I find the joy of sandboxing is that my players create the adventures with me, by deciding where to go & what to do. Of course there needs to be some pre-created content to give them a grounding for action, but it's a lot easier to create material in response to player decisions than to create a plotted adventure from nothing. Eg currently my PCs addressed the Altanian clan moot and decided to aid them vs Neo-Nerath by embarking on a lengthy overland quest to reach the Gate Castle of the Black Sun and close the Gate that is the source of Neo-Nerath's vast Necromantic powers. They also decided on their route, from several possible. All I then have to do is detail the quest site (pretty easy when I have Dyson's Delves I & II, I soon found useable maps). Much of the overland journey is created through encounter tables with encounters rolled during play (last session a CR 17 dragon turtle attacked their ship!), in conjunction with the pre-existing set-piece locale notes.
Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?472691-Collaborative-adventure-creation/page2#ixzz3rjobvoUt
Tuesday, 17 November 2015
Monday, 16 November 2015
The 5e Player's Handbook Index Sucks
Luckily a nice fellow has now redone it - http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?770238-I-rewrote-the-5e-Player-s-Handbook-Index
Sunday, 15 November 2015
Exploration and "skip to the fun"
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?472576-Expediting-Exploration-keeping-travel-fun&p=6758144&viewfull=1#post6758144
[QUOTE=Quickleaf;6757524]I can't help but feel like sitting in on some old school style play would do you good. I'm stunned that any DM would claim "exploration = nothing to do" or "exploration is the boring stuff between encounters."[/QUOTE]
This is what James Wyatt says in the 4e DMG in his 'skip to the fun' advice.
The 5e DMG by contrast classes exploration as one of the three pillars of play.
Exploration can of course be boring - IMO combat can be boring too. Even social interation
can be boring - endless low stakes in-character negotiation with shopkeepers to buy
supplies, say. It comes down to GMing techniques such as using appropriate time-scaling for the environment. If a maze or similar area is truly empty and looks dull, even though it's fully mapped out
I'll typically say "ok, an hour later you have negotiated your way through the maze..." - just as I'd skip buying supplies or a day of uneventful travel. There are loads of poorly written adventures where exploration is a chore; the Dungeon Crawl Classics are often quite bad that way. OTOH exploration of
well-detailed, interesting environments can evoke that elusive Sense of Wonder and be
one of the best parts of the game, and early TSR modules like In Search of the Unknown
and (orange-cover) Palace of the Silver Princess often had fascinating environments to explore.
Some modern writers create great dungeons to explore, eg Dyson Logos with his wonderful maps can key a map in a couple of pages that creates something very interesting. Others create dull series of rooms that a computer could generate. If your adventure is like the latter, then 'skip to the fun' may be good advice.
[QUOTE=Quickleaf;6757524]I can't help but feel like sitting in on some old school style play would do you good. I'm stunned that any DM would claim "exploration = nothing to do" or "exploration is the boring stuff between encounters."[/QUOTE]
This is what James Wyatt says in the 4e DMG in his 'skip to the fun' advice.
The 5e DMG by contrast classes exploration as one of the three pillars of play.
Exploration can of course be boring - IMO combat can be boring too. Even social interation
can be boring - endless low stakes in-character negotiation with shopkeepers to buy
supplies, say. It comes down to GMing techniques such as using appropriate time-scaling for the environment. If a maze or similar area is truly empty and looks dull, even though it's fully mapped out
I'll typically say "ok, an hour later you have negotiated your way through the maze..." - just as I'd skip buying supplies or a day of uneventful travel. There are loads of poorly written adventures where exploration is a chore; the Dungeon Crawl Classics are often quite bad that way. OTOH exploration of
well-detailed, interesting environments can evoke that elusive Sense of Wonder and be
one of the best parts of the game, and early TSR modules like In Search of the Unknown
and (orange-cover) Palace of the Silver Princess often had fascinating environments to explore.
Some modern writers create great dungeons to explore, eg Dyson Logos with his wonderful maps can key a map in a couple of pages that creates something very interesting. Others create dull series of rooms that a computer could generate. If your adventure is like the latter, then 'skip to the fun' may be good advice.
Saturday, 14 November 2015
Where to get sandbox adventures
Modules I've used recently for sandboxing:
My Classic D&D Campaign
Pretty well everything from Basicfantasy.org, notably Monkey Isle, plus tons of other great adventures.
X1 Isle of Dread
B7 Horror on the Hill (much tougher than X1!)
DCC The Secret of Smugglers' Cove
My 5e campaign
Dyson's Delves I (just bought II) - the fully developed adventure sites are great, highly recommend
Caverns of Thracia - used the 3.5 version
Liberation of the Demon Slayer - a weird one
Halls of Tizun Thane & The Lichway from Best of White Dwarf Scenarios I, both by Albie Fiore.
If you want tons of great free modules for sandboxing go to https://rpgcharacters.wordpress.com/ for Dyson Logos and http://basicfantasy.org/downloads.html for the Basic Fantasy ones. For print go to Lulu.com for Dyson's Delves, go to amazon(!) for incredibly cheap at-cost printings of the Basic Fantasy works.
My Classic D&D Campaign
Pretty well everything from Basicfantasy.org, notably Monkey Isle, plus tons of other great adventures.
X1 Isle of Dread
B7 Horror on the Hill (much tougher than X1!)
DCC The Secret of Smugglers' Cove
My 5e campaign
Dyson's Delves I (just bought II) - the fully developed adventure sites are great, highly recommend
Caverns of Thracia - used the 3.5 version
Liberation of the Demon Slayer - a weird one
Halls of Tizun Thane & The Lichway from Best of White Dwarf Scenarios I, both by Albie Fiore.
If you want tons of great free modules for sandboxing go to https://rpgcharacters.wordpress.com/ for Dyson Logos and http://basicfantasy.org/downloads.html for the Basic Fantasy ones. For print go to Lulu.com for Dyson's Delves, go to amazon(!) for incredibly cheap at-cost printings of the Basic Fantasy works.
Saturday, 7 November 2015
Classic D&D group magic items
The main 6th level Classic PCs in my group have the following items, with Bramble & Roseanne's +1 platemail armour only because they were gifted it by Duke Stefan two sessions ago as reward for a successful mission - I wanted to get their ACs up. :)
They have mostly played TSR Basic D&D and BFRPG retro-clone adventures, which have similar amounts of magic; we are currently playing C&C adventure The Secret of Smugglers' Cove, a 3e conversion which has rather more I think. We've played weekly since March, roughly 8 months & something like 30-32 sessions. The first three PCs have been played up from 1st level; Roseanne joined more recently. I use death at -10, everyone has been 'mostly dead' at times, but no fatalities yet - though Raise Dead is available.
Bramble Hairyheals, Halfling-6: +1 platemail, +1 short bow, +1 short sword, 6 +1 arrows, 3 healing potions.
Claudia Morrigan, Thief-6: +1 leather, +2 dagger, +1 dagger, 3 healing potions, +2 ring of protection, continual light sapphire.
Alexandra Vorloi, Fighter-6: +1 sword, +2 ring of protection, +1 trident, 1 healing potion, 1 levitation potion.
Roseanne, Cleric-6: +1 platemail, +2 two-handed 'rune maul' warhammer (d8+2), 10 +1 sling bullets, 5 healing potions, scrolls: 2 cure light wounds, 1 bless, 1 raise dead.
I would not call them magic poor (eg I've been generous with healing potions), but the Classic assumption that +3 gear is more the kind of thing you start seeing around Name level differs quite a lot from my memories of AD&D play, I recall in my old AD&D games you'd be seeing +3 and +4 gear at level 6, generated by the 1e DMG treasure tables and often appearing in published 1e adventures.
Compared to AD&D, my Classic PCs average 1 hit point less per level, but I gave max hp at level 1 so that evens out. The Fighter types have slightly worse chances to hit, but most enemy ACs aren't great anyway. They don't get to attack 3 times per 2 rounds from level 7. No STR 18/00, but they typically have STR 16 for +2 attack & damage, better than AD&D STR 17 (+1/+1). Saves seem similar.
They have mostly played TSR Basic D&D and BFRPG retro-clone adventures, which have similar amounts of magic; we are currently playing C&C adventure The Secret of Smugglers' Cove, a 3e conversion which has rather more I think. We've played weekly since March, roughly 8 months & something like 30-32 sessions. The first three PCs have been played up from 1st level; Roseanne joined more recently. I use death at -10, everyone has been 'mostly dead' at times, but no fatalities yet - though Raise Dead is available.
Bramble Hairyheals, Halfling-6: +1 platemail, +1 short bow, +1 short sword, 6 +1 arrows, 3 healing potions.
Claudia Morrigan, Thief-6: +1 leather, +2 dagger, +1 dagger, 3 healing potions, +2 ring of protection, continual light sapphire.
Alexandra Vorloi, Fighter-6: +1 sword, +2 ring of protection, +1 trident, 1 healing potion, 1 levitation potion.
Roseanne, Cleric-6: +1 platemail, +2 two-handed 'rune maul' warhammer (d8+2), 10 +1 sling bullets, 5 healing potions, scrolls: 2 cure light wounds, 1 bless, 1 raise dead.
I would not call them magic poor (eg I've been generous with healing potions), but the Classic assumption that +3 gear is more the kind of thing you start seeing around Name level differs quite a lot from my memories of AD&D play, I recall in my old AD&D games you'd be seeing +3 and +4 gear at level 6, generated by the 1e DMG treasure tables and often appearing in published 1e adventures.
Compared to AD&D, my Classic PCs average 1 hit point less per level, but I gave max hp at level 1 so that evens out. The Fighter types have slightly worse chances to hit, but most enemy ACs aren't great anyway. They don't get to attack 3 times per 2 rounds from level 7. No STR 18/00, but they typically have STR 16 for +2 attack & damage, better than AD&D STR 17 (+1/+1). Saves seem similar.
Wednesday, 28 October 2015
How I Sandbox
I call my multiple-choice campaigns "sandboxy" rather than "sandbox". I have one like this currently, an episodic Classic D&D Karameikos campaign.
My 'actual sandbox' Wilderlands campaign does not have 'adventures'; it does have 'sites' - locations such as dungeons where adventure is particularly likely. But the PCs aren't required to investigate all or any of these. It's also notable for the ability of the PCs to go anywhere & do anything adventurous and it will run smoothly, there's never an adventure of the week that the PCs must do - not even a choice of two or three. Sandboxy games are choice matrices; genuine sandbox games are completely open. Both are distinct from linear games like the Pathfinder AP I just finished, but they're quite distinct I think.
There was an old White Dwarf article that discussed "Scenario Design" vs "Environment Design". Sandboxing involves "Environment Design" - you create an environment for PCs to explore, not scenarios for them to play. This is why my Karameikos game is not a true sandbox - the PCs are presented with adventures & adventure options each week. Whereas in my Wilderlands sandbox there is the environment, in which exist such locations such as the Halls of Tizun Thane and the Caverns of Thracia, but the campaign is not 'adventure driven' - NPC quest givers don't, as a rule, come over to the PCs and ask them to do X. Rather the PCs roam the world encountering interesting stuff, and there are dynamic NPCs doing likewise. A lot of my sandbox effort goes into detailing tons of motivated NPCs whose behaviour interacts with the PCs and with each other. The world is a web of interaction; more detailed in the immediate campaign area, but thanks to the Wilderlands of High Fantasy Box I can look anywhere in the world, see who's there, and have an idea what they're up to.
Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?471441-How-I-Sandbox#ixzz3pqOQkn2H
My 'actual sandbox' Wilderlands campaign does not have 'adventures'; it does have 'sites' - locations such as dungeons where adventure is particularly likely. But the PCs aren't required to investigate all or any of these. It's also notable for the ability of the PCs to go anywhere & do anything adventurous and it will run smoothly, there's never an adventure of the week that the PCs must do - not even a choice of two or three. Sandboxy games are choice matrices; genuine sandbox games are completely open. Both are distinct from linear games like the Pathfinder AP I just finished, but they're quite distinct I think.
There was an old White Dwarf article that discussed "Scenario Design" vs "Environment Design". Sandboxing involves "Environment Design" - you create an environment for PCs to explore, not scenarios for them to play. This is why my Karameikos game is not a true sandbox - the PCs are presented with adventures & adventure options each week. Whereas in my Wilderlands sandbox there is the environment, in which exist such locations such as the Halls of Tizun Thane and the Caverns of Thracia, but the campaign is not 'adventure driven' - NPC quest givers don't, as a rule, come over to the PCs and ask them to do X. Rather the PCs roam the world encountering interesting stuff, and there are dynamic NPCs doing likewise. A lot of my sandbox effort goes into detailing tons of motivated NPCs whose behaviour interacts with the PCs and with each other. The world is a web of interaction; more detailed in the immediate campaign area, but thanks to the Wilderlands of High Fantasy Box I can look anywhere in the world, see who's there, and have an idea what they're up to.
Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?471441-How-I-Sandbox#ixzz3pqOQkn2H
Sunday, 25 October 2015
Checking morale
From http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?768507-Morale-Systems-what-s-good/page3
The 2d6-roll-over-morale (Classic D&D) system is what I use in every edition of D&D. I occasionally make more than 2 checks though - fighting to the death should be rare IMO, though it does happen. Checking before combat begins is a good idea - unless monsters appear to have an overwhelming advantage, it makes very good sense to check if they're willing to initiate combat. I rarely check morale on first monster death, unless it's an opponent who expects to win without losses - predator pack animals or brigands, maybe. I usually check if the monsters are taking significant casualties without inflicting any, or if the ratio of losses is going badly against them. I usually check twice per battle, occasionally three times. If the enemy are not really 'fight to the death' types they may auto-flee if the battle is clearly lost and they're not defending something important.
Generally opponents should be reluctant to initiate combat vs a well-armed and aware enemy, but once committed the longer the battle goes on the *less* likely they are to flee, unless clearly overmatched - and they may not realise they're overmatched. Eg in the police station massacre in The Terminator, the police kept attacking the T-101 because they thought he was just a human who could be felled by one shot. If they'd known he was an armoured cyborg I'd have had them rolling lots of Morale checks. Likewise with monsters vs PCs.
The 2d6-roll-over-morale (Classic D&D) system is what I use in every edition of D&D. I occasionally make more than 2 checks though - fighting to the death should be rare IMO, though it does happen. Checking before combat begins is a good idea - unless monsters appear to have an overwhelming advantage, it makes very good sense to check if they're willing to initiate combat. I rarely check morale on first monster death, unless it's an opponent who expects to win without losses - predator pack animals or brigands, maybe. I usually check if the monsters are taking significant casualties without inflicting any, or if the ratio of losses is going badly against them. I usually check twice per battle, occasionally three times. If the enemy are not really 'fight to the death' types they may auto-flee if the battle is clearly lost and they're not defending something important.
Generally opponents should be reluctant to initiate combat vs a well-armed and aware enemy, but once committed the longer the battle goes on the *less* likely they are to flee, unless clearly overmatched - and they may not realise they're overmatched. Eg in the police station massacre in The Terminator, the police kept attacking the T-101 because they thought he was just a human who could be felled by one shot. If they'd known he was an armoured cyborg I'd have had them rolling lots of Morale checks. Likewise with monsters vs PCs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)