PCs out of Balance - Need some Help

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:19:00 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
<autockr@comcast.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> In his spell book? I don't know. Probably somewhere around 10 1st, 5 2nd
> and 3 3rd... And most of those are pretty useless, he just copied them
> into his spell book "because". In terms of "useful spells", he's only got a
> scant few that he regularly uses. Most of the spells were given to him at
> level up times, not through the finding of scrolls.

D&D3.x you'd expect about 7-8 1st level, 4 2nd, and 4 3rd in a 6th
level mizard's book, just from leveling up. Any from found scrolls,
bought tuition, etc., are extra to that (oh yes, and a bunch of
0-level cantrips (17?), including Light, Read Magic, & Detect Magic).
IOW about the same number.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Rupert Boleyn wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:19:00 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
> <autockr@comcast.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
>
>>In his spell book? I don't know. Probably somewhere around 10 1st, 5 2nd
>>and 3 3rd... And most of those are pretty useless, he just copied them
>>into his spell book "because". In terms of "useful spells", he's only got a
>>scant few that he regularly uses. Most of the spells were given to him at
>>level up times, not through the finding of scrolls.
>
>
> D&D3.x you'd expect about 7-8 1st level, 4 2nd, and 4 3rd in a 6th
> level mizard's book, just from leveling up. Any from found scrolls,
> bought tuition, etc., are extra to that (oh yes, and a bunch of
> 0-level cantrips (17?), including Light, Read Magic, & Detect Magic).
> IOW about the same number.

And by RAW, if I'm not mistaken, the expected Spell Book value works
like this:

A spell takes up [level] number of pages, and the Market Value of the
Spell Book is 50gp per page. Of course, the actual value drops when the
wizard buying it already knows half the spells, but, hey, that's the
theoretical value, and the reason we don't worry about it, and just use
opposed haggle (diplomacy) rolls to go from 1/3 to 1/2 market value and
be done with it.

In any case, Jeff's spellbook would be worth, in 3e,
((1*10)+(2*5)+(3*3))*50 gp, or 29 pages times 50 gp/page == 1450gp
market value (plus another 50gp per 0-level spell, which he doesn't
have, I think).

DWS

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 31 Mar 2005 21:34:50 GMT, dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca (David Alex Lamb)
carved upon a tablet of ether:

> Prayer time in the dwarven stronghold:
> Thorin Stonecrusher: Lord Moradin, grant me success in battle.
> Moradin: You'd do better if you traded in that lousy warhammer for a
> greataxe.
> Thorin: But, but... I picked *your* weapon...
> Mordadin: That doesn't change the fact that damage potential is much better
> with the greataxe.
> Thorin: But, but... Wny do *you* use a warhammer?
> Moradin: Ur, umm... That's a secret.

Moradin: It's symbolic of a smith's hammer, you idiot. I'm a god, my
weapons do damage irrespective of their form. You aren't, your don't.
Buy an axe.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Rupert Boleyn wrote:
> On 31 Mar 2005 21:34:50 GMT, dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca (David Alex Lamb)
> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
>
>>Prayer time in the dwarven stronghold:
>>Thorin Stonecrusher: Lord Moradin, grant me success in battle.
>>Moradin: You'd do better if you traded in that lousy warhammer for a
>> greataxe.
>>Thorin: But, but... I picked *your* weapon...
>>Mordadin: That doesn't change the fact that damage potential is much better
>> with the greataxe.
>>Thorin: But, but... Wny do *you* use a warhammer?
>>Moradin: Ur, umm... That's a secret.
>
>
> Moradin: It's symbolic of a smith's hammer, you idiot. I'm a god, my
> weapons do damage irrespective of their form. You aren't, your don't.
> Buy an axe.

Thorin: So...uh...why don't you favor your, you know, *favored* weapon?
Sounds like you favor axes more than warhammers.

-Will

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Will Green <will_j_green@yXaXhXoXoX.com> wrote:
> Rupert Boleyn wrote:
>> On 31 Mar 2005 21:34:50 GMT, dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca (David Alex Lamb)
>> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>>
>>
>>>Prayer time in the dwarven stronghold:
>>>Thorin Stonecrusher: Lord Moradin, grant me success in battle.
>>>Moradin: You'd do better if you traded in that lousy warhammer for a
>>> greataxe.
>>>Thorin: But, but... I picked *your* weapon...
>>>Mordadin: That doesn't change the fact that damage potential is much better
>>> with the greataxe.
>>>Thorin: But, but... Wny do *you* use a warhammer?
>>>Moradin: Ur, umm... That's a secret.
>>
>>
>> Moradin: It's symbolic of a smith's hammer, you idiot. I'm a god, my
>> weapons do damage irrespective of their form. You aren't, your don't.
>> Buy an axe.
>
> Thorin: So...uh...why don't you favor your, you know, *favored* weapon?
> Sounds like you favor axes more than warhammers.

Moradin: **ZZZZAP** Stupid mortals.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> Will Green <will_j_green@yXaXhXoXoX.com> wrote:
>
>>Rupert Boleyn wrote:
>>
>>>On 31 Mar 2005 21:34:50 GMT, dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca (David Alex Lamb)
>>>carved upon a tablet of ether:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Prayer time in the dwarven stronghold:
>>>>Thorin Stonecrusher: Lord Moradin, grant me success in battle.
>>>>Moradin: You'd do better if you traded in that lousy warhammer for a
>>>> greataxe.
>>>>Thorin: But, but... I picked *your* weapon...
>>>>Mordadin: That doesn't change the fact that damage potential is much better
>>>> with the greataxe.
>>>>Thorin: But, but... Wny do *you* use a warhammer?
>>>>Moradin: Ur, umm... That's a secret.
>>>
>>>
>>>Moradin: It's symbolic of a smith's hammer, you idiot. I'm a god, my
>>>weapons do damage irrespective of their form. You aren't, your don't.
>>>Buy an axe.
>>
>>Thorin: So...uh...why don't you favor your, you know, *favored* weapon?
>> Sounds like you favor axes more than warhammers.
>
>
> Moradin: **ZZZZAP** Stupid mortals.

....and for an encore, Thorin goes on to prove that black is white and
gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

-Will "Well, That about Wraps It Up for God" Green

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" wrote
> "John Phillips" wrote
> > My point is I'm not talking about munchkinishm. You can have great level
> > headed players and a gm that has poorly designed encounters that allow
for
> > one player to overshadow the others.
>
> I've never played with a DM that bad before. Yes, certain encounters can
> allow certain characters to shine, but not in the same way that an
> unbalanced character can.

I did in a Spycraft game once at a con. We all had well made balanced
characters (provided by the gm) but the game was focused on things for the
con men and combat oriented characters and all but ignored the driver and
information gathering characters.
The game it self was good, but it would have been nice if everyone could
have done something.

> > > I think that's a bit of wishful thinking, but whatever, I suppose.
> >
> > More balanced than in the past at least.
>
> Eeeh... *shrug* It seems to me that they just standardized things so that
> they APPEAR balanced. From the sounds of things, there are still plenty
of
> uber-classes running around.

Not as much as in the past, and it also depends on what kind of game is
being run. A bard will do poorly in a combat oriented campaign, while a
barbarian will do poorly in a intrigue campaign. In a balanced game they
both have their chance to shine though.


John

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> Jeff Goslin wrote:
>
>><laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu> wrote in message
>>news:1112213504.331695.177840@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>Dear god. I hope you guys' players are aware that you've Rule Zeroed
>>>the Spot skill to only work when it's convenient for you.

Laszlo; meet Goslin.

>>Not all the time, just when it's remarkably convenient, and will result in
>>saving the campaign from imminent meta-game destruction as players leave
>>because they are nowhere near useful enough to be taking part. What's wrong
>>with fudging a few rolls from time to time, for the sake of the game?
>
> It's bad for the same reason rubber-band AI is wrong in a racing game.
> It rewards stupidity by the players.

The trick in such games is to drive backwards around the track for
half a lap at the start; you'll generally catch and pass the whole feild
before you get back there. If you are having trouble catching someone
early in the race, stop for a while.

<snip: magical fruit; makes you toot>
> Similarly, if you fudge die rolls in a fight just because it's going
> badly for the players, how are they supposed to figure out what's wrong
> with their tactics? Evidently nothing, since they defeated the nasties,
> right?

The best way to demonstrate what's wrong with the PCs tactics is to
have some of the monsters use them.
OTOH, I just bring it up in conversation, often directly after
having suitably intelligent foes take advantage of it.

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.

 

[drow]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Alien mind control rays made Alex Johnson <compuwiz@psualum.com> write:
> I've never really used Power Attack either. But in our high level game
> last time the 12th level fighter was doing insane amounts of damage. He
> ran up to one monster so only got 1 attack instead of his normal three.
> "29 damage" he called out.

eek. in my current game, one of the PCs is a 15th level jedi guardian
with a guisarme (average damage is around 14 points, crit 17-20/x3
(house rule allows for threat multipliers to stack, she has 3 each x2)).
her character is entirely focused on it, and its been a while since
she's been able to miss an opponent with anything but a natural 1 on
her first attack, often her second too.

see, if she were a powergamer, she'd have taken power attack long ago.

she's also ruled most of the combats, which are usually against a small
number of powerful foes. their last big fight was against an invading
army of lizardfolk (CR 3) in an air realm, which allowed the wizard to
go crazy with the wide area evocations and claim the vast majority of
the 630 kills they made in the 10 round massacre. so now the wizard is
happy, and the jedi really wants cleave.

i'm pretty sure that she's finally going to take power attack now,
since she just advanced to 15th level at the end of the last game.

poor sodding monsters.

but it'll be nice that i can get away with pitting them against more
giants and golems. huzzah!

--
\^\ // drow@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
\ // - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
// \ X-Windows: The cutting edge of obsolescence.
// \_\ -- Dude from DPAK

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 19:43:38 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
<autockr@comcast.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> "Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
> news😛n3p41t7ji2ndotmj332gqflns5rpdl4r2@4ax.com...
> > FYI here's roughly what I'd expect a 4th level fighter to have:
> >
> > Mighty (Str16) MW Composite Longbow [700gp]
> > +1 Full-plate [2650gp]
> > +1 Heavy Steel Shield [1170gp]
> > MW Bastard Sword [335gp]
> > Potion, Cure Light Wounds x2 [100gp]
> > Assorted 'special' projectiles (Alc's Fire, etc.) [100gp]
> > Assorted gear, including horse [300-400gp]
>
> Well, the costs are also a factor. In our campaign, magic is VERY
> expensive.
>
> What's up with magical full plate costing 2650? Full plate in 2E(non
> magical) was 4K-10K. Field plate was 2K.

Full-plate is what was field plate. 3e full-plate costs 1500gp. Any
suit of masterwork armour costs another 150gp (significant on a chain
shirt, not on full plate, so IMO most full plate will be masterwork).
Making a suit of armour +1 raises it's market value by 1000gp.

> As a baseline in our campaign, every permanent magic item costs 10K, that's
> just plain jane vanilla +1 whatever. It's more if it's a rarer item, and
> costs increase exponentially as the power increases. A +5 whatever would
> cost at LEAST 150,000 gp, probably more. Selling magic items is a *GREAT*
> way to make money.

3e assumes you can sell used or 'aquired' items for half their 'new'
value. Generally the price is proportional to the square of the bonus,
with armour and shields costing 1000 x [bonus^2], and weapons 2000 x
[bonus^2]. A +5 longsword costs 50315gp, and you can sell it for half
that.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 16:33:15 +1200, tussock <scrub@clear.net.nz>
carved upon a tablet of ether:

> The best way to demonstrate what's wrong with the PCs tactics is to
> have some of the monsters use them.
> OTOH, I just bring it up in conversation, often directly after
> having suitably intelligent foes take advantage of it.

I usually wait until the end of the session, or during the lull you
often get while the dead 'uns are raised.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 22:55:51 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
<autockr@comcast.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> I seem to recall threads that indicate that a high level barbarian vs a high
> level wizard was almost no contest(bickering about details aside)...???

Depends how close together they start.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 31 Mar 2005 16:29:46 -0800, "madafro@sbcglobal.net"
<madafro@sbcglobal.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> You guys are ghostwriting "The Order of the Stick," aren't you?

I wasn't intentionally writing like that, but it does fit, doesn't it?


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> "Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
> news😛n3p41t7ji2ndotmj332gqflns5rpdl4r2@4ax.com...
>
>>FYI here's roughly what I'd expect a 4th level fighter to have:
<snip>
> Well, the costs are also a factor. In our campaign, magic is VERY
> expensive.

3e characters don't have the same levels of wealth at high level
that ADnD ones do. Expected wealth at 20th level is well under 1 million gp.

> What's up with magical full plate costing 2650? Full plate in 2E(non
> magical) was 4K-10K. Field plate was 2K.

3e full plate is +8 armour bonus, equal to AC 2 field plate. It
costs 1500 base, +150 for quality, +1000 for +1 magic.

> As a baseline in our campaign, every permanent magic item costs 10K, that's
> just plain jane vanilla +1 whatever. It's more if it's a rarer item, and
> costs increase exponentially as the power increases. A +5 whatever would
> cost at LEAST 150,000 gp, probably more. Selling magic items is a *GREAT*
> way to make money.

<shrug> In effect you're just devaluing gold as characters go up in
level. In 3e magic weapons are 2kgp at +1, and 50kgp at +5; divide your
"gp" by 4 and it's all very similar to 3e's "gp" standard.

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"tussock" <scrub@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
news:424cdf40@clear.net.nz...
> > As a baseline in our campaign, every permanent magic item costs 10K,
that's
> > just plain jane vanilla +1 whatever. It's more if it's a rarer item,
and
> > costs increase exponentially as the power increases. A +5 whatever
would
> > cost at LEAST 150,000 gp, probably more. Selling magic items is a
*GREAT*
> > way to make money.
>
> <shrug> In effect you're just devaluing gold as characters go up in
> level. In 3e magic weapons are 2kgp at +1, and 50kgp at +5; divide your
> "gp" by 4 and it's all very similar to 3e's "gp" standard.

The effect, actually, is that it prevents PC's from just going out and
buying tons of magic. I want them to earn their magic items, for the most
part(by combat, hopefully), I don't want them to just visit the magic shop
and purchase them. So, keep the gold coming as normal, make magic items
less prevalent, and make them cost more. Net effect is less powerful
characters overall.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> "tussock" <scrub@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:424cdf40@clear.net.nz...
>
>> <shrug> In effect you're just devaluing gold as characters go up in
>>level. In 3e magic weapons are 2kgp at +1, and 50kgp at +5; divide your
>>"gp" by 4 and it's all very similar to 3e's "gp" standard.
>
> The effect, actually, is that it prevents PC's from just going out and
> buying tons of magic. I want them to earn their magic items, for the most
> part(by combat, hopefully), I don't want them to just visit the magic shop
> and purchase them.

Do you mean to imply that you just "give" money to the PCs, without
making them earn *that*? What's the difference between earning gobs and
gobs of money vs. earning a few magic items?

-Will

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Will Green" <will_j_green@yXaXhXoXoX.com> wrote in message
news:_ob3e.13372$ZB6.11764@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> Do you mean to imply that you just "give" money to the PCs, without
> making them earn *that*? What's the difference between earning gobs and
> gobs of money vs. earning a few magic items?

Magic items in our campaign could be likened to Olympic medals. Sure, you
can go out and buy one if you have enough money(what olympian would sell
their medal??), but it's much more satisfying to get an olympic medal with a
heaping helping of blood sweat and tears. From a game mechanics
perspective, there is very little difference, but from a game enjoyment
perspective, it's a HUGE difference, at least for us.

And no, they don't get much money at all. The most of anyone, I believe, is
one fighter who has about 2000gp in coin and gems. He's the character that
is the token almost-NPC PC that I play when I'm not DMing, so he doesn't
tend to buy much, mainly because I don't actually buy stuff for him, except
what he truly needs. Most everyone else has between 200 and 500gp, spending
what they can on expendable magic items(potions xheal, scrolls for MU, etc).

From what I understand, our campaign style is one of low incidence and high
return(few magic items, but what they find is generally useful), where a
normal 3E campaign(it sounds to me) is a game of high incidence and low
return(many more magic items, generally less useful, lower cost).

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 00:52:53 GMT, Will Green
<will_j_green@yXaXhXoXoX.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> Thorin: So...uh...why don't you favor your, you know, *favored* weapon?
> Sounds like you favor axes more than warhammers.

Moradin: I favour followers who use their brains. I also prefer them
not to arrive in my halls early. You may however, take a hammer for
throwing if you insist.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> It should be noted that even within our party, the wizard is recognized as
> the one with all the magic stuff. Our treasure is basically group treasure,
> and whoever can use the magic best is just given it.
<snip>

IME, ADnD parties all worked very much like that. In 3e it's
assumed any "useless" treasure will be sold in exchange for more
practical stuff, and that everyone ends up with an even share of real value.

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

tussock wrote:
> Jeff Goslin wrote:
>
>> It should be noted that even within our party, the wizard is
>> recognized as
>> the one with all the magic stuff. Our treasure is basically group
>> treasure,
>> and whoever can use the magic best is just given it.
>
> <snip>
>
> IME, ADnD parties all worked very much like that. In 3e it's assumed
> any "useless" treasure will be sold in exchange for more practical
> stuff, and that everyone ends up with an even share of real value.

I used to be in the 'Magic Items aren't really for Sale' camp, but I've
come around to 3e's way of thinking. Now, I posit a loose confederation
of specialty traders/agents, similar to High End Art Dealers in our
world, that traffic in Magic Items.

They don't create them, they don't stock them, but they know the guy who
knows the person that wants to sell a Widget of Foogle, and they heard
from a dude, that a mug in Fuggletown has talked to a mage who can make
the components for a Widget of Foogle, and, for a small fee, ever so
small, they can probably arrange the transactions necessary.

All you need is patience and a *very* jingly coin purse.

Living in the Largest Known City in our Game World, the party doesn't
have to wait long before the transactions are either realized, or found
to be impossible. The faster they want it done, the more they end up
paying in broker and finder and transaction and shipment fees.

Works nicely. They rarely get anything at market price... after fees,
it usually runs more like 150 to 200%.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

madafro@sbcglobal.net <madafro@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>David Serhienko wrote:

>> I already asked him about it somewhat, and he specifically doesn't
>>mind if either DMs make use of the family tree for hooks, as long
>>as we don't 'abuse' it, whatever that means.

>It likely means, "please don't punish me for being thorough." I can
>say from experience that it's easy to get so enthusiastic about mining
>a player's highly-detailed character background for plot hooks that you
>end up re-inventing the character's whole concept. In extreme cases,
>the PC becomes the DM's character more than the player's. That's
>probably what he's talking about.

A detailed family history - or even a not-detailed history - can
also be used in ways that will hurt the character and/or piss off
the player. "Guess what? Your long-lost sister is evil now and
she's come to kill you. Roll for init!" "The reason this mob
of villagers is trying to kill you is because you look just
like your grandfather, who was a serial killer that wiped
out half the village a few decades back."

It can also be used to railroad the player(s). "I know you'd
prefer to explore the Dark Forest, but according to the
courier your mother is really sick and needs your help. You're
not going to just let her die, are you?"

Basically, what the player intended as a way to flesh out his
character and let the DM use to make the campaign better can
come back to bite them on the ass in the hands of the wrong
DM. I think it was Bob in Knights of the Dinner Table who
mentioned that none of his characters ever have any living
family - that's just asking for trouble.

Pete

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Peter Meilinger wrote:
> madafro@sbcglobal.net <madafro@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>David Serhienko wrote:
>
>
>>>I already asked him about it somewhat, and he specifically doesn't
>>>mind if either DMs make use of the family tree for hooks, as long
>>>as we don't 'abuse' it, whatever that means.
>
>
>>It likely means, "please don't punish me for being thorough." I can
>>say from experience that it's easy to get so enthusiastic about mining
>>a player's highly-detailed character background for plot hooks that you
>>end up re-inventing the character's whole concept. In extreme cases,
>>the PC becomes the DM's character more than the player's. That's
>>probably what he's talking about.
>
>
> A detailed family history - or even a not-detailed history - can
> also be used in ways that will hurt the character and/or piss off
> the player. "Guess what? Your long-lost sister is evil now and
> she's come to kill you. Roll for init!" "The reason this mob
> of villagers is trying to kill you is because you look just
> like your grandfather, who was a serial killer that wiped
> out half the village a few decades back."
>
> It can also be used to railroad the player(s). "I know you'd
> prefer to explore the Dark Forest, but according to the
> courier your mother is really sick and needs your help. You're
> not going to just let her die, are you?"
>
> Basically, what the player intended as a way to flesh out his
> character and let the DM use to make the campaign better can
> come back to bite them on the ass in the hands of the wrong
> DM. I think it was Bob in Knights of the Dinner Table who
> mentioned that none of his characters ever have any living
> family - that's just asking for trouble.

You both make excellent points about what he probably meant by 'abusing'
his family tree.

My plan would be to pick someone, or a branch of someones, off of it,
and make them central protagonists or victims in a plot line, yes.

Using family ties to try to force him to do anything wouldn't be a good
plan. Better would be if the family connections weren't apparent when
the plotline began. If the family connections happens to involve evil
activity, inclusion of at least one method of redeeming/salvaging them
would be necessary.

Have I missed anything?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 1 Apr 2005 05:35:54 -0800, arivne@cox.net scribed into the ether:

>Matt Frisch wrote:
>>
><snip>
>>
>> Many years ago there was an incredibly funny list
>> floating around of about a hundred different scenarios,
>> and the Munchkin/Powergamer/Roleplayer stereotypical
>> responses. I poked around a bit, but couldn't locate it.
>>
>> http://www.io.com/~angilas/5gamers.html is close, but not quite it.
>>
><snip>
>
>I think you're looking for the original Real Men, Roleplayers, Loonies
>and Munchkins list. Here's one version of it, with some extras:
>
>http://pw1.netcom.com/~shagbert/pages/munchkins.html

That's the one...and much much bigger than I remember. Those little devils
have been adding to it.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Serhienko <david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote:

>You both make excellent points about what he probably meant by 'abusing'
>his family tree.

>My plan would be to pick someone, or a branch of someones, off of it,
>and make them central protagonists or victims in a plot line, yes.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. That's almost certainly
what the player was hoping for when he made up his detailed family
tree.

>Using family ties to try to force him to do anything wouldn't be a good
>plan. Better would be if the family connections weren't apparent when
>the plotline began. If the family connections happens to involve evil
>activity, inclusion of at least one method of redeeming/salvaging them
>would be necessary.

>Have I missed anything?

I think it's the way the DM handles these things that matters
the most, not the actual plotlines involved. Having a courier
arrive telling the PC that his mom is very sick is not in and
of itself a problem. It's just another adventure hook, more
personal than most. If it's handled badly by the DM, that's
the problem, just like anything else handled badly is a
problem. When it's something the player has spent time
coming up with, it just hits a little closer to home, is
all.

Pete

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 1 Apr 2005 05:35:54 -0800, arivne@cox.net wrote:

>Matt Frisch wrote:
>>
><snip>
>>
>> Many years ago there was an incredibly funny list
>> floating around of about a hundred different scenarios,
>> and the Munchkin/Powergamer/Roleplayer stereotypical
>> responses. I poked around a bit, but couldn't locate it.
>>
>> http://www.io.com/~angilas/5gamers.html is close, but not quite it.
>>
><snip>
>
>I think you're looking for the original Real Men, Roleplayers, Loonies
>and Munchkins list. Here's one version of it, with some extras:
>
>http://pw1.netcom.com/~shagbert/pages/munchkins.html
>
>Your version split up Roleplayers into Thespians and Brains.

As one of the ones responsible for the "5 gamers" version, I can tell
you why we made that split: In kicking around ideas for and expansions
to the original version, we kept finding a certain schizophrenia in
the "Real Roleplayer." On one hand, he was pulled to choices that were
Clever and Sensible. On the other, he was pulled to choices that were
Cool and Stylish. We split the Roleplayers into Thespians and Brains
so that we could give both the "Clever and Sensible" and "Cool and
Stylish" responses to each bit.


--
Erol K. Bayburt
ErolB1@aol.com