A different approach to Quests
-
I was on a dm quest once. Mind you, not on this server, but an old passworded one.
Anyhow, one of our mates had been captured, and we had to save him. The odds meant we likely couldnt fight our way through. Instead, I spend a good hour, along with two other scouts, in slowly infiltrating the camp, throwing pebbles another way, stuff like that.
In the end, two of us tried to hold them off as the others ran.
That said, it was a fun use of sleep, knock, invisibility, Baldurs Horn, all the spells used in different ways.
Hack and Slash can be fun. Especially if its a real challenge. However, stuff that make you think can be just as fulfilling.
But yes, throwing small hints helps alot, even if they arent thrown at us.
I remember Seths Harper became famous, because he went ALL Mulan on a group of Talassans, and had a mountain pummeling down on them.
-
I personally like to have to roll ability or skill checks per DM request. Lets face it, we may play an 18 intelligent wizard but I doubt one can RP more than his real intelligence and I m sure 18 would be an insane IQ score (180 maybe?). Same goes with wisdom and charisma, and more importantly diplomatic skills. So a roll often makes you feel good you neglected physical stats when for instance your charimsatic fighter can convince an enemy to lay his weapons.
I remember Moloch in a random DM quest (I dont think it was part of a big plot) had placed traps that were activated when someone actually tried to disable them and not when stepping on them. Noone in a party of 5-7 people saw that so he forced an intelligence roll. Well it was the 10-12 intelligence priest that passed the DC…
Some things may be obvious to the DM that runs the quest but if he sees it fitting or taking too long so that it makes it dull, I m all for such kind of rolls. If you feel the 8 int orc cant ever figure it out, just exclude him, I m sure his player would agree.
Another example was Red Banner DM in the underdark had an elemental hunting a small crew of us and it appeared it wouldn't be harmed. While I emoted He frantically looks around the surroundings more for the RP and to emote my characters state of near panick, Red responded with "You see a small crack behind the elemental, a small water stream coming through it* or something similar. He had checked that the character had spot skill maxed and alertness feat (usually useless feat, felt so happy I had it) and didnt even ask for a roll if I remember well. We started hitting the walls behind the elemental till the stone crumbled and the water rushing, took the thing with it.
All in all I love it when more characters than the hack and slash happy barbarian or fighter can shine, I think we all do.
-
I think I have to agree with this post. What made half of PnP fun for me personally was that half the time, all the characters were making persuade checks, spot checks, listen checks, lock picking checks, athletic checks, etc. It doesn't seem like it matters but just having the option of a DM telling you to make a roll makes the event more fun IMO.
-
but just having the option of a DM telling you to make a roll makes the event more fun IMO.
Something preventing players from asking DMs if they can roll stuff to do X? It's perfectly fine to come up with your own methods. Encouraged, actually. If something isn't feasible, we'll likely tell you so and hint at alternatives. You don't have to make checks only when a DM tells you to, during events.
-
I'm just saying that I agree with DM's sending players hints and all.
It is true though, that for a lot of things there is a really big mentallity of just hack and slash. Though I mean, it's sort of obvious who is/isn't a DM controlled monster just by scrolling over the character, and by doing so you can pretty much assume OOC that that particular character has some significant RP to it in one way or another.
It's more of an OOC curtiosy to stop and have interactions with bosses/"special characters" to enhance everyone's experience, even if your character really is some sort of blindly rageing, berzerking psychopath. I think this is a policy that everyone should strive for, regardless of what their character would do IC. I've always treated such encounters as like, a small cutscene in a video game. You and your enemy fight, do some playful banter, then fight some more.
-
but just having the option of a DM telling you to make a roll makes the event more fun IMO.
Something preventing players from asking DMs if they can roll stuff to do X? It's perfectly fine to come up with your own methods. Encouraged, actually. If something isn't feasible, we'll likely tell you so and hint at alternatives. You don't have to make checks only when a DM tells you to, during events.
True story…
(Actually it is good that this is clarified, cause half the time I find myself not sure about it, since chat boxes tend to clutter fast)
-
@The:
This whole discussion needs to revolve round what you as players want to see, given the issue raised.
Just like there is different DM styles, there is different player styles as well. Honestly, some OOC discussion between players and DMs could improve things.
Me personally, I don't mind getting lead down a path. Even if that path is death, as long as the story is fun and exciting. I am all for the Illusionist DM style. I'll play along
-
@The:
Bravery in the face of death when there is a defined goal, such as vast wealth, glory, justice, obtaining a vital artifact, is all to be applauded. This is what we play for. However, I have see a propensity of players just to hack&Slash when they see Red NPCs/Monsters without any thought. I really adore watching players play Brave characters, standing alone on the bridge against the enemy while their collegues recover or other such heroic deed, but many times, I see players just killing and often dying, because its the "no-brainer" option, and this makes me such a sad puppy.
It's not such a no-brainer option as it might seem.
From an IC perspective, turning your back to a person who is trying to put sharp objects into you is just a stupid move in combat. It's downright suicidal.From an OOC perspective, it's even worse. I would likely not flee for the following OOC reasons.
1. These people are putting their lives on the line to get me dead. Therefore, they really really want me to die.
2. I can not outrun these people unless they allow me to because our movement speeds are exactly the same. Unless they're zombies… which to my memory is the only thing I've ever ran away from.
3. 1. suggest they won't just let me go.
Therefore
4. I will not be able to run away from these people.Something preventing players from asking DMs if they can roll stuff to do X?
Well to be honest, I feel a bit silly going "//Can I use Lore to determine what this magical shrine does?" into thin air. I don't mean this as something that should be changed, just as an illustration of why I usually don't do it. I don't know, maybe the insight may be valuable to you.
-
Well to be honest, I feel a bit silly going "//Can I use Lore to determine what this magical shrine does?" into thin air.
Use the DM channel.
just as an illustration of why I usually don't do it. I don't know, maybe the insight may be valuable to you.
If you don't tell us, how can we know what you want to do?
-
If you don't tell us, how can we know what you want to do?
Since you ask, usually I I prefer to try figure things out ICly rather than ask OOCly.
Going with my earlier example, if I want to figure out what the magical shrine does, I will emote examining the shrine, poking the shrine, possibly licking the shrine if I get desperate or recently watched Pirates of the Caribbean, rather than asking if Lore would tell me anything about it.
Similarly if I want to convince an NPC of something, I'd rather try to convince him and give him my most innocent/stupid/other appropriate expression smile than ask if a Bluff roll would work, leaving the decision whether it's Lore or Spellcraft, Bluff or Persuasion, Dex or Strength up to the DM.Am I wrong?
-
If you don't tell us, how can we know what you want to do?
Since you ask, usually I I prefer to try figure things out ICly rather than ask OOCly.
Going with my earlier example, if I want to figure out what the magical shrine does, I will emote examining the shrine, poking the shrine, possibly licking the shrine if I get desperate or recently watched Pirates of the Caribbean, rather than asking if Lore would tell me anything about it.
Similarly if I want to convince an NPC of something, I'd rather try to convince him and give him my most innocent/stupid/other appropriate expression smile than ask if a Bluff roll would work, leaving the decision whether it's Lore or Spellcraft, Bluff or Persuasion, Dex or Strength up to the DM.Am I wrong?
The DM can't always catch every emote from every PC…the DM can't read minds. A specific Tell to the DM channel is needed if you want to know immediate outcomes to what you want to do. Isn't that how PnP works?
"I want to cast a fireball at the top ridge and collapse the rock where the group of goblins are standing, with the hope of sending them all falling down to their deaths"
DM says: "Ok do it."
PC makes a neat emote to the party telling them what he is going to do and casts the fireball.
DM rolls whatever DC checks and informs of the success/failure:
"The fireball punches through the rock and blows up 30 goblins massed there sending them all falling to their deaths."
OR
"The fireball fizzles in your hands and the goblins laugh as your feeble attempts. They move in to kill you now."
200 xp for the effort! (or the Fugue...)
That's the American way. 8)
-
@The:
Neith, you also make an important point here. The question is, how do I respond to it and adapt my DMing to suit without becoming a Director pushing you in the way that I expect you to go. After all, the real fun for a DM is when you players, when given options A and B by the DM, choose option C. I am really open to ideas on how to indicate alternative options to players, but I am concerned about pushing players down my planned route.
This whole discussion needs to revolve round what you as players want to see, given the issue raised.
I've been thinking about what you said Abby, because I think DM quests are a challenge all around. As a player, I think what I have found is helpful, is when there is a moment in which the players can pause and decided what to do next, just like in PnP. Usually the players are eager to rush to the next thing, often with no plan, so it becomes a slash fest.
Harry ran a very successful on-the-fly PnP style quest for a group of us once, and it was my favorite DM quest I ever went on. We were chased by bandits, escaped them momentarily, and he gave us a moment where he told us "The Bandits will arrive soon. You have 60 seconds to decide what you will do." It was a nice breather. One of us started setting traps. I sent a PM to the DM channel and used AE to summon a bunch of wolves. Two fighters set up a perimeter. It was a lot of fun.
Similarly, I had an encounter with Gmork, where an Ogre wanted a toll before we could cross a bridge unless we paid a toll. He was a threat, but we were safe as long as we didn't try to cross the bridge. It gave us a moment to think. The hardest part in this encounter was not getting the players with me (Red Harts, of course) to charge the Ogre and slay it. My Hearald was able to barter with Ogre by offering it some flowers.
I'm not sure if these examples help or not. But I believe the two things that help players are 1) giving a moment to decide before acting, and 2) letting the players know you are receptive to an idea at the time.
For players, I think we need to concentrate on not rushing ahead. It seems most players, especially fighters, want to be the first one into the fray, and show off how powerful or dedicated they are. Remember, not everyone is built to just fight, and it's more fun to involve everyone in a cooperative plan.
I think that we're all discussing this is a good first step!
-
This all goes back to one of the suggestions I made in my "Idea's" thread that was really geared towards dms, that got derailed by people complaining about this and that-have patience with the new blood. I would assume that the current crop of players have been pushed to the forefront of dm events where many of them were fringe players when it came to major things previously. Just asking this question in a thread like this alone will likely go a long way towards people making adjustments. Abandoning events midway through them will have the opposite effect.
I was once asked a question by another accomplished player waaaaay back when I was in house Fezznick and Bradley Larks and was trying to set up an academy for future guards/purple dragons which on an ooc level was really an academy for how to be a better dm plot player, since at that time all plots eventually fell in the guard faction hands. The question was "Wouldn't you rather just play then teach?" My answer was I don't understand why I can't do both at once.
Often our ego's get in the way of whats good for the server. There has always been a sort of high school level hierarchy train of thought that leads people to believe they are better then that person because all they do is quest/market sit/quest, and I sit around plotting wating for some dm event to happen. The thing that a lot of these plotters don't really seem to get (and, unfortunately, I think at times DM's forget too) is that what makes a player truly great is the ability to have the players around them rise up as well, not just follow them around as blind minions.
So, here's my suggestions; communicate, like has been said several times in this thread. I get the choice A choice B but they chose C scenerio, and why it is fun, but take the time to talk oocly for a second when an event that didn't go as good as it could have and explain this to players. Even vets can learn from a little chat afterwards, since all of you (the DMS) are different and like different aspects of the game yourselves. As for the superstar players, maybe its time for a character that makes others rise up while you pull off your next grand scheme to take over the server from the background. I know how much some of you love the spotlight, but I can tell you after playing a few characters over the years that have been background style characters it can be just as rewarding if not more so to see one of the players you are guiding rise to that spotlight as well.
Anyways, thats my two cents. Hope it is not too long and rambly to make sense.
-
1. How do the DMs reconcile complaints about players rushing forward when there is no IC reason to with their also complaints about players not following plot hooks ?
2. The suggestion about having high-int/wus characters roll reveals a weakness in understanding of how the d20 system works. Everyone should roll, at a approapiatley difficult DC since you will have multiple people rolling . The high-stat characters just have a better chance of making it.
and based on the situation it might be Lore to recognize sometihng . or RedKnight worshippers and/or known military-group-type leaders might get situational pluses. But it's not just the "high-wis" people that have a chance. Thats just not how the system works. You can make it very unlikley, such as "roll wis mod, get a 21"3. Why would you even bother making a situation described with these unending bandits, where there is zero chance for the players to have a warm fuzzy feeling? Unless you were intending to see if they'd report it, go and gather more people, or do other actions that might lead to NPC thanks or possible success, it just seems like mean cruelty.
-
@Khamal:
Isn't that how PnP works?
"I want to cast a fireball at the top ridge and collapse the rock where the group of goblins are standing, with the hope of sending them all falling down to their deaths"
DM says: "Ok do it."
PC makes a neat emote to the party telling them what he is going to do and casts the fireball.
DM rolls whatever DC checks and informs of the success/failure:
Precisely. The player wsays, "I want to cast a fireball at the top of the ridge and collapse the rock", not "I want to roll Spellcraft to kill this CR 8 encounter". So I prefer to emote [casts a fireball at the top of the ridge to collapse the rock] over going, //can I roll Spellcraft to kill them?
-
Umm, sorry for not taking the time to re-read everything but…I think it would be best to message the dm's "Can I roll a skill check? I'm going to do this." Then emote in public for the other players to see Casts such and such spell.
-
i dislike combat..but most players who have quested with my characters realize that
i like skill checks..and i like being clever
with cilwa it is playful clever..not like rav….(i may in time relate the bresk castle incident in all its detail..or even the 3 bar civil war incident, though quite a few characters are already aware of that Machiavellian incident ooc) if i can get out of any situation without having anyone fight