! I love you![/sblock]

I have a related question, which do you think is the best way to handle a shortage of players ?
say you are down to 1or 2 PCs
1. DMPC
2. 2x PC's per player
3. Henchman or followers
4. take a break, recruit more players
5. Alter the adventure to fit 2 characters

No comment on 1 and 2, I think enough's been said. (Though DMPC would cut RPing less than 2 PCs each).

Henchmen....eh, that seems a bit burdensome. Mostly for the reasons Mordmorgan pointed out.

Take a break...I don't know about you, but the players I know don't take breaks. Speaking from personal experience, it's not a good idea (and I'm still the one trying to find a group :\ ) Recruiting can also be difficult, because there are few effective ways to find experienced players.

Altering the adventure is probably my top choice as well. Admittedly, you have some skills missing from the group, but the game is a great deal more manageable this way and there are ways to compensate (multi-class, etc).

One thing I think would be nice about the DMF Forum is that good questions and disscusions wont be lost. Like Y.O.'s request for opinions on the seperate forum (which btw I like and will support). And old descusions can be brought back up quickly and easily by just posting in that discussions threads. When anyone had something like the DMPC it could have its own thread and go without interuptions.

Thanks for the articulation of ideas. (My brain doesn't do that anymore).
A few reasons of my own to have a seperate forum:
1) No harrassment about being a "clubhouse" group (or having bad spelling, for that matter).
2) Setting up not only sub-threads, but sub-groups as well
3) Having admin control will help a lot. We're getting to the size now that we need to start regulating a little better than just a single thread (personally, I get a bit confused when we're addressing 4 or 5 different topics at once).
4) More attraction to the group than just a single thread. If we go out there and recruit, people are more likely to come, since we "have our own forum." Oooh, glamorous.
5) More visibility and selection of posts. Face it, not everyone can read every post, all the time. It would make it easier on people if they could just read the things they are interested in.
6) We could cover more discussion topics. One of the reasons that I gave for having the DMF in the first place was that DMs can come here to get answers, fast. Well, this is just another way to get more answers, faster.

I'm sure I'll think of more five minutes after I post this.

@Article
I'll post on this when I have the time to read it. Sorry for the delay.

Over and out.

 

[Xen155]

Thankyou Tiny Kitten Lady for supporting me on that.

And wow Yair, when im bored I ussally am LESS productive than when im not.
[SBLOCK] Does this guy remind you of Shard?[/SBLOCK]

 

[Mordmorgan the Mad]

[SBLOCK] Does this guy remind you of Shard?[/SBLOCK]

This guy might be Shard.

 

[Xen155]

[SBLOCK]WOW! WHAT IF HE WAS SHARD BUT DIDN'T KNOW IT! That would be CRAZY!
Kinda like me.... people are CONVINCED that im AO and I keep saying I dont think I am but they just go right along worshiping me.... (We all can have dreams.)[/SBLOCK]

 

[Mordmorgan the Mad]

Re: Large-scale combat: I never found these massive battles very much fun. They remind me a little too much of videogames (especially Warcraft), and I haven't found a way to make them even remotely interesting. If anyone has any comments or ideas about these large-scale combats, lets hear them!

 

[BSF]

Large scale battles are a conundrum. What I have actually done in the past is handwave it. Shhhh!

What I mean is that I determine what the outcome will be ahead of time and then I just focus on what impact the PCs will have. I have had a battle where their impact was noticable only in the small perimeter around them. I have had them crush the enemy leadership and rout the enemy entirely.

That last was fun though. It is neat, though somewhat disheartening to watch part of the group take down a NightWalker in less than a round. As well as a Famine Spirit in a single attack sequence. And a 19th level Divine Lich that had been imbued to act as an evil god's avatar on the Prime. The lich lasted less than a round too. On the plus side, the 30 spell-stiched ghouls that unleased magic missile at the barbarian was fun. He was looking for some great cleave action figuring his DR 5/- would protect him from almost all harm.

That battle also included another Night Walker, 3 Death Knights, a 19th level Arcane Lich and a bunch of other nasty stuff. The city would have been hosed it it hadn't been for the PCs. So, why bother rolling dice endlessly to see how many skeletons and warriors die? Handwave it and let the PCs save the day, or not, with their heroic actions.

 

[LilMissKittyn]

@ Article
If I had more time I'd recommend specific changes. As far as content, which is most likely what you're looking for, I won't comment but it looks pretty good.
It's a long read, though, and there are some things that might be condensed. Also - back to high school english - read it out loud. There are some sentences that sound wierd. (ex. the last sentence in the first paragraph, it really caught me off guard.)
But this is not english class, and I am not a teacher. Just my two cents on how to make it clearer.

 

[Nightcloak]

Large scale battles are a conundrum. What I have actually done in the past is handwave it. Shhhh!

Actually, I've always done the same thing. It's easier, keeps control in your hands, and advances the story how you choose. I usualy have multiple scenerio endings if the PCs are directly involved based on the "effectiveness" of their envolvement.

I did by Cry Havoc for the my game when the players advanced to high level in case they went the Leadership feat or land-owner route, but it didn't come into play.

 

[Blade of Desecration]

[SBLOCK] Does this guy remind you of Shard?[/SBLOCK]

Yeah, your right! I still wonder what happened to Shard... . We have so many old members who didn't make the switch.

War: Yeah, handwave. Definitely.

 

[Yair]

I'm sorry to disappoint, but I'm not Shard. I'm sure he's a great guy, but I'm just not. Wait, that didn't came out right.... hmmm...

Thanks for the comments on the article. Regarding the english I am afraid it's my second tongue, not my native language, so I don't even know what the mistakes are. I agree it needs condensing. And as for the notes in agreements - thanks

On War: It depends on what you want to get out of the war out-of-game. I'd recommend something like Cry Havoc if you want to play a little miniature-game and have fun with it, but for a roleplaying experience winging it is quite alright. In the few cases where it mattered in my games I used ELs to evaluate things, and then adjusted by player actions. I believe the Slavelords of Cydonia system is based on that.