WotBS WotBS critiques for Zeitgeist planning?

[Wednesday Boy]

Yes, it is. I'm not a fan of how skill challenges work.

Ah, so similar in concept but which play out differently.

 

[Bercilak]

I'd like to second Zinovia's point about not splitting the combat encounters from the main story. While I don't mind having a separate section that shows the maps and the stats, it was annoying to sometimes find that essential descriptions of a room were in the main adventure text and at other times they were listed in "features" in the appendix.

I also like the idea of fewer NPCs that tag along with the party. One every now and then (an essential guide, the walking MacGuffin, etc.) is fine, but too often the Burning Sky npcs feel like attempts to make the campaign feel more like a novel than an adventure.

Fewer encounters with more variety. My players have occasionally made comments about: "A third encounter of Ragesian soldiers? Really?" Maybe make the battlefields more dynamic--fewer holes for people to fall in and more fiddly bits that players or monsters could use to their advantage.

--Berc

 

[UnknownAtThisTime]

We're definitely dialling right back on skill challenges in . In fact, one discussion we're having is considering the possibility of not having them at all, and getting a bit more pre-4E with skill based encounters.

Then I feel better about starting the thread already. I don't hate SCs per se, but man it just seemed like overload there.

 

[UnknownAtThisTime]

Again, I want to echo two toher suggestions already offered:

1) the notion of not having "so many" NPCs that tag along, and NPCs in general.

2) The encounters appendixed from the story.

I am glad some of my suggestions are at least shared by others.

 

[Jhaelen]

Yes, it is. I'm not a fan of how skill challenges work.

For me they work like a charm, but I don't like the way they're written up in published modules.

When I'm using them in my game, they're much more free-form. So, I wouldn't mind if they were just presented as an outline describing what they're supposed to achieve and what potential outcomes for (partial) failures might be.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I like skill challenges - but as an improvisational tool more than anything written down. And neither WoTC nor WoBS formats help me use them.

 

[LightPhoenix]

1) the notion of not having "so many" NPCs that tag along, and NPCs in general.

I on the other hand appreciate having them; with only three players, balancing becomes a real chore. NPCs allow me to focus more on the prepping the game than on prepping the combats.

It's probably way to much work for relatively little payoff, but I think it would be neat if each adventure had (depending on how Zeitgeist is written) a brief section for each NPC outlining their part in the adventure, including possible outs for those that don't want them. Or, if Zeitgeist is NPC-light, possible NPCs who might join and reasons why.

Reading through WotBS, I've been thinking about writing such a document up.

 

[UnknownAtThisTime]

I on the other hand appreciate having them; with only three players, balancing becomes a real chore. NPCs allow me to focus more on the prepping the game than on prepping the combats.

I run it with three PCs as well. So my perspective is with so many NPCs, the party itself becomes 'overwhelmed'. Different strokes for diffwerent folks. I have had no trouble adjusting encounters by removing baddies/replacing them with minions.

It's probably way to much work for relatively little payoff, but I think it would be neat if each adventure had (depending on how Zeitgeist is written) a brief section for each NPC outlining their part in the adventure, including possible outs for those that don't want them. Or, if Zeitgeist is NPC-light, possible NPCs who might join and reasons why.

Reading through WotBS, I've been thinking about writing such a document up.

I think this is a great suggestion.

 

[Morrus]

Again, I want to echo two toher suggestions already offered:

1) the notion of not having "so many" NPCs that tag along, and NPCs in general.

I find this confusing. They're completely optional and excludable. Why deny them to those groups who find them useful?

You can use them as little or as much as you want to. As the DM, you make that call. Including them allows people who would make a different choice to you the option; omitting them gives those people no option.

I can't get behind the concept of excluding options because 100% of the customers won't use them. Better to include them and let people choose to not use them.

 

[UnknownAtThisTime]

I find this confusing. They're completely optional and excludable. Why deny them to those groups who find them useful?

You can use them as little or as much as you want to. As the DM, you make that call. Including them allows people who would make a different choice to you the option; omitting them gives those people no option.

I can't get behind the concept of excluding options because 100% of the customers won't use them. Better to include them and let people choose to not use them.

I don't disagree with your logic. If I were you I might make the same point, and might also disregard my suggestion. And naturally, as I am running it, I am removing those that don't mesh well with our play.

However, understand this:
1) Objectively, so far WotBS has "a lot" of NPCs. Whether used by the DM or not, simply having them adds overhead to the game planning (as well as adding many positive things such as a rich setting and deep and complex environment).
2) when those NPCs carry information or plot hooks, it is not easy to "exclude" them.

Perhaps there is a more happy medium. Perhaps not. I defer that to the authors (and publisher) to decide, but wanted to share my opinion.