In article <45b69924@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, tussock <scrub@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> A typical party here would collapse the entry, or pour a ton of
>lantern oil down it and set fire (either way they're dead). Not finding
>the back way in is a licence to avoid the likely linear adventure module
>with a little creative destruction.
> At least, that's what I like to see. 8]
Unfortunately in a series of linked modules, doing so will end you
up so severely lacking in treasure that you'll die. I hate to
encourage money-grubbing, but if the thing is run "by the book" you
really have grub (and even then there is not enough).
Both the current _Worms_ PCs and the SCAP PCs like to spend money on
other things than equipment, too, which is im****tant for roleplaying but
makes the treasure even more essential.
>Mary Kuhner wrote:
>> The player insisted, saying flatly, "I can't maintain suspension of
>> disbelief doing this one room at a time."
> OK, group contract thing. Personally I love one room at a time. As
>in first run hits room 12; second run hits room 23, gets the goal, and
>gets out with some clever avoidance tactics.
He's perfectly okay with this when the PCs' goal can be met that
way, but in this case his goal was to capture or kill everyone in
the complex; avoidance tactics weren't going to do what he wanted.
I don't get in the player's way on things like this if I can help
it.
(He then delivered almost all the prisoners to the Cult of the
Green Lady: I think the politics will be fun.)
The SCAP PCs tried to make their near-TPK scenario easier by
bribing a significant baddie not to be there--and it helped, though
not enough. We have no qualms about doing things like this.
But "one room at a time" wasn't meant to mean "we only hit the bits
we need to hit." It was meant to mean "We hit a room and retreat for
a day, then come back and do it again." The NPCs really have to
respond if you do very many iterations of that, unless they are
mindless undead or bound demons or something. And of course events
in the world have to advance too. It takes *forever* to do a big
dungeon this way.
Neverwinter Nights flatly gave up: you seem to sleep for a few
seconds, and nothing ever happens during that time.
> DnD has signifigant synergies between the cl***** in combat, half
>of the party in a fight is typically well less that half as capable, no
>matter who gets left out.
> Like using summons to get the Rogue an easy flank, and the baddie a
>new target to save him some HPs.
What size party are you used to? This is less true the larger the
party is, in my experience. With 4 PCs you definitely use everyone in
every combat if you can. With 8 it is often much better to keep some
back out of the others' way, doing sup****t casting or missile fire
or just guarding the back. Otherwise it is very easy to get tangled
up. And frequently you *can't* reasonably bring 8 characters to
bear, for example in a fight in a 10x10 room with a dogleg entry.
> I haven't read every step of the path in detail, but it's fairly
>likely to hold true to the 'physically close sets of hard encounters'
>style. That's why they keep running short of treasure in the designs
>too, a lot of moderate and hard encounters with nothing easy to chew
>through messes with the default treasure assumptions.
As well as the player's morale, though Jon is much tougher-minded about
this than I am.
> Heh. My own preferences are also unsup****ted. Endangered towns that
>can't handle evacuation schemes. Powerful NPCs won't get off their ass.
Gods, yes. I hate this.
We were talking through the personalities that the SCAP party ended
up with--even the paladin is not, in a classical sense, a very good
person--and finally asked the party leader flat-out why the PCs behave
as they do.
"Because, without exception, the only people we have ever seen being
effective were evil. Being good mostly seems to make you passive
and helpless. In a few exceptional cases good people have tried
to do something, but they always died immediately--like the High
Priest of Cuthburt--or were immediately turned bad."
And then (if the questioner is someone he's willing to trust): "And
no one has ever shown the least bit of interest in the discoveries
I've made or the great twist of fate I'm involved in, except people
who are, by any conventional standard, evil. Being good seems to
mean being numb, indifferent to the world and its glories and terrors."
Even Charis sees this. Paladins who fall from grace traditionally
end up chaotic evil, but I think this one could end up lawful evil.
>No 2nd floor windows. Bad guys that are always in armour but never have
>scrolls to hand. Hell, modules often can't handle the PCs bringing along
>a company or two of archers and pikemen, or a few adepts.
"Can't handle" in the sense of "the encounter is no longer challenging",
or "can't handle" in the sense of "the plot is broken"? I can live with
a certain amount of the former. There are *so many* fights in one of
these paths that it really doesn't matter if some of them are easy, or
even if a whole bunch are easy. But if the later events all collapse
due to early PC actions, that's a pain.
The SCAP PCs just tricked a fairly im****tant foe into letting herself
be Dominated. If the GM hadn't already been committed to going off
the path, this would have forced him to do so: I don't see any way
things could go as originally plotted, given that. But gosh, it was
a satisfactory conclusion. (Catching her with the spell would have
been nice, but it's all luck--she makes the save on a 5. Persuading
her to throw the save, *that* was a coup.)
Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
