PnP questions

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

The ongoing conversation about 2nd & 3rd editions has led me to
wondering about how PnP treats "monsters" stocked in dungeons
and places like that. I've never played PnP so I obviously don't
know what I'm talking about. I imagine it depends mostly on the
particular DM rather than on a set of rules.

For the DMs - are the monsters in your scenarios mostly passive until
attacked? Do they have a clue about anything? Are they challenging
mostly because they're powerful or because they are crafty? Can a
kobold commando, for example, prove to be more of a challenge to
blundering adventures than a troll in your scenarios? Does a strategy
of long-range fireballing insure success in your scenarios?

For the adventurers - what type of monster behavior is most satisfying
to overcome for you? Do they ever outwit your group in addition to
outbrawling them?

An unrelated question -

the recent post about the fireball trap in the planar sphere reminded me
of something I have long been curious about - is there anything that gives
a clue as to what the order of the symbols touched should be?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

kevin <khiggins2@nyukhouston.rr.com> wrote:


> The ongoing conversation about 2nd & 3rd editions has led me to
> wondering about how PnP treats "monsters" stocked in dungeons
> and places like that. I've never played PnP so I obviously don't
> know what I'm talking about. I imagine it depends mostly on the
> particular DM rather than on a set of rules.

Yes. The rules have basically nothing to say about it.

> For the DMs - are the monsters in your scenarios mostly passive until
> attacked? Do they have a clue about anything? Are they challenging
> mostly because they're powerful or because they are crafty? Can a
> kobold commando, for example, prove to be more of a challenge to
> blundering adventures than a troll in your scenarios? Does a strategy
> of long-range fireballing insure success in your scenarios?

Almost never passive. They are usually too busy doing their
own thing, which may or may not involve the player characters.
'Monsters' have their own goals they are working toward, and
will be working to counter anyone who opposes them.

For example, if a party blows into town and asks everyone
they can find about the rumors of ghosts in the abandoned
tower, they may tip off the necromancer's henchman or paid
spy. Thus alerted, the necromancer can then take actions to
deal with the party.

More importantly, once the characters start invading the
bad guy's lair, he isn't going to just sit around and
do nothing while reports of decimated minions pour in.
He will counter attack, hire mercs, or even just leave
if things look grim.

The GM can make virtually any opponent challenging to
almost any level of character. In a good PnP game combat
is only one of the ways a party has to deal with a given problem,
and often not the best way.

Long range fireballs work great, until of course you cook the
fair princess who just happened to be tied to a chair you
couldn't see. In other words, any bad buy worth a damn is
going to make such tactics as costly as possible and will
use the character's various weakness and goals (i.e. saving
the princess) against them.

> For the adventurers - what type of monster behavior is most satisfying
> to overcome for you? Do they ever outwit your group in addition to
> outbrawling them?

The smart ones. Especially when they don't see the combat as a
fight to the finish and are willing to retreat or use sneaky
bastard tactics against the us.

> An unrelated question -

> the recent post about the fireball trap in the planar sphere reminded me
> of something I have long been curious about - is there anything that gives
> a clue as to what the order of the symbols touched should be?

No clue, other then the obvious number progression..

Mark.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

"kevin" <khiggins2@nyukhouston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:inhhc.4430$NR5.4240@fe1.texas.rr.com...
>
>
> The ongoing conversation about 2nd & 3rd editions has led me to
> wondering about how PnP treats "monsters" stocked in dungeons
> and places like that. I've never played PnP so I obviously don't
> know what I'm talking about. I imagine it depends mostly on the
> particular DM rather than on a set of rules.

RCV: Pretty much, although there are certainly guidelines in the DMG and
monster manuals for monster placement and actions....

> For the DMs - are the monsters in your scenarios mostly passive until
> attacked? Do they have a clue about anything? Are they challenging
> mostly because they're powerful or because they are crafty? Can a
> kobold commando, for example, prove to be more of a challenge to
> blundering adventures than a troll in your scenarios?

RCV: Monsters should do what their Int/Wis ratings and natures permit.
Stupid monsters will be stupid, although they might be good hunters, i.e.
cunning or crafty. Weak monsters will rely more on tricks and traps to beef
them up, and perhaps a larger friend to help them out.
One of my better dungeons, based on how much the players liked it [and
were challanged by it] had nothing more fearsome than Lizard Men and some
pack lizards in it. There was some leader types, a shaman or two and a
major leader, but nothing else, and this was a great challenge for 3d to 5th
level characters.
Encounters certainly don't have to be all brawn and PnP handles that
much better than CRPGs....

> Does a strategy
> of long-range fireballing insure success in your scenarios?

RCV: >laffs< Sure, until you try to sell that pile of melted armor or
the 40 lbs lump of ex-silver pieces. Fire also has a nasty habit of
potentially ruining potions, scrolls, wands and many more kinds of mundane
treasure. To say nothing of killing off possibly friendly NPCs or
collapsing tunnels that lead to a treasure area..... blasting off fireballs
or lightening bolts can often cause more trouble than it "solves"...

>
> For the adventurers - what type of monster behavior is most satisfying
> to overcome for you? Do they ever outwit your group in addition to
> outbrawling them?

RCV: A good fight is fun, of course, but I have always found that
fighting against and overcoming at least a crafty, if not too intelligent,
monster is much more satisfying than simply standing toe to toe and letting
the dice decide everything. I have had lots of evenings where no combats
happened at all, or very few, and never had any complaints from my
players.....

> An unrelated question -
>
> the recent post about the fireball trap in the planar sphere reminded me
> of something I have long been curious about - is there anything that gives
> a clue as to what the order of the symbols touched should be?

RCV: Look at the symbols again and try to see if they suggest anything
to you in terms of "counting" down which ones to do in what order.


>>spoiler<<













RCV: A close look at the symbols should reveal that they are actually
numbers written on the floor - you do #1 first, #2 second, and so on. Pause
the game over that room and pay attention to the symbols, after a bit you
should see that they are vaguely Aabic numerals...

Rich

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

"Rich C. Velay" <RCVelay@remove.this.shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Bjnhc.194360$oR5.67403@pd7tw3no...

snips

> RCV: Monsters should do what their Int/Wis ratings and natures permit.

The point is so simple, so brilliant(!), that I could only blindly
fumble towards it. Ha, of course they should!

Wouldn't it be great for a careless group to be spotted by a stealthed
forwarded opponent who then proceeded to direct fireballs and
cloudkills at the blundering adventurers? The finishing touch for this
foolish group as they stagger out of the toxic cloud is for the spotter
to motion his summoned horde of skeletons and monsters forward as
he himself retreats to safe distance to plot his next fiendish trap for the
careless. Don't these adventurers deserve this?

It sounds fun to be a DM. I wouldn't want to put much time into
preparing for it I'd love to blast careless adventurers to hell. ;-)

I don't know what the int & wis stats for Aron Linvail are and don't feel
like like looking them up but it seems like he should be better prepared
for my group's assault than he proves to be - it would certainly be in the
nature of a master thief to prepare for such an attack. I wish he had
stealthed thieves spotting for fireballs and cloudkills and whatnot as we
approached his chamber.

BG1 actually seems better at this than BG2 does to me. Hobgoblins,
skeletons, and kobolds can be lethal simply because they will at times
move around some.

> One of my better dungeons, based on how much the players liked it [and
> were challanged by it] had nothing more fearsome than Lizard Men and some
> pack lizards in it. There was some leader types, a shaman or two and a
> major leader, but nothing else, and this was a great challenge for 3d to
5th
> level characters.
> Encounters certainly don't have to be all brawn and PnP handles that
> much better than CRPGs....

The earlier BG1 battles against the lower level opponents are my favs -
the first fight against a mage and the bounty hunters are all good ones.
Really, it's the fights were the group approaches the lair of the enemy
that detract from my enjoyment of the game because none of these
opponents do much to prepare for the battle. I'm left with trying to
make it a challenging yet doable fight and haven't yet managed to
accomplish that.

> RCV: A good fight is fun, of course, but I have always found that
> fighting against and overcoming at least a crafty, if not too intelligent,
> monster is much more satisfying than simply standing toe to toe and
>letting the dice decide everything.

You say that, and maybe you mean it, but let me ask you - as a DM,
do your creatures (ones with appropriate int, wis, nature that is) use the
same type of approaches that the adventuring group uses?

I have had lots of evenings where no combats
> happened at all, or very few, and never had any complaints from my
> players.....

That sounds good to me too. I usually play as a stealthy evil coward
who avoids combat whenever possible. In BG2, that's not all that often,
of course. I'd love a roleplaying version of Thief.

> RCV: Look at the symbols again and try to see if they suggest anything
> to you in terms of "counting" down which ones to do in what order.

I've never noticed that - I'll look more closely next time.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

"kevin" <khiggins2@nyukhouston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:%EChc.10756$hR1.2850@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> BG1 actually seems better at this than BG2 does to me. Hobgoblins,
> skeletons, and kobolds can be lethal simply because they will at times
> move around some.

RCV: I must say that in both PnP and BG, I much prefer low to medium
level stuff [1st - 10 {max}] over the high level stuff. Especially in BG 2.
once you know to true sight, breach and remove magic, etc you have pretty
much covered most so-called "high level" encounters. Doing the same thing,
over and over again, gets a tad tedious....

> > One of my better dungeons, based on how much the players liked it
[and
> > were challanged by it] had nothing more fearsome than Lizard Men and
some
> > pack lizards in it. There was some leader types, a shaman or two and a
> > major leader, but nothing else, and this was a great challenge for 3d to
> 5th
> > level characters.
> > Encounters certainly don't have to be all brawn and PnP handles that
> > much better than CRPGs....
>
> The earlier BG1 battles against the lower level opponents are my favs -
> the first fight against a mage and the bounty hunters are all good ones.
> Really, it's the fights were the group approaches the lair of the enemy
> that detract from my enjoyment of the game because none of these
> opponents do much to prepare for the battle. I'm left with trying to
> make it a challenging yet doable fight and haven't yet managed to
> accomplish that.

RCV: Yep, I love BG 1 just for that reason. One feels more of a threat
from a few hobgoblins with poisoned arrows than one does from demons in BG 2

> > RCV: A good fight is fun, of course, but I have always found that
> > fighting against and overcoming at least a crafty, if not too
intelligent,
> > monster is much more satisfying than simply standing toe to toe and
> >letting the dice decide everything.
>
> You say that, and maybe you mean it, but let me ask you - as a DM,
> do your creatures (ones with appropriate int, wis, nature that is) use the
> same type of approaches that the adventuring group uses?

RCV: Of course. Even Kobolds, if they are to survive, have to rely on
traps, ambush and scouts. After all, how do these weak and tiny creatures
survive in such numbers? If all they did was line up along the wall and
shoot arrows until they are all swept away, there woulnd't be enough Kobolds
left in a fantasy world to provide the slaves for a moderately successful
Orc tribe......

And in PnP there is no more fierce monster/encounter than a well run NPC
adventuring party, armed, equipped and skilled as YOUR PC party is.... ;-)

> I have had lots of evenings where no combats
> > happened at all, or very few, and never had any complaints from my
> > players.....
>
> That sounds good to me too. I usually play as a stealthy evil coward
> who avoids combat whenever possible. In BG2, that's not all that often,
> of course. I'd love a roleplaying version of Thief.

RCV: Just gathering the information on where the next adventure can take
multiple evenings to figure out, requiring lots of interactions with NPCs,
digging up old maps/info, scouting the area generally, getting rumours and
tall tales, finding allies, etc. Not by a long shot does each adventure have
to be blood-filled and simply an exercise in die rolling by the players.
In PnP, with a good DM, a Bard is a strong, valuable character, while a
thief has much more to do than simply look for the trip wires and pop the
odd lock.
Its [currently] impossible to have "real" role playing on a computer,
and I don't blame anyone for that, its just a given. However, if one really
wants to get the feeling and flavour of real role playing one has to find a
good campaign and a good DM and play PnP face to face. Until you have spent
a few hours quiveringly scouting out an ogre lair - only to learn that you
are facing a Kobold lair where one of the leader types can speak Ogreish and
does so though a megaphone - can one understand the world of difference
between a crpg and PnP.....

Rich

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

"Rich C. Velay" <RCVelay@remove.this.shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:2RFhc.201009$Ig.143759@pd7tw2no...
>
>
> RCV: I must say that in both PnP and BG, I much prefer low to medium
> level stuff [1st - 10 {max}] over the high level stuff. Especially in BG
2.
> once you know to true sight, breach and remove magic, etc you have pretty
> much covered most so-called "high level" encounters. Doing the same
thing,
> over and over again, gets a tad tedious....

Well now, it seems clear that you should try out Tactics - True
Sight, Breach etc. aren't quite so powerful with it.

I know, I know... oh nevermind <g>

> Its [currently] impossible to have "real" role playing on a computer,
> and I don't blame anyone for that, its just a given. However, if one
really
> wants to get the feeling and flavour of real role playing one has to find
a
> good campaign and a good DM and play PnP face to face. Until you have
spent
> a few hours quiveringly scouting out an ogre lair - only to learn that you
> are facing a Kobold lair where one of the leader types can speak Ogreish
and
> does so though a megaphone - can one understand the world of difference
> between a crpg and PnP.....

lol - those crafty kobolds.
I still have fond memories of the BG1 sewer kobolds killing my group.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.baldurs-gate (More info?)

RCV:
> Its [currently] impossible to have "real" role playing on a computer,
> and I don't blame anyone for that, its just a given. However, if one
really
> wants to get the feeling and flavour of real role playing one has to find
a
> good campaign and a good DM and play PnP face to face. Until you have
spent
> a few hours quiveringly scouting out an ogre lair - only to learn that you
> are facing a Kobold lair where one of the leader types can speak Ogreish
and
> does so though a megaphone - can one understand the world of difference
> between a crpg and PnP.....

Hmm...
I think that online roleplaying can be successful too. It's easier to
picture the characters if the players aren't actually present, in a way. Of
course, you're limited by typing speed/accuracy and the fluency of people's
descriptions, but with a decent group of players + DM, you can have an
excellent campaign.
But I agree, it's the "how did THAT happen?" factor that makes genuine RP so
much fun.