Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Fniff]

I personally think that combat in tabletop and videogames is a little overemphasised. Hence pages upon pages of combat rules and a few paragraphs describing social interactions. I'm fine with combat, it's just that I'd prefer if it was considered one of many approaches. It would help with making campaigns with unusual genres where combat wouldn't be appropriate.

[MaximumZero]

Working on it.

[Neonivek]

Whelp with the likeliness that I can run a game being rather high right now... I better start reading

I wonder where I can find guides on how to create great dungeons.

I've read ones that were mostly pointers and ideas... but not many that were in depth.

As for Overemphasis... Yeah. Though for two reasons
1) Dungeons and dragons, the most popular system, is combat focused.
and
2) Systems that aren't combat focused have a billion skills... GOOD LUCK!

Or rather because combat is generally easier to pull off, understand, and make sure all the characters are sort of together on.

Though that is kind of what I like about Call of Cthulhu in that it has a lot of skills but has a good sense of what is useful and what is esoteric (and those skills make you a well balanced person), and combat should be avoided but not to the extent that making a combat focused character is useless.

Shadowrun also has a huge focus on combat, but it emphasizes just as much effort into planning and using your skills to their greatest. Only mediocre GMs in shadowrun lead you down corrodors with constant fights without anything you can do about it, 50% of any run is in the planning phase.

---

The OTHER aspect is what I call "Hey don't you know social-fu?" and DEAR GAWD some systems have it the worst...

If you want to know why "Roleplaying" often gets avoided, that is it right there! The fact that the VAST majority of pen and papers punish you for roleplaying if you aren't the social specialist. It honestly doesn't surprise me that many RPGs actually forgo social skills of any kind.

In my real life group we would often boil down to letting only our most charismatic character speak in any important situation. "I" will admit sometimes I got fed up and chose to speak anyway (with character reasons of course), but that is basically it.

A Barbarian with 7 Charisma isn't socially disabled... They just lack the honey to get people to act out of the ordinary. A person should still be reasonable and a amply witty roleplay should trump all possible rolls.

Combat though everyone has combat covered.

[sjm9876]

The problem with great dungeons is again based on the players.

For example, if you have a dungeon with many possible routes, it gives a target focused group the feeling of choice without having to slow themselves down. If you have an explorer based group, they can wander back and forth exploring.
However, if you have a mix of the two, then the target players get frustrated at the explorers for constantly wondering off. Here it might be better to have a single correct route with some branches which offer rewards of some sort.

Likewise, some players enjoy combat, wheras some would rather have puzzles or traps to work around. It is possible to work the two together into a single encounter, but if pulled off badly it makes things feel cluttered and complicated rather than allowing different players to work to their strengths.

And on top of all that you have to know which you would prefer. Would you get broed by the explorers wandering round, or feel rewarded when they get into that well made death trap lore laden temple.

[Silfurdreki]

...

Shadowrun also has a huge focus on combat, but it emphasizes just as much effort into planning and using your skills to their greatest. Only mediocre GMs in shadowrun lead you down corrodors with constant fights without anything you can do about it, 50% of any run is in the planning phase.

...

This! This is what I wanted my Shadowrun game to be, giving the players an objective from a guy with uncertain motives then have them plan an elobarate strategy to complete their objective.

My first session I had laid out an abandoned office building repurposed into a squat that had subsequently been run over by a smuggler gang. The previous 'owner' hired the players to get it back for him by driving the gangers out. The place came complete with hidden basement where the owner was operating a surveillance operation for another guy who the players were to be referred to for further runs. The place had a detailed floor plan with multiple entrance avenues, guard patrol routes and neighbouring buildings to use as vantage points.

I got a bit miffed when the players left the guy who hired them and immediately went to the place and started shooting it up with a heavy combat drone and grenades. They never even got to search the place since they got overrun by the whole gang and the cops after killing the local gang leader.

[Rakonas]

I personally think that combat in tabletop and videogames is a little overemphasised. Hence pages upon pages of combat rules and a few paragraphs describing social interactions. I'm fine with combat, it's just that I'd prefer if it was considered one of many approaches. It would help with making campaigns with unusual genres where combat wouldn't be appropriate.

That's just because combat has to be codified. The DM judging the players based on how well they describe what they're going to do and then whether it works would be pretty lame because it gives them all the power. Social interaction has some rolls but at least my DM seems to only really care about whether I can actually say something that might convince them irl, and that would be terrible for combat.

[PrimusRibbus]

I personally think that combat in tabletop and videogames is a little overemphasised. Hence pages upon pages of combat rules and a few paragraphs describing social interactions. I'm fine with combat, it's just that I'd prefer if it was considered one of many approaches. It would help with making campaigns with unusual genres where combat wouldn't be appropriate.

That's just because combat has to be codified. The DM judging the players based on how well they describe what they're going to do and then whether it works would be pretty lame because it gives them all the power. Social interaction has some rolls but at least my DM seems to only really care about whether I can actually say something that might convince them irl, and that would be terrible for combat.

In the groups I've played in, I've found heavily combat-oriented systems to be the best for social, dialogue-heavy campaigns. Primarily because they don't bog down roleplaying with dozens of social skills that get in the way of a good conversation between characters.

Leave the talking fairly dice-free and lax of rules: It lets people do really clever things and allows a good DM to run wild. IMO, most combat-light/combat-free RPG systems just turn dialogue into its own combat system that artificially constrains roleplaying.

That said, no system will save you from a bad DM.

[nenjin]

Interestingly, my group and were just discussing GM expectations vs. player expectations.

I remember when I tried to run Vampire the Masquerade. After reading all the source materials, I set it in my home town, set up the power structures, clans, important people.....

And then I learned from my players that everyone UNIVERSALLY hates being surrounded by powerful NPCs who are the only reason the PC newbs aren't squashed like bugs.

As a GM reading through the material and falling in love with it, it never occurred to me. I naturally assumed players would see the fun and challenge exactly as I did: that scheming and surviving against superior NPC powers would be fun and gratifying. NOPE. Most players see it as having little to no affect when compared to the rest of the world. No one feels like they can take action because the threat of punishment and retribution is implied in doing almost anything against anyone. The Vampire rules even make it a point to state that, people without connections are the most likely to be preyed up.

So yeah. There is definitely merit in understanding your audience and your own bias when it comes to running a game.

[Neonivek]

It seems like I got some aspects of dungeon building correct...

In that for the most part the dungeons I build are rather organic and serve a clear function. The Fake Trading post for example had an obvious front as well as workshops and places for carts. While also being rather closed off and hidden from view. The traps I used were more coincidentally appropriate in my last game because I was trying to go easy on the Rogueless party... but I'll keep in mind whether or not traps are important in the future.

Yet from these guides I need to be building things up a bit more.

It takes a lot of work to eventually become a good DM.

[MaximumZero]

Interestingly, my group and were just discussing GM expectations vs. player expectations.

I remember when I tried to run Vampire the Masquerade. After reading all the source materials, I set it in my home town, set up the power structures, clans, important people.....

And then I learned from my players that everyone UNIVERSALLY hates being surrounded by powerful NPCs who are the only reason the PC newbs aren't squashed like bugs.

As a GM reading through the material and falling in love with it, it never occurred to me. I naturally assumed players would see the fun and challenge exactly as I did: that scheming and surviving against superior NPC powers would be fun and gratifying. NOPE. Most players see it as having little to no affect when compared to the rest of the world. No one feels like they can take action because the threat of punishment and retribution is implied in doing almost anything against anyone. The Vampire rules even make it a point to state that, people without connections are the most likely to be preyed up.

So yeah. There is definitely merit in understanding your audience and your own bias when it comes to running a game.

The way I do this is to pit the players against a foe to motivate them, and then slowly introduce allies. If you drop the players in the middle of a staredown between two absurdly powerful mary sue level VIP characters, yeah, they feel like there's nothing they can do about it and wander off to do other things, because those characters are generally not interesting to the players. The best thing you can do for your players is to show them that a) they can/will get there eventually, and b) let them build up to that power level, or at least a level that lets them challenge tougher foes every now and again. No one likes feeling like a bug to be squashed.

[Neonivek]

It also depends on the system.

Even powerful Vampires are not unstoppable, it just takes a lot of work.

[Fniff]

Vampire the Masquerade is not that system.

"Rules on fighting Cain: you lose."

[BlitzDungeoneer]

So...
Who here heard of Fate Weavers?
It's a decent, free rules-lite RPG. Played it once or twice with 3 friends, me as GM, and it was fun for most of us. I really liked the Weave mechanic, which replaces spells, and allows for spells to be open-ended.

[Fniff]

I was thinking of running a Paranoia game fairly soon. Anyone have any advice?

[Yoink]

The Computer is your friend?