The Theft of the Magical Wall

It’s hard to keep secrets from players. They have a tendency to wheedle key information out of the most unreasonable places, bullying NPCs or casting high-level divinations to get plot details far before they should. In my experience, most of my plots are spoiled by blind stupid guessing, where the players hear an NPC’s name mentioned in passing and somehow immediately assume he’s going to be key to a plot they don’t even know about yet. It’s like every one of my sessions is a terribly-written murder mystery. But by sheer accident, I once stumbled upon the perfect way to keep players from predicting a crucial plot twist: make sure I don’t know about it myself.

Let me tell you about the theft of the magical wall. Continue reading

Posted in Campaigns, DMing | Tagged , | Comments Off on The Theft of the Magical Wall

Group Checks

Most rolls in D&D are made by a single character. Only the cleric makes a saving throw when she looks at a medusa. Only the rogue tries to disarm a trap. Only the fighter swings his sword at the goblin. The party isn’t Voltron (note to self: make rules for a Voltron session). But sometimes there are opportunities for a check from the entire group because everybody is engaged in the same activity, like making Constitution checks as the party travels across the desert or dodging the same cone of cold. It’s a moment of camaraderie as everybody faces one challenge together, and it’s a chance for the most skilled party members to shine as they shrug off effects that would destroy a normal person and/or bard.

The group skill check, however, is a special sort of problem. It either goes very well or very poorly, almost every time, and that’s because the rules have been doing it wrong. Continue reading

Posted in Campaigns, DMing, Game Design, Gaming Systems | Tagged , | Comments Off on Group Checks

Lan, the Perfect Fight

I would never go so far as to say that most of my sessions turn out the way I plan, but often they’re reasonably close. My players rarely look into a murder, check the crime scene, interview witnesses, research the victim, and start coming up with theories only to abandon their investigation and go traveling instead. (Note that I say “rarely”—this example isn’t hypothetical, it’s anecdotal.) In general, if I think something’s going to work a certain way, I’m usually correct within one standard deviation of that way. This is especially true for game balance; the fights I intend to be challenging are usually challenging, if not always for the reasons I expect. When I set up a boss encounter and the players don’t struggle, I consider that a problem. But sometimes that problem manifests in a very specific way, bringing things back around to awesome.

Let me tell you about Lan, the perfect fight. Continue reading

Posted in Campaigns, DMing | Tagged , | Comments Off on Lan, the Perfect Fight

House Rule: Guns

Concept: Alternate gun mechanics
Tested in: Various Eight Arms campaigns

What it is: D&D assumes a standard medieval fantasy setting, and Pathfinder assumes a medieval fantasy setting that likes to pretend it isn’t standard. The Eight Arms world time-advanced that setting to a Victorian or Edwardian era, with trains and factories and terrible labor laws. By the early 1900s swords and full plate weren’t the technologies of war they once were. To literally put the era in the PCs’ hands, I felt we needed some sort of gun. But Pathfinder didn’t have guns, not yet. The Eight Arms and the Shadow Invasion predated Ultimate Combat and its firearm rules by three months. We had to make our own.

The Eight Arms firearms are glorified crossbows. By these rules a pistol is a light crossbow, almost exactly. A rifle is a heavy crossbow with slightly higher damage. A revolver is a repeating light crossbow, but it’s a martial weapon because I have no earthly idea why it takes an Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat to figure out how to pull a lever. There’s also a hunting rifle, and it’s basically the normal rifle with a faster reload time. That’s pretty much the extent of it. We don’t have Pathfinder’s rules for misfires, gunpowder, or touch attacks within the first range increment, and all the prices are scaled down so a low-level PC can afford them.

What I wanted: Firearms are an accessible part of the world but not its focus. Players can use them in a pinch, and they don’t overshadow the swords-and-magic combat that makes Pathfinder work.

How it went: In the context of what I wanted, the gun rules have been an unmitigated success. PCs use them as sidearms, falling back to them when something prevents them from taking their normal class-based actions. When an enemy pulls one out, the players don’t have to drop everything to deal with it because they know its presence doesn’t automatically indicate a master marksman. But somebody can specialize in guns if he or she wants to, and they’re not limited by exorbitant costs or a dearth of ammunition.

In the years since I made this rule we’ve expanded on it. A player brought a gunslinger to the table, and the class worked with these firearm rules after some very small modifications. Another player used this concept as a base and created his own personal minigun, a glorified bow that sprayed an alarming number of attacks at enemies. I’ve not heard anybody ask to use the Pathfinder firearm rules. In a fact, a few players have said they prefer these to the official rules, mostly because the official rules exist in a weird balance space; when firearms work, they’re this close to unfairly good, and when they don’t, they’re this close to unfairly bad. By tweaking and reskinning crossbows we treat guns as a normal weapon instead of a lottery.

What I learned: When you add something to the rules, make it fit the system instead of the other way around. Be wary any time you have to add several new supplementary mechanics (gunpowder, misfires, first-range-increment touch attacks, scatter targeting, etc.) to allow one new thing. It can work, but you may be doing far more work than you should.

Posted in DMing, Game Design, House Rules | Tagged , | Comments Off on House Rule: Guns

Losing Faith

This is a DMing advice blog, not a personal journal. As such, I don’t talk a lot about my daily life. I don’t think it’s very interesting to see me talk about how I feel about the news or how my cats are doing unless I can tie it into some tabletop role-playing topic. There’s nothing wrong with any of that, it’s just not what this particular blog is about. But I have been inspired by some soul-baring I’ve read lately, and I realized it might be worth putting a little something out there in case I have any readers who have been dealing with some of the same struggles. If that’s not your bowl of tea, feel free to skip this post. It’s not especially fun. My normal combination of commentary, insight, and irreverence will continue next time. Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Losing Faith

The B-Team in Song

Last post, I briefly mentioned Leaf’s session write-ups. For the A-Team, one player did all of our session recaps as MS Paint scribbles, and they’re delightful. For the B-Team, that player bowed out and session write-up responsibilities rotated among everyone else. Leaf had a journal where he documented his failures, Litli made a panel comic with cut-and-paste art and speech bubbles, and Steingeirr wrote a perfectly valid digest considering he only knew thirty words. They were all as formal and excellent as the party warranted, which is to say not at all.

But Eyvindr has a special place in my heart because I played him, and because I am a bard his write-ups were songs. Each time my turn came up, I picked a popular song without a chorus and made new lyrics for it that described what the party had done that week. So while I’m on holiday, in lieu of content please enjoy this rousing tale of the first adventure of the B-Team. Continue reading

Posted in Campaigns | Tagged , | Comments Off on The B-Team in Song

The B-Team

Some characters just aren’t as good as others. Whether due to rules that don’t work out as intended, abilities that clash with each other, underpowered choices, or simple dumb luck, these characters have to acknowledge that they’re just not keeping up with the rest of their party or the expectations of the game. Sometimes they retire and make way for somebody more useful. Sometimes they reorient themselves, via retraining or changes to their build, so they can excel in a new area. Sometimes they stick around for their narrow competencies or their table entertainment value. Rarely do they double down on their failures just because they can. And even more rarely does a character appear who is so inviable, mechanically or otherwise, that their very presence changes the tone of the game.

And if an entire party is made of characters like this? Oh boy. Oooooh, boy.

Let me tell you about the B-Team. Continue reading

Posted in Campaigns | Tagged , | Comments Off on The B-Team

House Rule: Mitigated Save-or-Dies

For November I had a series of short posts about weird mechanics I’ve used or played in games. Before I posted anything I asked my players about any mechanics they thought would a good fit for one of those posts, and I did get some good ideas. But I also got some ideas that didn’t really fit what I wanted. I was looking for mechanics contradictory to the game’s stated intentions, ones that subvert or ignore core assumptions about how the rules should function and as such should only exist for set pieces. Several of the ideas my players proposed were, instead, just house rules we use in our games. They’re good house rules, but they weren’t part of the stated topic.

Now that there is no stated topic, it’s a good time to talk about those house rules. These don’t break the game wide open—again, they’re nothing on the level of “abolish classes”—but they do change it to something we think is more fun than the rules as written.

Concept: Mitigated save-or-die spells
Tested in: The Worldwound campaign
Continue reading

Posted in DMing, House Rules | Tagged | Comments Off on House Rule: Mitigated Save-or-Dies

Talent vs. Effort

This comment came in recently on the article In Defense of D&D Stats in Simple Language: The Definition of Charisma:

I think the use of the word “empathy” was the one mistake in your article. Psychopaths by definition don’t have empathy, but are often incredibly charismatic because of (as you do say here) their *understanding* of other people. They know what people expect and what they’ll find charming.

I don’t think this is true. I think psychopathy generally correlates with a decreased ability to feel empathy, but it’s not the definition of psychopathy because there is no common definition. But I am not an expert in psychiatry, and I could have it all wrong. I know enough about it to know I don’t know enough to meaningfully debate it.

Instead I want to take this in another direction. There’s an assumption here that I’ve seen in several books, sources of online commentary, and even blog comments, an assumption so understood that I think many of the people making it don’t even know they are. The assumption is that a person with high Charisma is good at influencing others because they have high Charisma, or more generally that a character’s ability score is the most important factor in their skill and the ability score is indicative of who the character is more than the character’s actions. This isn’t true in 3E or 4E, it’s only true in certain parts of 5E, and I think it violates one of D&D’s core concepts so subtly we don’t even realize we’re buying into it. Continue reading

Posted in DMing, Game Design | Tagged | Comments Off on Talent vs. Effort

Faith: A Love Letter to Automatic Bonus Progression

I love D&D’s vast array of magical items. When I started gaming, this was the section of the Dungeon Master’s Guide in which I spent the most time, using different items to come up with character or adventure ideas. I designed items for several campaigns based on the rules in Weapons of Legacy. I’ve gotten more ideas for monster abilities out of the Adventurer’s Vaults than perhaps anywhere else. I unironically own the Arms and Equipment Guide. This is one of the reasons I have some problems with 5E’s focus on making magic items not just special, but special, because it means they have fewer opportunities to affect gameplay. If I know I’m going to go through an entire campaign and see only a few items, it doesn’t make me more excited about what those items might be in particular. It makes me less excited about the concept of items as a whole.

I realize this change was a reaction to issues with previous editions. 3E and Pathfinder have a real problem with the number of items it takes to make a character viable. Pathfinder especially expects that characters will use items to increase their AC, attack bonus, hit points, saving throws, damage, spell DCs, skill checks, and every other stat. A given item probably only increases one or two of those stats until you get to a reasonably high level, which means characters are loaded down with items that do nothing but increase numbers. That’s not fun, and it needed a solution. Returning to the days in which wars were fought over a +2 longsword isn’t the solution I would have picked, though I appreciate the attempt. I’m much happier with a different system, one that increases the opportunity for entertaining items instead of decreasing the opportunity for items as a whole. Continue reading

Posted in DMing, Gaming Systems | Tagged , | Comments Off on Faith: A Love Letter to Automatic Bonus Progression