"realism" vs game logic.
Peter Seebach
things that "ought to work" that I feel disrupt part of the game logic. Now,
to a certain extent, I want to *encourage* creative thinking.
But it's *NOT* creative thinking to use the same strategies every time.
e.g., every time characters are confronted with a locked door, they want
to see if the hinge pins are on the same side they are, so they can remove
them "easily". Anyone got a good way to make this less practical, so they
stop wasting time with it?
Chests are invariably opened with grappling hooks and ropes. I suppose I can
start making the traps be *inside* the chest, in that they only take effect
when, say, hands are in there... but it still sucks.
I would like to occasionally use larger numbers of weaker opponents, but
flaming oil seems doomed. I can't just hand out 30 rings of fire resistance,
either.
Basically, the problem I'm having is that the experienced players tend to have
a pretty good answer to almost any problem, and it's *not* the game logic one,
which (IMHO) can sorta wreck the mood.
I guess I have this weird idea of heroic fantasy where you open a locked chest
by picking the lock, after trying to disable traps, not where you look for
hinge pins or weak fittings. I know it's *rational* to do it the other way,
but rational people don't cast spells at monsters, now do they?
-s
--
Copyright 2000, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
Peter Knutsen
Peter Seebach wrote:
>
> So, here's my problem. Over time, players have started acquiring a list of
> things that "ought to work" that I feel disrupt part of the game logic. Now,
> to a certain extent, I want to *encourage* creative thinking.
>
> But it's *NOT* creative thinking to use the same strategies every time.
>
> e.g., every time characters are confronted with a locked door, they want
> to see if the hinge pins are on the same side they are, so they can remove
> them "easily". Anyone got a good way to make this less practical, so they
> stop wasting time with it?
Noisy hinges, almost welded together with rust and grime, so
old that it's not easily dissolved with oil.
Sure, the PCs can still unscrew the hinges but it'll make a lot
of noise, and alert those behind the door.
Or the hinge pins could be coated with some kind of laquer or
resin, so that they can't be unscrewed.
> Chests are invariably opened with grappling hooks and ropes. I suppose I can
> start making the traps be *inside* the chest, in that they only take effect
> when, say, hands are in there... but it still sucks.
Please describe that procedure. I have a suspision that it's
not very friendly towards glassware contained in the chest
(in my campaign world, important potions are kept in bronze
vials, though, but maybe your campaign world differs).
> I would like to occasionally use larger numbers of weaker opponents, but
> flaming oil seems doomed. I can't just hand out 30 rings of fire resistance,
> either.
Make an enviroment where the use of fire is near lethal. Maybe
the air in the dungeon contains gasoline (petrol) fumes. Any
spark and the whole thing explodes.
Of course *D&D hitpoint inflation messes that up a bit but
I'm sure you and the other *D&D'ers can find a way around it.
And even if you don't make the explosiion lethal for high-
level characters, their equipment ought to get converted to
ash. All armour, all clothes, all parchment and paper.
(Okay, armour and swords might just melt into useless lumps
of metal but the difference is the same).
> Basically, the problem I'm having is that the experienced players tend to have
> a pretty good answer to almost any problem, and it's *not* the game logic one,
> which (IMHO) can sorta wreck the mood.
I don't really see your problem. Experienced adventurers will
know these solutions from experience. Unexperiened adventers
might hav the INT and the skills that allows them to develop
those techniques.
One problem might be that some approaches are too powerfull,
game mechanically. If so change the rules.
Another might be that you're the kind of gamer who prefers
riddles and puzzle-solving, and you've run out of puzzles.
If that's the case then I can't help you, since I'm not
into that type of gaming.
> I guess I have this weird idea of heroic fantasy where you open a locked chest
> by picking the lock, after trying to disable traps, not where you look for
> hinge pins or weak fittings. I know it's *rational* to do it the other way,
> but rational people don't cast spells at monsters, now do they?
Rational people will learn the laws of physics of the world
and make the best use of them they can imagine.
So if magic works then rational people will learn and use magic.
> -s
--
Peter Knutsen
Art Wendorf
> e.g., every time characters are confronted with a locked door, they
> want to see if the hinge pins are on the same side they are, so they
> can remove them "easily". Anyone got a good way to make this
> less practical, so they stop wasting time with it?
Have the pin a little longer than the hinge, then have the blacksmith who
made the hinge squash both ends of the pins. Now, in order for the PCs to
remove it "easily", they'll have to bang the hinge pin back into a shape
that'll move through the hinge. Also keep in mind that, at least in modern
homes, doors open INTO the room and not into the hall way. This'll keep the
pins on the inside of the door and also make it seem more "realistic" as
that is what most of the _players_ are used to anyway.
> Chests are invariably opened with grappling hooks and ropes. I suppose
> I can start making the traps be *inside* the chest, in that they only take
> effect when, say, hands are in there... but it still sucks.
Hrrmmmm. Make the chest really heavy with a metal bottom. Put the chest
under something (bed, etc). Anyone scooting that chest to the side will be
greeted by a really loud SCRREEEEEECCCHHH!!!
> I would like to occasionally use larger numbers of weaker opponents,
> but flaming oil seems doomed. I can't just hand out 30 rings of fire
> resistance, either.
Flaming oil shouldn't catch fire all that easily. It's basically lamp oil
from a pre-industrial age, right? [Not sure how you think of it IYC]. It
didn't take my group long to figure out that lamp oil is NOT napalm or
gasoline. Most times the wick goes out or the oil takes FOREVER to really
get going, etc. On top of which, if the flasks broke so darn easy, the
characters would have pouches and backpacks full of broken flasks and oil
after a couple of good battles. I had a character try that old "I'll etch
the flasks so they break easier." First time he was slammed into a wall by
an ogre and covered with "potentially" flamable oil, he kept them more
secure and in tougher flasks. ;)
> Basically, the problem I'm having is that the experienced players tend
> to have a pretty good answer to almost any problem, and it's *not* the
> game logic one, which (IMHO) can sorta wreck the mood.
I find that if I leave 90% of things as mundane, untrapped, etc., the
players soon become complacent and become much less careful. It sure makes
that 10% of the time things ARE trapped, cursed, etc, faaaar more exciting.
> I guess I have this weird idea of heroic fantasy where you open
> a locked chest by picking the lock, after trying to disable traps,
> not where you look for hinge pins or weak fittings. I know it's
> *rational* to do it the other way, but rational people don't cast
> spells at monsters, now do they?
I'm currently driving my group nuts by making the "dungeon" they're
exploring devoid of locks. No locks on doors, chests, etc. There's also not
much in the way of treasure (The community is communal / cooperative). It's
driving them crazy. They're becoming complacent. Soon, they'll come to the
chief's rooms (he's a doppleganger wizard-type who is definitely NOT of the
communal / cooperative mind set). Just about everything in his rooms that's
worth anything is under lock and key, and traps, traps, traps. ;)
--
--Art "Clueless" Wendorf
I've come to the realization that Steve is Blue's Familiar.
Maybe I *am* trapped in the house with a two-year old too much.
Anivair
>e.g., every time characters are confronted with a locked door, they want
>to see if the hinge pins are on the same side they are, so they can remove
>them "easily". Anyone got a good way to make this less practical, so they
>stop wasting time with it?
Well, apart from the obvious soloution of putting the pins on the inside, how
about doors without pins. Sliding doors and revolving doors and what not?
There are other types of doors than big oaken ones.
>Chests are invariably opened with grappling hooks and ropes. I suppose I can
>start making the traps be *inside* the chest, in that they only take effect
>when, say, hands are in there... but it still sucks.
I suppose this can be solved by locking the chests thereby forcing players to
pick the locks and risk traps, but it can also be solved by making the chests
larger. Say iron or stone or crystal and too bulky or not built right for the
edges of a hook. What about a chest that is old and simply rips away when the
grappling hook is placed in it? If it were thick enough wood, it would have
to be opened by hand or spell.
>I would like to occasionally use larger numbers of weaker opponents, but
>flaming oil seems doomed. I can't just hand out 30 rings of fire resistance,
>either.
This happnes to me too. At that time, my favorite tactic is to have flaming
kobalds leap onto party members. I also like to use small fire based creatures
who can't be vurned. Also, have you thought about using their own psychology
against them? Throw a small mass of creatures at them, use up their oil, and
then hit them with the really big hoard (who were running behiend their
scouting party).
just my thoughts.
--
later,
~Anivair
Ani...@aol.com
Peter Seebach
Anivair <ani...@aol.com> wrote:
>Well, apart from the obvious soloution of putting the pins on the inside, how
>about doors without pins. Sliding doors and revolving doors and what not?
>There are other types of doors than big oaken ones.
Yeah, but if the pins are on the inside, how do I make the door so it doesn't
open inwards - encouraging bashing.
>I suppose this can be solved by locking the chests thereby forcing players to
>pick the locks and risk traps, but it can also be solved by making the chests
>larger.
Hmm. Good point. (Mostly, they pick the lock, then stand back and open
stuff safely...)
>This happnes to me too. At that time, my favorite tactic is to have flaming
>kobalds leap onto party members. I also like to use small fire based creatures
>who can't be vurned. Also, have you thought about using their own psychology
>against them? Throw a small mass of creatures at them, use up their oil, and
>then hit them with the really big hoard (who were running behiend their
>scouting party).
Interesting point. I have noticed a weakness, which is that the party's
combat-oriented mage tends to prefer to use mass-damage attacks on the first
major fight, figuring he can always retreat.
Honestly, the biggest win for me in 3E is that it'll be a lot easier to
justify 1HD monsters having +2 or +3 to hit, which moves the AC-1 (now 21)
platemailed fighter from "natural 20"to "16+" to hit...
Eli Fenton
> things that "ought to work" that I feel disrupt part of the game logic. Now,
> to a certain extent, I want to *encourage* creative thinking.
You just need more creative problems. Don't give the players locked chests
and doorss. Give them something they haven't seen before. Make a chest
with no clear opening. Make a doorway with an invisible door.
> e.g., every time characters are confronted with a locked door, they want
> to see if the hinge pins are on the same side they are, so they can remove
> them "easily". Anyone got a good way to make this less practical, so they
> stop wasting time with it?
Sure. Make the door metal, and make it lean back a little (very little
would work). Now they take the pins out, and *BOOM*, a 500lb iron door
falls on top of them.
Or -- make the pins rusted. It's quite hard to remove rusted pins.
Or -- maybe something's living in the pins. They remove the pins, only to
discover that their hand is covered in green slime, or rot grubs, or
whatever.
Or -- the pins are cursed.
You just need some creative ideas, to outdo player creativity.
> Chests are invariably opened with grappling hooks and ropes. I suppose I can
> start making the traps be *inside* the chest, in that they only take effect
> when, say, hands are in there... but it still sucks.
I don't quite see how that would work, but anyway, try a chest that's
welded to the floor. -- or one that, when moved, causes the ceiling to
cave in and either crush the characters or bury the chest under something
too heavy to lift. Maybe hitting the chest produces a fire in a 2' radius
around the chest. Now the rope is burnt. There are endless possibilities.
> I would like to occasionally use larger numbers of weaker opponents, but
> flaming oil seems doomed. I can't just hand out 30 rings of fire resistance,
> either.
Then make the opponents smarter. If the characters are surrounded, they
won't very well want to block off their only escape route. Maybe the
monsters drop from above. Maybe they're behind a wall, and shooting
through arrow slits.
Ian R Malcomson
>So, here's my problem. Over time, players have started acquiring a list of
>things that "ought to work" that I feel disrupt part of the game logic. Now,
>to a certain extent, I want to *encourage* creative thinking.
>
No, but establishing set tactics for certain things is still a wise
idea. Consider what the outcomes of certain battles would have been had
the commanders sat down and said "Well, we can't use tactic X because
we've used it before". However, I can see what you're getting at.
>e.g., every time characters are confronted with a locked door, they want
>to see if the hinge pins are on the same side they are, so they can remove
>them "easily". Anyone got a good way to make this less practical, so they
>stop wasting time with it?
Create a hinge with a sealed pin. Use hinges that do not have a
separate pin (e.g., the "pin" is actually a forged part of the hinge
section attached to the door - to release the "pin", the door must be
opened and literally lifted up from its hinges).
>Chests are invariably opened with grappling hooks and ropes. I suppose I can
>start making the traps be *inside* the chest, in that they only take effect
>when, say, hands are in there... but it still sucks.
Spikes or blades that eject from the chest in all directions when the
thing is opened. For "trap-in-chest" logic, how about a simple pressure
plate at the chest's base. If the contents are moved from the chest,
pressure is released from the plate, and whatever trap there is
activated. Some individuals might get into the habit of teeter-
balancing delicate objects within a chest; opening the chest violently
upsets the teeter, and smashes the object. Once the PCs have rendered a
few potions unusable because of this, they may start being a little more
careful in their chest opening schemes.
>I would like to occasionally use larger numbers of weaker opponents, but
>flaming oil seems doomed. I can't just hand out 30 rings of fire resistance,
>either.
Oil of elemental invulnerability. One vial is enough for eight
individuals... One tournament I DMd had a bunch of trolls that had
given themselves a form of fire resistance by coating themselves in a
kind of mud or clay.
--
Ian R Malcomson
Erstwhile Domicus bloke
Domicus website: http://www.domicus.demon.co.uk
Aldor creator & designer: http://www.d20games.com
ProFantasy Freelancer: http://www.profantasy.com
Peter Seebach
Ian R Malcomson <i...@domicus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>No, but establishing set tactics for certain things is still a wise
>idea. Consider what the outcomes of certain battles would have been had
>the commanders sat down and said "Well, we can't use tactic X because
>we've used it before". However, I can see what you're getting at.
Yeah. It's rational, but it's rational because the players grew up in
a post-enlightenment society. I don't *believe* the characters would
think this way.
>Create a hinge with a sealed pin. Use hinges that do not have a
>separate pin (e.g., the "pin" is actually a forged part of the hinge
>section attached to the door - to release the "pin", the door must be
>opened and literally lifted up from its hinges).
Ooh, I like that.
Whee! Thanks everyone, I'm full of cool new ideas again.
Bryan J. Maloney
se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) wrote:
> e.g., every time characters are confronted with a locked door, they want
> to see if the hinge pins are on the same side they are, so they can remove
> them "easily". Anyone got a good way to make this less practical, so they
> stop wasting time with it?
Put the hinge pins on the other side of the door!
> Chests are invariably opened with grappling hooks and ropes. I suppose I can
> start making the traps be *inside* the chest, in that they only take effect
> when, say, hands are in there... but it still sucks.
Stop using trapped chests at all. If you use the SAME STUPID OLD TRICKS
against your players, they will use the same stupid old tricks against
you! What did you say on this matter?
> But it's *NOT* creative thinking to use the same strategies every time.
Yes, that is what you said. It sounds to me like YOU are the one short of
"creative thinking". If you keep throwing the same old stuff at them,
they will use what works.
> I would like to occasionally use larger numbers of weaker opponents, but
> flaming oil seems doomed. I can't just hand out 30 rings of fire resistance,
> either.
Study what the Ewoks did against the Empire.
> I guess I have this weird idea of heroic fantasy where you open a locked chest
> by picking the lock, after trying to disable traps, not where you look for
> hinge pins or weak fittings. I know it's *rational* to do it the other way,
What you have is a lack of creative thinking on your own part. Why have
"treasures" just hanging around to be plundered?
> but rational people don't cast spells at monsters, now do they?
Why not? In a world where magic can be RATIONALLY DEMONSTRATED TO WORK,
rational people WILL cast spells at monsters!
--
For those in the know, potrzebie is truly necessary.
Peter Seebach
I do, at least sometimes. I've gotten some other good ideas.
>Stop using trapped chests at all. If you use the SAME STUPID OLD TRICKS
>against your players, they will use the same stupid old tricks against
>you! What did you say on this matter?
Good point. Still, it bugs me occasionally that I can't use "traditional"
environments without having them totally munchkined.
>> But it's *NOT* creative thinking to use the same strategies every time.
>Yes, that is what you said. It sounds to me like YOU are the one short of
>"creative thinking". If you keep throwing the same old stuff at them,
>they will use what works.
True enough. I think part of my gripe is that 1st level characters are
*astoundingly* good at guessing things based on years of dungeoneering
experience.
>> I would like to occasionally use larger numbers of weaker opponents, but
>> flaming oil seems doomed. I can't just hand out 30 rings of fire resistance,
>> either.
>Study what the Ewoks did against the Empire.
Very good point.
>What you have is a lack of creative thinking on your own part. Why have
>"treasures" just hanging around to be plundered?
Partially because one of the things I like is the heroic fantasy *genre*.
>> but rational people don't cast spells at monsters, now do they?
>Why not? In a world where magic can be RATIONALLY DEMONSTRATED TO WORK,
>rational people WILL cast spells at monsters!
But they shouldn't, IMHO, make those rational decisions based on a level
of understanding of what happens that I associate with post-newtonian physics.
Marcel Parent
Peter Seebach <se...@plethora.net> wrote in message
news:39901bcd$0$8320$3c09...@news.plethora.net...
> In article <20000808103230...@ng-me1.aol.com>,
> Anivair <ani...@aol.com> wrote:
> >Well, apart from the obvious soloution of putting the pins on the inside,
how
> >about doors without pins. Sliding doors and revolving doors and what
not?
> >There are other types of doors than big oaken ones.
>
> Yeah, but if the pins are on the inside, how do I make the door so it
doesn't
> open inwards - encouraging bashing.
Most doors of this period probably don't have hinges like we do with pins.
They are probably like the hinges on the PHB in that the hinge is bolted
into the door and the stonework. One would break a sword trying to take the
hinge off. In fact, it would probably be easier to smash through the door
than pry out hte bolts.
>
> >I suppose this can be solved by locking the chests thereby forcing
players to
> >pick the locks and risk traps, but it can also be solved by making the
chests
> >larger.
>
> Hmm. Good point. (Mostly, they pick the lock, then stand back and open
> stuff safely...)
Another option is making area of effect traps, like gas clouds or what-not.
Or a trap that triggers something in the room, not the chest. Also, maybe
the Chest of Gold is on a pressure plate, so if they want to move the chest,
or take too much out of the chest without disarming the plate, then
something in the room is triggered.
<snip>
Good luck
Marcel
Jeneth J. Hawke
<snip>
> Still, it bugs me occasionally that I can't use "traditional"
>environments without having them totally munchkined.
<snip>
> I think part of my gripe is that 1st level characters are
> *astoundingly* good at guessing things based on years of
> dungeoneering experience.
If this is the case, then the problem probably isn't how to rearrange the
dungeon. The problem is more likely that your players are using player
knowledge to influence the actions of an inexperienced character and you are
allowing them to get away with that.
Have a chat with them if you don't think that first level characters should
possess this sort of knowledge and experience. D&D is first and foremost a
roleplaying game. Using years of player knowledge at every turn to help out a
character who doesn't have a clue what he's doing on his first few adventures
is a very "munchkiny" pursuit, IMO. My own players would expect to take an
experience penalty for this and would catch Hell from the rest of the group all
night for abusing the rules in that manner. We have a mutually understood
"player knowledge /= character knowledge" pact in our group. If you do
something too far out of line, the entire group calls you on it. Some of them
knowingly do stupid things here and there with new characters because, while
they realize that *they* know better, they also realize that the character does
not -- yet -- and the character needs to learn to develop properly. People
learn by making mistakes.
When you've been playing long enough to have seen it all, done it all and
developed a procedure for handling it all, it's time to start roleplaying and
stop rollplaying if you haven't already. If you don't do that, the original
purpose of the game will quickly cease to be entertaining. You can't "win" D&D.
The experience itself is the entertainment.
Just my .02,
- J.
Andrew Tellez
Peter Seebach wrote:
>
> e.g., every time characters are confronted with a locked door, they want
> to see if the hinge pins are on the same side they are, so they can remove
> them "easily". Anyone got a good way to make this less practical, so they
> stop wasting time with it?
Easily removable hinge pins are a relatively new thing. Try hinges that
don't incorporate straight pins, such that PCs must either saw through
them or bend the iron to disassemble the hinge. It only needs to be as
difficult as dealing with the lock.
> Chests are invariably opened with grappling hooks and ropes. I suppose I can
> start making the traps be *inside* the chest, in that they only take effect
> when, say, hands are in there... but it still sucks.
How do they attach a grapple to the chest? Smaller chests could just
flip over rather than open. Some might have locking mechanisms that
require someone to hold a button or lever while opening the chest. And
some might have no protrusions to grab.
> I would like to occasionally use larger numbers of weaker opponents, but
> flaming oil seems doomed. I can't just hand out 30 rings of fire
Lamp oil only does 1d3 for a round or two, and in a small area (5'
diameter?). Greek Fire does more, but again the area is pretty small,
and it's expensive. You can cut off their supply, either by increasing
the cost or just not having anyone stock it anymore. Perhaps the
kobolds bought it, both to use against their enemies, and to keep others
from using it.
> I guess I have this weird idea of heroic fantasy where you open a locked chest
> by picking the lock, after trying to disable traps, not where you look for
> hinge pins or weak fittings. I know it's *rational* to do it the other
Looking for weak fittings and such is part of disabling the trap.
Hinges are part of the Open Doors roll.
At least they aren't using green slime to dissolve doors. :)
Andrew Tellez
Peter Seebach wrote:
>
> Yeah, but if the pins are on the inside, how do I make the door so it doesn't
> open inwards - encouraging bashing.
What's wrong with bashing? :) The easy way is to have doors be barred,
rather than just locked. Mechanical locks weren't all that common. If
there's someone on the other side, then bar the door. Heck, the lock
mechanism could be to move the bar, rather than just a bolt.
Or, make the locked door nice and sturdy. If the door is designed to
keep people out, it should be resistant to mundane bashing.
Bryan J. Maloney
se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) wrote:
> But they shouldn't, IMHO, make those rational decisions based on a level
> of understanding of what happens that I associate with post-newtonian physics.
Does the magic always work the same way every time the spell is cast? If
so, then such "understanding" is to be expected.
Bryan J. Maloney
Parent" <mrpa...@sprint.ca> wrote:
> Most doors of this period probably don't have hinges like we do with pins.
> They are probably like the hinges on the PHB in that the hinge is bolted
> into the door and the stonework. One would break a sword trying to take the
> hinge off. In fact, it would probably be easier to smash through the door
> than pry out hte bolts.
That doesn't matter. That type of hinge still has pins.
PJS
> So, here's my problem. Over time, players have started acquiring a list
of
> things that "ought to work" that I feel disrupt part of the game logic.
Now,
> to a certain extent, I want to *encourage* creative thinking.
>
>
> to see if the hinge pins are on the same side they are, so they can remove
> them "easily". Anyone got a good way to make this less practical, so they
> stop wasting time with it?
>
can
> start making the traps be *inside* the chest, in that they only take
effect
> when, say, hands are in there... but it still sucks.
I don't see what's wrong here; as the characters become experienced
dungeoneers they'll pick up certain tricks like this as a matter of course.
This sort of precaution, of course doesn't stop things like poisoned needles
sprinkled in amongst hoards of coins and so on.
--------
> I would like to occasionally use larger numbers of weaker opponents, but
> flaming oil seems doomed. I can't just hand out 30 rings of fire
> either.
--------
Flaming oil rules should be applied to the letter to prevent them becoming
low-level fireballs.
--------
> Basically, the problem I'm having is that the experienced players tend to
have
> a pretty good answer to almost any problem, and it's *not* the game logic
one,
> which (IMHO) can sorta wreck the mood.
>
chest
> by picking the lock, after trying to disable traps, not where you look for
> hinge pins or weak fittings. I know it's *rational* to do it the other
> but rational people don't cast spells at monsters, now do they?
But if there are traps and such all over the place, then it's not heroic
fantasy.
--
The Ox is like the Bamboo
Floating on the Ocean.
Peter Seebach
>se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) wrote:
>> But they shouldn't, IMHO, make those rational decisions based on a level
>> of understanding of what happens that I associate with post-newtonian physics.
>Does the magic always work the same way every time the spell is cast? If
>so, then such "understanding" is to be expected.
I'm not sure about that.
As an example, though, there's a custom spell they have which is an
area-of-effect fire spell. The gimmick is, it ignites pretty much all
combustibles in AOE, but does only 1hp of damage, save for no damage.
So, they're trying to get into an abandoned frost giant castle, coated with
ice. (Figure about 2' thick.)
They use the spell on the door. I ruled that the sudden heating of the door
to a temperature at which it could burn turned the nearby ice to steam, and
hit them up for shrapnel damage. They were offended, because it "shouldn't"
have worked like that.
The whole adventure went sorta badly, IMHO, because I was trying to get them
to use fantasy logic, and they kept trying to use post-enlightenment physics.
I think they were out of character, but I should have adapted to it better.
Peter Seebach
>> flaming oil seems doomed. I can't just hand out 30 rings of fire
>diameter?).
1d3? 2d6!
Hmm.
A direct hit from flaming oil burns for two rounds, causing 2d6 points of
damage in the first round and 1d6 points in the second round.
FUCK ME.
I just realized I've been absent-mindedly having the "pool" of oil do that
damage.
Okay, I'm an idiot. I'll alert the players that I was running it wrong,
and they can then adapt. :)
(I feel obliged to give people one warning before changing a ruling.)
>At least they aren't using green slime to dissolve doors. :)
Heh.
USCM_Sulaco
se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) wrote:
> So, here's my problem. Over time, players have started acquiring a
list of
> things that "ought to work" that I feel disrupt part of the game
logic. Now,
> to a certain extent, I want to *encourage* creative thinking.
>
> But it's *NOT* creative thinking to use the same strategies every
time.
>
> e.g., every time characters are confronted with a locked door, they
want
> to see if the hinge pins are on the same side they are, so they can
remove
> them "easily". Anyone got a good way to make this less practical, so
they
> stop wasting time with it?
Why is that a waste of time? It is the players being smart.
> Chests are invariably opened with grappling hooks and ropes. I
suppose I can
> start making the traps be *inside* the chest, in that they only take
effect
> when, say, hands are in there... but it still sucks.
Why?
> I would like to occasionally use larger numbers of weaker opponents,
but
> flaming oil seems doomed. I can't just hand out 30 rings of fire
resistance,
> either.
What?
> Basically, the problem I'm having is that the experienced players tend
to have
> a pretty good answer to almost any problem, and it's *not* the game
logic one,
> which (IMHO) can sorta wreck the mood.
How are any of these outside of game logic? Are you suggesting that
in-game people are too stupid to find clever ways of doing things? Do
people in your games just blunder around like buffoons?
> I guess I have this weird idea of heroic fantasy where you open a
locked chest
> by picking the lock, after trying to disable traps, not where you look
for
> hinge pins or weak fittings. I know it's *rational* to do it the
other way,
> but rational people don't cast spells at monsters, now do they?
Why not? Why are you trying to force the players to play your way? Why
not adapt to their way? How is it a hewroic game to berate the players
for being clever and whining cos you can't damage them enough with
monsters and traps?
--
"Superstition is the religion of fools."
Dave's Wyrld http://www.homestead.com/daves_wyrld
My D&D Page http://www.homestead.com/daves_wyrld/adnd.html
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Bryan J. Maloney
se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) wrote:
> In article <bjm10-08080...@potato.cit.cornell.edu>,
> Bryan J. Maloney <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> >In article <39902c0e$0$8314$3c09...@news.plethora.net>,
> >se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) wrote:
> >> But they shouldn't, IMHO, make those rational decisions based on a level
> >> of understanding of what happens that I associate with post-newtonian
physics.
>
> >Does the magic always work the same way every time the spell is cast? If
> >so, then such "understanding" is to be expected.
>
> I'm not sure about that.
>
> As an example, though, there's a custom spell they have which is an
> area-of-effect fire spell. The gimmick is, it ignites pretty much all
> combustibles in AOE, but does only 1hp of damage, save for no damage.
>
> So, they're trying to get into an abandoned frost giant castle, coated with
> ice. (Figure about 2' thick.)
>
> They use the spell on the door. I ruled that the sudden heating of the door
> to a temperature at which it could burn turned the nearby ice to steam, and
> hit them up for shrapnel damage. They were offended, because it "shouldn't"
> have worked like that.
Here's the problem: You are using post-enlightenment physics in your
thinking. A fantasy explanation would be something on the order of "The
fire generated in the midst of this realm of cold and frost has so
affrighted the spirits of ice that inhabit the castle's coating that they
have burst off in all directions, showering you with sharp shards of ice."
No physics involved, instead metaphysics explains it.
Marcel Parent
Bryan J. Maloney <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:bjm10-08080...@potato.cit.cornell.edu...
> In article <qUWj5.12750$fV5.1...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>, "Marcel
> Parent" <mrpa...@sprint.ca> wrote:
>
> > Most doors of this period probably don't have hinges like we do with
pins.
> > They are probably like the hinges on the PHB in that the hinge is bolted
> > into the door and the stonework. One would break a sword trying to take
the
> > hinge off. In fact, it would probably be easier to smash through the
door
> > than pry out hte bolts.
>
> That doesn't matter. That type of hinge still has pins.
But much more difficult to take out. Also, that type of hinge could have the
pin washed out on both sides of the door.
Marcel
Mike Harvey
>
> e.g., every time characters are confronted with a locked door, they want
> to see if the hinge pins are on the same side they are, so they can remove
> them "easily". Anyone got a good way to make this less practical, so they
> stop wasting time with it?
Make the door extremely heavy, so that when they remove the pins it
immediately falls on the characters for 2d8 damage.
Trap the pins with electric charges.
Rivet the pins in place by hammering each end to flatten it so it
can't be removed.
Let them remove the rusty, tight pins. It takes 1d3 turns to pry out
EACH pin, amid much screeching and hammering, attracting wandering
monsters each turn and alerting whatever is behind the door.
The door is very heavy. The hinges support it just enough to allow it
to be swung, but if they are removed it rests on the floor and won't
budge.
After removing two of the three hinges, the door leans enough that it
binds the third hinge and it cannot be removed. It also becomes lodged
in the frame such that it can only be opened with a bend bars roll or
by chopping through it.
The door is made of old rotten wood. While they party is working on
the hinges, something behind the door starts firing crossbow bolts
*through* it at the party members.
> Chests are invariably opened with grappling hooks and ropes. I suppose I can
> start making the traps be *inside* the chest, in that they only take effect
> when, say, hands are in there... but it still sucks.
The grapnel pulls the chest over on its side, breaking all the potions
within.
The grapnel pulls the sturdy chest around the floor but cannot open
it. If the chest is somehow lodged in place, the rope breaks before
the chest does.
The grapnel hooks the exact location on the chest which triggers some
area-effect trap, like a fireball or cloudkill. After dealing with the
trap, the chest is still intact.
The chest is wizard locked and impervious to physical damage.
At the moment of maximum pressure, the grapnel slips off, sails
through the air and strikes the character on the other end of the rope
for 1d6 damage (unless a save is made).
The chest is extremely valuable, made of rare woods and inlaid with
silver and gems. Ripping it apart destroys it, and reveals that
nothing is inside. Alternately, the chest is magical in some way and
is destroyed by the grapnel.
The chest is a rare mimic-like creature which absorbs an eats iron
(finding grapnels a tasty treat) but does not otherwise bother the
party.
The chest is filled with gold dust. When the chest is destroyed,
powdery gold dust goes everywhere and must be painstakingly gathered
into sacks.
One of the hooks of the grapnel wedges itself into the lock and
mangles it so it can no longer be opened, but the chest is too sturdy
to be pulled apart. Instant white elephant.
> I would like to occasionally use larger numbers of weaker opponents, but
> flaming oil seems doomed. I can't just hand out 30 rings of fire resistance,
> either.
After one or two kobolds is burned, the others fall back and start
firing arrows at the party instead.
The monsters throw flaming oil back at the party members. Any oil
flasks which do not break are thrown back at the party.
The monsters attack the characters in a library filled with magic
books, or in a room filled with rare and valuable tapestries, or...
The monsters overturn a barrel or two of water which washes down the
passage toward the characters. Of course the flaming oil floats and is
carried along...
The monsters have a number of potions, a bag of holding, and a cloak
of protection, all of which are destroyed by the flaming oil.
All that fire attracts a wandering efreet...
After the party has created a nice hot fire, a mage steps up behind it
and starts casting spells. He has Protection from Normal Missiles
cast, and engaging him by hand requires crossing the oil.
Mike
Michael Scott Brown
news:39901385$0$8307$3c09...@news.plethora.net...
of
> things that "ought to work" that I feel disrupt part of the game logic.
The examples you've cited don't seem to be game logic problems; the
adventurers have found effective ways to bypass certain challenges, it's
their privelege to use them. What percentage of the time would you like
to allow an effective tactic to work normally?
It's not "game logical" to start having everything in the world be
designed to resist their methods . . . I would suggest that opening doors
and chests is the least important thing on the spectrum of fun in heroic
roleplaying, and that investments in real challenge should be sought
elsewhere.
That said, notice that you can discourage the "greatly abuse the chest"
tactic by using treasures that are fragile, or by using blast traps that
attack the contents of the chest as much as the person opening them (when
there's a logical reason for such - many people might want to make sure that
if I can't have it . . .). The party might be proud to have opened the
chest "remotely" but they won't be so happy when they discover that the
potions of giant strength within are now shattered all over the ground, or
that the case of 9th level spell scrolls was burned by the fireblast . ..
Discovering that this technique will involve losses might encourage
them to try other methods.
There is also the possibility of not using *chests* - a cubbyhole is a
bit harder to haul out . .
> e.g., every time characters are confronted with a locked door, they want
> to see if the hinge pins are on the same side they are, so they can remove
> them "easily". Anyone got a good way to make this less practical, so they
> stop wasting time with it?
Tell them it isn't easy.
> I would like to occasionally use larger numbers of weaker opponents, but
> flaming oil seems doomed. I can't just hand out 30 rings of fire
resistance,
> either.
Try this: covering someone in "extra" flaming oil adds duration (more
fuel) rather than more damage. Little pyrmunchkins can thus cause a lot of
grief over time without dealing 60d6 damage on the first round . .
> I guess I have this weird idea of heroic fantasy where you open a locked
chest
> by picking the lock, after trying to disable traps, not where you look for
> hinge pins or weak fittings. I know it's *rational* to do it the other
way,
> but rational people don't cast spells at monsters, now do they?
If spells worked? I'd find that an utterly rational solution.
-Michael
Jeneth J. Hawke
> inlaid with silver and gems. Ripping it apart destroys it, and
> reveals that nothing is inside. Alternately, the chest is
> magical in some way and is destroyed by the grapnel.
Reminds me of the first game I played with my current group when I met them...
We were exploring an old temple and found an ordinary looking chest that we
couldn't get into. Forgetting that we had found a strange key that was
currently in the thief's backpack (which was later discovered to be *the* key),
the thief tried picking the lock, the wizard tried magically unlocking it, etc.
and nothing seemed to do the trick. Finally, the fighter had had enough and
started cutting into the lid of the chest with a very large magic sword. On the
strike that finally broke through a turn or three later, the sword stuck in the
wood, an eerie light began to shine out of the hole around the sword, there was
the sudden sound of decompression and...
The "Chest of Holding" imploded in on itself, sucking everything within a 10'
radius into a void never to be seen again.
I will never forget the look on the fighter's face after the human chain
finally dragged him out of the room and he realized that his favorite weapon
was gone forever and that he had nearly gone with it. That was the last time
this group ever "SOP"ed* a piece of dungeon scenery. :-)
- J.
* SOP = "standard operating procedure" for those not familiar with the term.
One of the players used the term regularly until SOPs stopped working reliably
and bad things started happening.
Bernard Peek
<se...@plethora.net> writes
>So, here's my problem. Over time, players have started acquiring a list of
>to a certain extent, I want to *encourage* creative thinking.
>
>But it's *NOT* creative thinking to use the same strategies every time.
>
>to see if the hinge pins are on the same side they are, so they can remove
>them "easily". Anyone got a good way to make this less practical, so they
>stop wasting time with it?
Stop putting hinges on the outside of the doors.
>
>Chests are invariably opened with grappling hooks and ropes. I suppose I can
>start making the traps be *inside* the chest, in that they only take effect
>when, say, hands are in there... but it still sucks.
Build a few traps that can't be beaten this way. Use your imagination.
>
>I would like to occasionally use larger numbers of weaker opponents, but
>flaming oil seems doomed. I can't just hand out 30 rings of fire resistance,
>either.
I recall an expedition where we tackled a hobgoblin lacrosse team....
>
>Basically, the problem I'm having is that the experienced players tend to have
>a pretty good answer to almost any problem, and it's *not* the game logic one,
>which (IMHO) can sorta wreck the mood.
They have answers to all of the standard GM tricks. Stop using the
standard GM tricks.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com
b...@shrdlu.co.uk
Randy Patton
se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) wrote:
> So, here's my problem. Over time, players have started acquiring a list
> of
> things that "ought to work" that I feel disrupt part of the game logic.
Well, what "ought to work" really is part of the game logic, right? If
doors have hinges, and hinges have pins, then doors can be taken off
their hinges. It's perverse for players to expect otherwise, and even
more perverse for the PCs themselves, who earn their beer money in
dungeons knocking doors off the hinges. ;-)
Almost every fighter takes the long sword as his primary weapon because,
pound for pound, it's the best melee weapon on the charts. It's
therefore perverse for fighters who know about the long sword to choose
a less effective weapon. The long sword *actually* *works* *better* in
the game world, and the PCs will know this as sure as we know that
grabbing a skunk by the tail is a bad idea: people have *tried* it.
So, what do dungeon designers, trap builders and related sadists know
from *their* experience? Well, they know darn well not to put hinges on
the outside of doors, and not to assume that thieves will be standing
right next to a trapped chest when it opens. They know these things
because adventurers have been bullying their way into dungeons for
centuries, knocking doors off hinges, etc.
In the real world, leaps of ingenuity on one side of a conflict are
frequently countered by corresponding feats of practicality on the
other. If it's fair for the PCs to use their noggins, it's fair for the
baddies.
Imagine Givan the Crafty, Chief Architect and Engineer to the Forces of
Darkness. "Why have doors in a dungeon or evil temple at all?" he asks.
"They just let adventurers sneak up on us."
Similarly, Givan concludes that trapped chests should destroy their
contents, not their openers. After all, it's too late to save your
treasure when adventurers are already looting the place; why not deny
them their spoils? (Hey, Evil is petty.)
Got lots of weak minions? Givan says "Honeycomb the walls with tunnels
and secret doors. Let your loyal followers attack from many directions
while never presenting a unified target." Build hideyholes, ambush
points, etc., and tailor them to the physical nature of your servants.
Sure, the party's elf or dwarf might find the secret door leading to the
tunnels, but if those tunnels are scaled for pixies, what's he going to
do with it?
If players complain that you're trying to screw them by deliberately
circumventing their usual methods, tell them "You're right; I am." If
the PCs can use knowledge gained from past mistakes to create solutions
to problems, why can't the designers of dungeons, castles, monster
lairs, etc., learn from the mistakes of *their* predecessors?
jbs
>So, here's my problem. Over time, players have started acquiring a list of
>things that "ought to work" that I feel disrupt part of the game logic. Now,
>to a certain extent, I want to *encourage* creative thinking.
>
>But it's *NOT* creative thinking to use the same strategies every time.
>
>e.g., every time characters are confronted with a locked door, they want
>to see if the hinge pins are on the same side they are, so they can remove
>them "easily". Anyone got a good way to make this less practical, so they
>stop wasting time with it?
Yeah. The hinges are always on the other side. Worked in my group.
>Chests are invariably opened with grappling hooks and ropes. I suppose I can
>start making the traps be *inside* the chest, in that they only take effect
>when, say, hands are in there... but it still sucks.
Or trap the room instead of just the chest. Or trap the lock. They
can't be picked with grappling hooks and ropes.
>I would like to occasionally use larger numbers of weaker opponents, but
>flaming oil seems doomed. I can't just hand out 30 rings of fire resistance,
>either.
Uh, what?
>Basically, the problem I'm having is that the experienced players tend to have
>a pretty good answer to almost any problem, and it's *not* the game logic one,
>which (IMHO) can sorta wreck the mood.
True. It's hard for an experienced player to play a 1st level
character. Give them xp bonuses for using character knowledge, not
player knowledge. They'll catch on quick.
>I guess I have this weird idea of heroic fantasy where you open a locked chest
>by picking the lock, after trying to disable traps, not where you look for
>hinge pins or weak fittings. I know it's *rational* to do it the other way,
>but rational people don't cast spells at monsters, now do they?
You're right. Rational isn't always heroic.
jbs
jbs
>In article <20000808103230...@ng-me1.aol.com>,
>Anivair <ani...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Well, apart from the obvious soloution of putting the pins on the inside, how
>>about doors without pins. Sliding doors and revolving doors and what not?
>>There are other types of doors than big oaken ones.
>
>Yeah, but if the pins are on the inside, how do I make the door so it doesn't
>open inwards - encouraging bashing.
Bashing in doors attacts monsters. Lotsa big mean monsters. Enough
so that they get the point.
>>I suppose this can be solved by locking the chests thereby forcing players to
>>pick the locks and risk traps, but it can also be solved by making the chests
>>larger.
>
>Hmm. Good point. (Mostly, they pick the lock, then stand back and open
>stuff safely...)
By then it's too late. The trap's sprung before they can step back.
Or at least, before the lockpicker can stand back.
>>This happnes to me too. At that time, my favorite tactic is to have flaming
>>kobalds leap onto party members. I also like to use small fire based creatures
>>who can't be vurned. Also, have you thought about using their own psychology
>>against them? Throw a small mass of creatures at them, use up their oil, and
>>then hit them with the really big hoard (who were running behiend their
>>scouting party).
>
>Interesting point. I have noticed a weakness, which is that the party's
>combat-oriented mage tends to prefer to use mass-damage attacks on the first
>major fight, figuring he can always retreat.
>
>Honestly, the biggest win for me in 3E is that it'll be a lot easier to
>justify 1HD monsters having +2 or +3 to hit, which moves the AC-1 (now 21)
>platemailed fighter from "natural 20"to "16+" to hit...
Sshh. Don't tell Larry. He's happy thinking we're all powergamers.
jbs
Peter Seebach
USCM_Sulaco <uscm_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Why is that a waste of time? It is the players being smart.
I suppose. It gets to be a pain that they insist on trying this stuff every
time.
>> Chests are invariably opened with grappling hooks and ropes. I
>suppose I can
>> start making the traps be *inside* the chest, in that they only take
>effect
>> when, say, hands are in there... but it still sucks.
>Why?
I dunno. It's out-of-genre. It's like when someone starts trying to invent
repeating crossbows, or whatever.
>How are any of these outside of game logic? Are you suggesting that
>in-game people are too stupid to find clever ways of doing things? Do
>people in your games just blunder around like buffoons?
Well, I'd sort of hope that the 1st level ones wouldn't be aware of
*everything* when they start out. :(
>Why not? Why are you trying to force the players to play your way? Why
>not adapt to their way? How is it a hewroic game to berate the players
>for being clever and whining cos you can't damage them enough with
>monsters and traps?
:)
They're just not *sporting* about it. (Although I've gotten a lot of really
good ideas out of this thread, so I may not care next game.)
Peter Seebach
jbs <j...@excelonline.com> wrote:
>>Honestly, the biggest win for me in 3E is that it'll be a lot easier to
>>justify 1HD monsters having +2 or +3 to hit, which moves the AC-1 (now 21)
>>platemailed fighter from "natural 20"to "16+" to hit...
>Sshh. Don't tell Larry. He's happy thinking we're all powergamers.
Well, the thing is, it was really irritating for me realizing that suddenly
normal monsters *couldn't* expect to hit this guy.
Aaron F. Bourque
>(Peter Seebach) wrote:
>
>>So, here's my problem. Over time, players have started acquiring a list of
>>things that "ought to work" that I feel disrupt part of the game logic.
>Now,
>>to a certain extent, I want to *encourage* creative thinking.
>>
>>But it's *NOT* creative thinking to use the same strategies every time.
>>
>>e.g., every time characters are confronted with a locked door, they want
>>to see if the hinge pins are on the same side they are, so they can
>>remove them "easily". Anyone got a good way to make this less
>>practical, so they stop wasting time with it?
>
>Yeah. The hinges are always on the other side. Worked in my group.
Or how about "fake" doors. The heroes pull the pins out of the hinges, and
then try to push down the door . . . but can't, either because the door is
actually connected to the wall, or there's a wall behind it, or there are also
hinges on the OTHER side. . .
Or you could just trap the pins . . .
>>Chests are invariably opened with grappling hooks and ropes. I
>>suppose I can start making the traps be *inside* the chest, in that they
>>only take effect when, say, hands are in there... but it still sucks.
>
>Or trap the room instead of just the chest. Or trap the lock. They
>can't be picked with grappling hooks and ropes.
The best thing to do is not just trap the room and the lock, but the chest
as well.
Of course, you could also set it up so that, say, there's a room with three
chests. The characters a chest's lock for traps, they disable the trap, they
pick the lock, then they use a grappling hook and rope to open it at range.
It opens, and everything's fine in that chest . . . but the other two burst
into
flames or explode.
>>I would like to occasionally use larger numbers of weaker opponents,
>>but flaming oil seems doomed. I can't just hand out 30 rings of fire
>>resistance, either.
>
>Uh, what?
He's talking about how he can't just equip weak opponents with rings of
fire resistance, because they are weak, and can be killed easily. Thus,
rings of fire resistance would become very common . . .
Try this: the weaker foes are in a dungeon. Flaming oil isn't very practical
in narrow walls, but the characters try it anyway. Okay, so fine. One of the
foes (either he didn't get touched by it, or he's just a slightly tougher, like
a
leader guy) runs to the wall, open a secret door, and pull a lever. The lever
causes a primitive sprinkler system to go off . . .
>>Basically, the problem I'm having is that the experienced players tend
>>to have a pretty good answer to almost any problem, and it's *not* the
>>game logic one, which (IMHO) can sorta wreck the mood.
>
>True. It's hard for an experienced player to play a 1st level
>character. Give them xp bonuses for using character knowledge, not
>player knowledge. They'll catch on quick.
Or just turn the tables on them, give them situations they've never come
across before, or if they have, tweak it a little to make 'em realize it won't
work they same way . . .
Aaron "The Mad Whitaker" Bourque
--
Being grown up all the time is only a sign of immaturity.
Come on, people! Grow up! Act stupid!
Bruce Grubb
>So, here's my problem. Over time, players have started acquiring a list of
>things that "ought to work" that I feel disrupt part of the game logic.
>Now,
>to a certain extent, I want to *encourage* creative thinking.
>
>But it's *NOT* creative thinking to use the same strategies every time.
If the foes use the same old methods as before what insentive is there for
the party to come up with new methods?
>e.g., every time characters are confronted with a locked door, they want
>to see if the hinge pins are on the same side they are, so they can remove
>them "easily". Anyone got a good way to make this less practical, so they
>stop wasting time with it?
What is wrong with that? Unless doors that open toward the party use
something other than our modern pin method it is a perfectly valid method.
Of course some door may have 'full length' hinges which are impracticle to
remove this way. Also removing the pins mae result in the door twisting and
jaming.
>Chests are invariably opened with grappling hooks and ropes.
How can a grappling hook open a delicate lock without damaging it? Never
mind that being rough with chest like this is a bad idea.
>I would like to occasionally use larger numbers of weaker opponents, but
>flaming oil seems doomed. I can't just hand out 30 rings of fire
>resistance, either.
Say what? Flaming oil IIRC cause 2d6 first round 1d6 second round, stops
burning 3rd. Personally I prefer using the rules from GURPS: 1 oil flask
covers only 1 hex (1.5 ft radius area), cause 1d6-1/second (a combat turn) to
anyone -in- the hex, and lasts 1 minute.
>Basically, the problem I'm having is that the experienced players tend to
>have a pretty good answer to almost any problem, and it's *not* the game logic
>one, which (IMHO) can sorta wreck the mood.
What type of game logic are we talking about here? If the methosds work
within the context of the world why not use them?
>I guess I have this weird idea of heroic fantasy where you open a locked
>chest by picking the lock, after trying to disable traps, not where you
>look for hinge pins or weak fittings. I know it's *rational* to do it
>the other way, but rational people don't cast spells at monsters,
> now do they?
I think you are confusing rational with post-Enlightenment based Newtonian
physics. The Greeks came up with the idea of 'rational' thought but they
also firmly beleived that magic was a part of their lives. Newton himself
was an alchemist (some of his writer are obvious the result of mecury
poisoning). Vampire hunters of the 18th century were more likely to
univeresity professors then priests. Never mind psionic powers which are
basicly the magical spells of the 20th century.
In a world where magic is reliable then spells become part of the rational
thought process.
Bruce Grubb
(Peter Seebach) wrote:
>In article <8mpmbf$ckv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>USCM_Sulaco <uscm_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>Why is that a waste of time? It is the players being smart.
>
>I suppose. It gets to be a pain that they insist on trying this stuff every
>time.
>
>>> Chests are invariably opened with grappling hooks and ropes. I
>>> suppose I can start making the traps be *inside* the chest,
>>> in that they only takeeffect
>>> when, say, hands are in there... but it still sucks.
>
>>Why?
>
>I dunno. It's out-of-genre. It's like when someone starts trying to invent
>repeating crossbows, or whatever.
Repeating crossbows showed up in AD&D previously, Oriential Adventures IIRC.
>>How are any of these outside of game logic? Are you suggesting that
>>in-game people are too stupid to find clever ways of doing things? Do
>>people in your games just blunder around like buffoons?
>
>Well, I'd sort of hope that the 1st level ones wouldn't be aware of
>*everything* when they start out. :(
Even in 1st edition AD&D one did not become 1st level overnight. It can be
argued that some of these methods have worked so well that they got
incorperated into the basic training methods. Some methods are so obvious
that you have to be blind not to see it.
Barry Smith
> e.g., every time characters are confronted with a locked door, they want
> to see if the hinge pins are on the same side they are, so they can remove
> them "easily". Anyone got a good way to make this less practical, so they
> stop wasting time with it?
Heh. I work in an industry that deals with walk-in man doors all the
time, and the easiest solution to this one is to have some doors with
the hinges mounted on the inside of the door jamb, so the door pivots on
its own frame. No hinges then.
Another one is to have all the hinges set with permanent taps, ones that
they cannot just loosen and pull out. They'd require some serious
pounding to get them to weaken and remove. All of the outswing doors we
use in my industry have set hinges just for the purpose of keeping
people who pull hinge pins loose to break into houses out.... :)
> Chests are invariably opened with grappling hooks and ropes. I suppose I can
> start making the traps be *inside* the chest, in that they only take effect
> when, say, hands are in there... but it still sucks.
Seals. If they yank on a unlocked chest with a rope tied to a grappling
hook, tied to the chest lid (a trick that's hard to do), they flip the
chest over. Hand manipulation is required to open these types of chests.
Also, moving the chest from where it currently rests could be the
trigger for detonation of a trap, so that heavy physical movement of the
chest by hooks and rope might set it off.
> I would like to occasionally use larger numbers of weaker opponents, but
> flaming oil seems doomed. I can't just hand out 30 rings of fire resistance,
> either.
A good tactic for numerous intelligent adversaries is to use higher
ground against this tactic, that is, if the monsters know or the
characters are known to use flaming oil often. Nothing will convince
players to try and new tactic if the oil they toss starts flowing
downhill towards them. The characters may succeed at the first few tries
with flaming oil, but if its the same opponents, the creatures will
learn and improvise, unless their as stupid as a Gelatinous Cube.
> Basically, the problem I'm having is that the experienced players tend to have
> a pretty good answer to almost any problem, and it's *not* the game logic one,
> which (IMHO) can sorta wreck the mood.
I hear ya. I used to have this problem too. That is, until I realized
that no player can anticipate what the creatures I play will think of
next. In fairness too, many times my players will foil what I have tried
to implement, and that's great of them to do so. It's when I think of a
sweet tactic or totally unexpected twist that they sit back and chuckle
on how devious that was, and while they might not appreciate it at the
time of their character's death or defeat, I've yet to have a player get
so pissed at a maneuver I've used that they walked away from the table
not chuckling. Invariably, they always congratulate me on a very good
scenario and a fun one too. But, as I said, it doesn't always happen,
and one has to let the players have their moments in the sun as well.
--
Juilliard: The Ultimate Bardic College.
Peter Seebach
Bruce Grubb <bgr...@zianet.com> wrote:
>Repeating crossbows showed up in AD&D previously, Oriential Adventures IIRC.
Yes. And I think they're in 3E. But I still don't think PC's should just
automatically be able to invent things that took us until the 1700's or
later...
>>Well, I'd sort of hope that the 1st level ones wouldn't be aware of
>>*everything* when they start out. :(
>Even in 1st edition AD&D one did not become 1st level overnight. It can be
>argued that some of these methods have worked so well that they got
>incorperated into the basic training methods. Some methods are so obvious
>that you have to be blind not to see it.
That's true.
I think I'm going to have a lot of fun with my next dungeon crawl. I've
gotten some good ideas.
(That, and I'm seriously thinking about giving the players an Ars Magica
wizard to fight.)
jbs
wrote:
>Similarly, Givan concludes that trapped chests should destroy their
>contents, not their openers. After all, it's too late to save your
>treasure when adventurers are already looting the place; why not deny
>them their spoils? (Hey, Evil is petty.)
OOooo... I like. Can I borrow Givan for my next dungeon?
>If players complain that you're trying to screw them by deliberately
>circumventing their usual methods, tell them "You're right; I am." If
>the PCs can use knowledge gained from past mistakes to create solutions
>to problems, why can't the designers of dungeons, castles, monster
>lairs, etc., learn from the mistakes of *their* predecessors?
I think he was complaining about experienced *players* playing
begining *characters* this way.
jbs
jbs
Bourque) wrote:
>jbs (j...@excelonline.com) howled at the moon:
>Or how about "fake" doors. The heroes pull the pins out of the hinges, and
>then try to push down the door . . . but can't, either because the door is
>actually connected to the wall, or there's a wall behind it, or there are also
>hinges on the OTHER side. . .
Trying to imagine how such a door would open....
>
>The best thing to do is not just trap the room and the lock, but the chest
>as well.
You can over do it with traps. Pretty soon the characters are
checking every single thing for traps. I don't think this is the kind
of behavior he's wanting.
>He's talking about how he can't just equip weak opponents with rings of
>fire resistance, because they are weak, and can be killed easily. Thus,
>rings of fire resistance would become very common . . .
I see. I wasn't sure if he was saying the flaming oil was being used
by monsters or characters.
>Try this: the weaker foes are in a dungeon. Flaming oil isn't very practical
>in narrow walls, but the characters try it anyway. Okay, so fine. One of the
>foes (either he didn't get touched by it, or he's just a slightly tougher, like
>a
>leader guy) runs to the wall, open a secret door, and pull a lever. The lever
>causes a primitive sprinkler system to go off . . .
Or let them roast. Then the characters find out all the treasure was
flamable. Had a character fireball a lich once while he was standing
next to his grimoires. The other mages in the party almost killed
him after the fight with the lich was over.
>>>Basically, the problem I'm having is that the experienced players tend
>>>to have a pretty good answer to almost any problem, and it's *not* the
>>>game logic one, which (IMHO) can sorta wreck the mood.
>>
>>True. It's hard for an experienced player to play a 1st level
>>character. Give them xp bonuses for using character knowledge, not
>>player knowledge. They'll catch on quick.
>
>Or just turn the tables on them, give them situations they've never come
>across before, or if they have, tweak it a little to make 'em realize it won't
>work they same way . . .
Or both.
jbs
Sea Wasp
> I guess I have this weird idea of heroic fantasy where you open a locked chest
> by picking the lock, after trying to disable traps, not where you look for
> hinge pins or weak fittings. I know it's *rational* to do it the other way,
> but rational people don't cast spells at monsters, now do they?
If spells exist, they do, if the spell fulfills a rational purpose.
In short, if you don't like the approaches they're using, make damn
sure the approaches don't work... and do so in a way that doesn't
SCREAM "I want you to follow **MY** way of doing things!!!!".
I design my game world to follow logical (not "realistic", but
CONSISTENT) patterns of behavior. If you do that, then as a GM you can
predict what works and what doesn't. If you don't want the world to
behave a certain way, then you have to design the world so it DOESN'T
behave that way, rather than start finding jury-rigged ways to plug up
the logical holes that your players are certain to find.
In a world where chests are often trapped and locks to doors
dangerous, I'd not only expect the experienced adventurer to open 'em
by remote methods, I'd be disappointed if they DIDN'T do so.
--
Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.html
/^\
;;; _Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at
http://www.hyperbooks.com/catalog/20040.html
Deirdre M. Brooks
Art Wendorf wrote:
>
> Flaming oil shouldn't catch fire all that easily. It's basically lamp oil
> from a pre-industrial age, right? [Not sure how you think of it IYC]. It
> didn't take my group long to figure out that lamp oil is NOT napalm or
> gasoline.
It's probably equivalent to naphtha, or "Greek Fire." In fact, I think I
recall at least one D&D book that described it as such, but I could be
wrong.
--
Deird'Re M. Brooks | xe...@teleport.com | cam#9309026
Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
"Atlantic City is Oz envisioned by used car salesmen and pimps."
http://www.teleport.com/~xenya | --Rick Glumsky, Celtic Filth
Bruce Grubb
(Peter Seebach) wrote:
>In article <bgrubb-73FDA6....@www.zianet.com>,
>Bruce Grubb <bgr...@zianet.com> wrote:
>>Repeating crossbows showed up in AD&D previously, Oriential Adventures IIRC.
>
>Yes. And I think they're in 3E. But I still don't think PC's should just
>automatically be able to invent things that took us until the 1700's or
>later...
Considering the fact that AD&D in general take elements of the Early Middle
Ages (c476- c950); High Middle Ages (c950-c1300) and the Later Middle
Ages/Renaissance period (c1300-c1600) throws them and reliable magic into a
blender I would hardly considering our technological development patterns as
a limit on what the PC can and cannot do.
This is why I prefer using the GURPS TL system combinced with James Buke's
books (Connections and so on) as a guide. For example there is nothing
instrinsic at TL 3-4 (Middle ages-Renaissance) to prevent someone from coming
up with something similar to the Huntsman steel process which in our history
was developed in the mid 1700s.
>>>Well, I'd sort of hope that the 1st level ones wouldn't be aware of
>>>*everything* when they start out. :(
>
>>Even in 1st edition AD&D one did not become 1st level overnight. It can be
>>argued that some of these methods have worked so well that they got
>>incorperated into the basic training methods. Some methods are so obvious
>>that you have to be blind not to see it.
>
>That's true.
>
>I think I'm going to have a lot of fun with my next dungeon crawl. I've
>gotten some good ideas.
>
>(That, and I'm seriously thinking about giving the players an Ars Magica
>wizard to fight.)
Personally I would think for their level a GURPS wizard would be more fun.
What GURPS Magic spells lack in damage potential is more than made up for in
their diversity. Besides is more fun to watch the party's face as the wooden
pole that they are poking the chest with suddenly develop all the consistancy
of silly puddy (Shape Plant), the rope fall to pieces (Whither Plant), and
the spot the chest is on starts making this horrid noise (Watchdog) sure to
draw the attention of any monster in the area. :-)
Bruce Grubb
bardva...@cs.com (BardValerian) wrote:
>>>(That, and I'm seriously thinking about giving the players an Ars Magica
>>>wizard to fight.)
>>
>>Personally I would think for their level a GURPS wizard would be more fun.
>>What GURPS Magic spells lack in damage potential is more than made up for
>>in their diversity. Besides its more fun to watch the party's face as the
>>wooden pole that they are poking the chest with suddenly develops all the
>>consistancy of silly puddy (Shape Plant), the rope falls to pieces
>>(Whither Plant), and the spot the chest is on starts making this
>> horrid noise (Watchdog) sure to draw the attention of any monster
>> in the area. :-)
>
>Heheh. Say no more. They may get an idea to check out GURPS.
I don't think it would do them much good as the GURPS Magic/Grimoire system
is geared more toward 'tactical thinking' than the AD&D magic system is.
Shape Metal (from the Grimoire) is just as fun for example: "What you mean
the hinge looks like it was made from one piece of metal and there are no
pins to pull out?!" Of course this assumes the GURPS wizard didn't have a
hand in building the place; he may have just dispenced with wooden doors and
made ones out of stone via Shape Stone. :-)
Bruce Grubb
bardva...@cs.com (BardValerian) wrote:
>>Chests are invariably opened with grappling hooks and ropes. I suppose I
>>can start making the traps be *inside* the chest, in that they only
>> take effect when, say, hands are in there... but it still sucks.
>>
>
>My 1st question would be this: What percentage of the chests they come
>across are trapped? My guess would be FAR TOO MANY! Most GMs use traps
>far far too frequently. Trapped chests should be an *occasional*
>occurance for that special cash of choice items, NOT the norm for
>every grunt's footlocker.
I fully agree. I had a problem with with a party whose previous DM had been
wild about the Grimtooth Trap books and as a result they were scared of their
own shadow. For those of you who don't know the Grimtooth Trap series of
kill/maim the adventures traps; many of the trap refered to by the Trap
Collection <http://www.ddream.com/#traps> are Grimtooth in style.
>Locks were developed to keep people out, and you know what? They work
>surprisingly well a great deal of the time... unless you have a Thief in
>your party. The *vast* majority of the population doesn't know how to pick
>locks, so a good lock is all that is needed.
Or what passed for a lock in the c1300-c1600 period. Locks in the middle
ages tended to be very primative by our standards making them all the easier
for a thief to pick.
>Not to mention, how would you like to have to circumvent a trap every time
>you open your medicine cabinet? Think about it...just 1 screw up and you're
>dead... No thanks. I'd rather *hide* my valuables than risk that...
This brings of the lack of logic about many traps. Not only in what keeps
the local populous from setting these things off, but also who resets them
and most importantly who maintains them? Never mind that some traps seem to
have been designed by Rube Goldberg making maintaining and resetting them all
the more problematic.
Bruce Grubb
wrote:
>On Tue, 08 Aug 2000 16:32:46 +0200, Peter Knutsen
><pe...@knutsen.dk> scrobe aimlessly upon the ether:
>
>> Peter Seebach wrote:
>
>> > I would like to occasionally use larger numbers of weaker opponents, but
>> > flaming oil seems doomed. I can't just hand out 30 rings of fire
>> > resistance,
>> > either.
>>
>> Make an enviroment where the use of fire is near lethal. Maybe
>> the air in the dungeon contains gasoline (petrol) fumes. Any
>> spark and the whole thing explodes.
>
>Friend of mine once employed a trap involving a few bags of flour
>that broke open, violently, when a door was open. The torch the
>party was carrying was all that was needed to set off a massive
>fireball.
As yes the flour varient out of Dungeon of Doom of the Traps Von Hindenberg
chamber. There have bee so many varients of this trap that I think I lost
track of them all.
>> I don't really see your problem. Experienced adventurers will
>> know these solutions from experience. Unexperiened adventers
>> might hav the INT and the skills that allows them to develop
>> those techniques.
>
>'Cept it's not the adventurers' experience that's the problem,
>it's the players'. I've got the same problem - I tried to start
>a game with 1st-level-equivalent characters (I'm running GURPS,
>not D&D) in a rural setting, and every doorway they came to they
>wanted to check for traps. "You're fresh off the friggin' farm,
>what do you people know about traps?" I wanted to scream at them.
Sounds like a group who either had a bad experience with a trap happy DM or
have read too many old copies of the Grimtooth trap books at the used book
store.
>I did stand up on the cursed ring bit, though. "How would you
>even think to wonder if it's cursed?" (Magic, as far as the
>characters know, is the stuff of bedtime stories. Or was, at the
>beginning of the game. That's beginning to change... And yes,
>the rings _are_ cursed...)
I find a little hard between the GURPS equivalent of the Wizard and Priest
class that the party that this ignorent of magic. Even at first level these
two classes know magic is far more than "the stuff of bedtime stories". Also
even with no training the Magery advantage has some small change of giving
general vibes on mage (M 104). Never mind that a GURPS mage in a place like
Meglos Yrth or Forgotten Realms would have to be braindead stupid not to have
learned Analyze Magic
>The bigger, more annoying, problem, is the min-maxing. Half the
>party can't be hit by mere mortals, even at 1st-level-equivalent,
>and never misses a combat roll.
It sound like they are NOT 1st-level-equivalent then and the reasons are
mainly do to the differences in the two system as I point out on my AD&D to
GURPS convertion sheet <http://members.aol.com/BruceG6069/ADnD_to_GURPS.html>:
===
AD&D levels & GURPS point levels
It is tempting to try and relate AD&D levels to GURPS point levels especially
since both systems define what an 'average' person is: 0 th level in AD&D and
25 pts in GURPS. There are three main problems with this idea.
First, beyond 150 points the type of rules (realistic or cinematic) used have
more of a bearing on the 'power' of GURPS characters than just the point
total. A 150 pt cinematic character will have access to abilities that would
allow them to run rings around a 200 pt realistic character.
Second, attributes play radically different roles in AD&D and GURPS. In GURPS
attributes are the foundation on which all other abilities like secondary
attributes (fatigue, perception, will) and skills (both combat and non
combat) are based or derived from; by contrast in AD&D most of these
abilities are determined by class and level with the attributes at best
serving as modifiers (which generally happen at 15+).
As a result there is a great incentive in AD&D to use one of the many
alternative attribute generation systems which are skewed toward the 14-18
end of the 3d6 curve to get the bonus modifiers. Converting such AD&D
characters even those of low level produces high point GURPS characters even
when adjusting for certain attributes which are better [and generally more
cheaply] represented as advantages.
Finally, and most importantly GURPS characters are far more variable in
skills than AD&D characters. This means that even 25-75 pts GURPS characters
can have certain skills at or beyond those of mid to high level AD&D
characters. It should be noted that by GURPS standards the skill levels of
even high level AD&D characters are quite reasonable.
==
3d6 3-4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17-18
.046 .093 .162 .259 .375 .500 .625 .741 .838 .907 .954 .981 .995
This aspect is best seen when you use Probability of Success table on B45 and
convert a sample GURPS character to AD&D1 (AD&D2 is more flexable about which
skills improve).
Dia Blackthorn is relatively easy example as he is closest to a AD&D1 thief.
The only ability below 1st level is Climbing while everything else equates to
a mid to high level AD&D1 thief: Traps/TL 3 is equivalent to 9th level,
Pickpocket, Lockpicking, and Stealth (Move Silently and Hide in Shadows) are
better then a 14th level thief, combat to hit skill is 16th level equivalent,
and Hear Noices (12 or less) is completely off the AD&D table.
So what level does Dia Blackthorn accually equate to in AD&D1 terms and how
does that change in AD&D2?
Bruce Grubb
wrote:
>The Wandering Ogre wrote:
>
>> 'Cept it's not the adventurers' experience that's the problem,
>> it's the players'. I've got the same problem - I tried to start
>> a game with 1st-level-equivalent characters (I'm running GURPS,
>> not D&D) in a rural setting, and every doorway they came to they
>> wanted to check for traps. "You're fresh off the friggin' farm,
>> what do you people know about traps?" I wanted to scream at them.
>
>Well, if they have a thief capable of checking for traps, the thief should
>certainly know to worry about traps; that's why he was trained about them,
>after all!
>If there's no thief, they shouldn't be able to check for traps anyway then.
Except as Wandering Ogre points out the RPG in question is GURPS which unlike
AD&D allows you to try things you haven't trained in via -defaults-. In
GURPS the Traps/TL skill defaults to Lockpicking at -3 and IQ or DX at -5 so
high attributes can result in somewhat desent skill levels. Besides even in
AD&D2 one doesn't have to be a thief to look for traps - all that is need is
that they have the skill.
One of the example GURPS characters Corwin Bearclaw (fighter) has Traps/TL 3
at 11 (62.5%) which roughly equates to a AD&D fighter picking up
Detect/Disarm Traps as a NWP.
Colin Neilson
>So, here's my problem. Over time, players have started acquiring a list of
>things that "ought to work" that I feel disrupt part of the game logic. Now,
>to a certain extent, I want to *encourage* creative thinking.
>
>But it's *NOT* creative thinking to use the same strategies every time.
>
>e.g., every time characters are confronted with a locked door, they want
>to see if the hinge pins are on the same side they are, so they can remove
>them "easily". Anyone got a good way to make this less practical, so they
>stop wasting time with it?
I dealt with that early on in a recent game. Only one character
wanted to try this. She asked the same question as above. Then she
said she takes the pins out. My reply, "With what?" She had no
equipmnent to allow her to remove hinges short of breaking them off.
Even modern hinges cannot be easily removed without some sort of tool,
I imagine middle ages type hinges would more difficult to work with.
In my campaign they are anyway. Of course at the next town she went
shopping for a hinge removing set. She was asked to show her
membership to the carpenter's guild, as only they could legally own a
set. Other wise crooks could just remove doors instead of breaking in
to houses. SO far stymied.
>Chests are invariably opened with grappling hooks and ropes. I suppose I can
>start making the traps be *inside* the chest, in that they only take effect
>when, say, hands are in there... but it still sucks.
I'm assuming they are trying this on locked chests. What are they
doing, tying the chest to something then pulling with grappling hooks?
That certainly not be a 100% proposition. It will also probably break
fragile items inside the chest, such as potion bottles, and bottles of
contact poison left for just such a situation (ie, now the valuables
are coated in contact poison, many saves needed).
>I would like to occasionally use larger numbers of weaker opponents, but
>flaming oil seems doomed. I can't just hand out 30 rings of fire resistance,
>either.
Give the weaker opponents bows and flaming arrows. Longer distance
than flaming oil, and on a good hit, may set fire to their own oil.
Actually a lower powered mage with a flaming sphere could be just as
and more dangerous.
Also, let the weaker opponents be smart about it. Attack in a forest.
Splashed flaming oil is liable to create a lot of problems in that
situation. Have the opponents dive on the characters from trees or
other large parts of the terrain and overbear. I also like the
flaming opponents jumping on the characters someone else suggested.
Colin Neilson
>damage.
>
>Okay, I'm an idiot. I'll alert the players that I was running it wrong,
>and they can then adapt. :)
Wait a second, they are beating the monsters with pools of oil? Why
are the monsters charging into the oil? Much better to light the oil
with flaming arrows, and then force the PCs into their own oil. If
they can light it while it is being poured, even better.
Colin Neilson
>adventurers have found effective ways to bypass certain challenges, it's
>their privelege to use them. What percentage of the time would you like
>to allow an effective tactic to work normally?
> It's not "game logical" to start having everything in the world be
>designed to resist their methods . . . I would suggest that opening doors
>and chests is the least important thing on the spectrum of fun in heroic
>roleplaying, and that investments in real challenge should be sought
>elsewhere.
I wouldn't call several of these techniques origninal, because I have
seen them all before this post, in many different sources. As such,
why should the DM assume that the PCs are the first to think of these
things? Unless it is a particualarly inventive idea, others have
proably thought of it, and thought of ways to prevent it.
Having said that, certainly not evey door should be designed around
these strategies. Still locked doors protecting the chambers of a
powerful and intellegent opponent should not be as vulnerable to such
methods as ordinary room doors.
BardValerian
>>wizard to fight.)
>
>Personally I would think for their level a GURPS wizard would be more fun.
>What GURPS Magic spells lack in damage potential is more than made up for in
>pole that they are poking the chest with suddenly develop all the consistancy
>of silly puddy (Shape Plant), the rope fall to pieces (Whither Plant), and
>draw the attention of any monster in the area. :-)
>
Heheh. Say no more. They may get an idea to check out GURPS.
valerian
~
Rupert Boleyn
Neilson) wrote:
>I dealt with that early on in a recent game. Only one character
>wanted to try this. She asked the same question as above. Then she
>said she takes the pins out. My reply, "With what?" She had no
>equipmnent to allow her to remove hinges short of breaking them off.
>Even modern hinges cannot be easily removed without some sort of tool,
>I imagine middle ages type hinges would more difficult to work with.
>In my campaign they are anyway. Of course at the next town she went
>shopping for a hinge removing set. She was asked to show her
>membership to the carpenter's guild, as only they could legally own a
>set. Other wise crooks could just remove doors instead of breaking in
>to houses. SO far stymied.
Until she works out that all she needs is a hammer, a punch and a
file. Only the latter will be expensive or rare.
--
Rupert Boleyn <rbo...@paradise.net.nz>
"Inside every cynic is a romantic trying to get out."
Peter Seebach
No, they were throwing flaming oil at monsters - but I was allowing for "real"
damage (not 1d3) from pools, not just from direct hits.
Anivair
>Yeah, but if the pins are on the inside, how do I make the door so it doesn't
>open inwards - encouraging bashing.
Well, that IS what the open doors stat is for. And there are traps made just
for the expected "bashing". And if you don't like then, make some tat you do
like.
--
later,
~Anivair
Ani...@aol.com
The Wandering Ogre
<pe...@knutsen.dk> scrobe aimlessly upon the ether:
> Peter Seebach wrote:
> > I would like to occasionally use larger numbers of weaker opponents, but
> > flaming oil seems doomed. I can't just hand out 30 rings of fire resistance,
> > either.
>
> Make an enviroment where the use of fire is near lethal. Maybe
> the air in the dungeon contains gasoline (petrol) fumes. Any
> spark and the whole thing explodes.
Friend of mine once employed a trap involving a few bags of flour
that broke open, violently, when a door was open. The torch the
party was carrying was all that was needed to set off a massive
fireball.
Fortunately, I missed that session...
> > Basically, the problem I'm having is that the experienced players tend to have
> > a pretty good answer to almost any problem, and it's *not* the game logic one,
> > which (IMHO) can sorta wreck the mood.
>
> I don't really see your problem. Experienced adventurers will
> know these solutions from experience. Unexperiened adventers
> might hav the INT and the skills that allows them to develop
> those techniques.
'Cept it's not the adventurers' experience that's the problem,
it's the players'. I've got the same problem - I tried to start
a game with 1st-level-equivalent characters (I'm running GURPS,
not D&D) in a rural setting, and every doorway they came to they
wanted to check for traps. "You're fresh off the friggin' farm,
what do you people know about traps?" I wanted to scream at them.
I caved, though. "You don't find any". I haven't even rolled
for it yet.
I did stand up on the cursed ring bit, though. "How would you
even think to wonder if it's cursed?" (Magic, as far as the
characters know, is the stuff of bedtime stories. Or was, at the
beginning of the game. That's beginning to change... And yes,
the rings _are_ cursed...)
The bigger, more annoying, problem, is the min-maxing. Half the
party can't be hit by mere mortals, even at 1st-level-equivalent,
and never misses a combat roll.
--
"Most people learn from their past mistakes, and in future lives go on
to grow into better people. Others, who don't, become ogres."
- E. A. Scarborough, _The Godmother_
Portrait of an Ogre: http://www.iglou.com/profile/view.cgi/ogre
BardValerian
>So, here's my problem. Over time, players have started acquiring a list of
>things that "ought to work" that I feel disrupt part of the game logic. Now,
>to a certain extent, I want to *encourage* creative thinking.
>
>But it's *NOT* creative thinking to use the same strategies every time.
Creative is coming up with a solution that overcomes the obsticle. Using that
same strategy again to defeat similar obsticles is what we humans call
*Learning*.
>
>e.g., every time characters are confronted with a locked door, they want
>to see if the hinge pins are on the same side they are, so they can remove
>them "easily". Anyone got a good way to make this less practical, so they
>stop wasting time with it?
>
Well, after reading 45 replies to this post, i'd have to agree that it would be
pretty stupid to put the hinges on the same side as the lock. I must admit, i
had broken thru a door using this very tactic (it was a friends apartment
building, i wasn't committing any crimes), so if this situation ever stood
before me again, removing the hinges would be my 1st thought. Again, this is
called *learning*. Say it with me boys and girls, "Learning". I knew that you
could. You can't punish them for learning.
>
>Chests are invariably opened with grappling hooks and ropes. I suppose I can
>start making the traps be *inside* the chest, in that they only take effect
>when, say, hands are in there... but it still sucks.
>
My 1st question would be this: What percentage of the chests they come across
are trapped? My guess would be FAR TOO MANY! Most GMs use traps far far too
frequently. Trapped chests should be an *occasional* occurance for that
special cash of choice items, NOT the norm for every grunt's footlocker.
Locks were developed to keep people out, and you know what? They work
surprisingly well a great deal of the time... unless you have a Thief in your
party. The *vast* majority of the population doesn't know how to pick locks,
so a good lock is all that is needed. Is every front door in your home town
trapped? Does every car have a car alarm? Hell no. So, stop using traps so
much and make the chests that are trapped unique.
Not to mention, how would you like to have to circumvent a trap every time you
open your medicine cabinet? Think about it...just 1 screw up and you're
dead... No thanks. I'd rather *hide* my valuables than risk that...
>
>I would like to occasionally use larger numbers of weaker opponents, but
>flaming oil seems doomed. I can't just hand out 30 rings of fire resistance,
>either.
>
Here i'd have to agree with the other posters, attack them in places &
situations where open flame would be a bad idea: forests, libraries, confined
areas (what's the biggest killer in building fires...? smoke inhalation!),
places where toxins are generated from burning materials, etc. Have "the
authorities" admonish/punish them for destroying things (elves in the forests,
city officials in a city, etc).
And also, other posters had some good ideas about turning the tides on oil
users: recipricate the use of oil, have flame arrow archers rolling crit hits
to the throwers (fudge the dice once in a while if you really have to)
>
>Basically, the problem I'm having is that the experienced players tend to have
>a pretty good answer to almost any problem, and it's *not* the game logic one,
>which (IMHO) can sorta wreck the mood.
>
>I guess I have this weird idea of heroic fantasy where you open a locked chest
>by picking the lock, after trying to disable traps, not where you look for
>hinge pins or weak fittings. I know it's *rational* to do it the other way,
>but rational people don't cast spells at monsters, now do they?
>
Well, like most people have stated, if magic were the norm than rational people
*would* cast spells at monsters.
One last thing, your players are role-playing *people*. Every creature fought
is a fight to the death. Every situation ends only 1 of 2 ways, either you
survive or you die. Every chest they come across could kill them. All of
their choises are life or death. If *you* didn't know that the chest you want
to open would kill you, wouldn't you side with caution? Wouldn't you rather
spend a few extra minutes opening it as opposed to dying?
valerian
~
Robert Scott Clark
>>
>before me again, removing the hinges would be my 1st thought. Again, this is
>called *learning*. Say it with me boys and girls, "Learning". I knew that you
>could. You can't punish them for learning.
You can punish players for using knowledge they learned with different
characters.
>
>>
Peter Seebach
BardValerian <bardva...@cs.com> wrote:
>My 1st question would be this: What percentage of the chests they come across
>are trapped?
Maybe one in twenty, if that. I don't trap things all that much.
I've got the party on a long trip, now, and I'm gonna try to kill their
finances... so they suddenly have to pay attention to money and food. Then
maybe they'll stop with the compulsive searching.
Real story: They camped twice to "search" an entire mile-long tunnel.
>Well, like most people have stated, if magic were the norm than rational people
>*would* cast spells at monsters.
Probably, but my point was intended to be that the characters shouldn't have
the free benefit of post-enlightenment training in analytic thought.
>One last thing, your players are role-playing *people*. Every creature fought
>is a fight to the death. Every situation ends only 1 of 2 ways, either you
>survive or you die. Every chest they come across could kill them. All of
>their choises are life or death. If *you* didn't know that the chest you want
>to open would kill you, wouldn't you side with caution? Wouldn't you rather
>spend a few extra minutes opening it as opposed to dying?
Very true.
I sorta wish they'd be a little more reckless sometimes. I like to put in the
occasional easter egg, but if everyone's so aggressive about searching that
they have statistically almost no chance of missing, it's not *fun*.
I guess the next stage is for me to just assign a 0% chance of finding any
secret door without actually naming the thing-with-the-mechanism as an object
of a search.
Mike Bruner
Peter Seebach wrote:
> So, here's my problem. Over time, players have started acquiring a list of
> things that "ought to work" that I feel disrupt part of the game logic. Now,
> to a certain extent, I want to *encourage* creative thinking.
>
> But it's *NOT* creative thinking to use the same strategies every time.
>
> e.g., every time characters are confronted with a locked door, they want
> to see if the hinge pins are on the same side they are, so they can remove
> them "easily". Anyone got a good way to make this less practical, so they
> stop wasting time with it?
Well, while we've pulled this trick sometimes IMC (what can I say, my low-level
fighter/thief has relatively lousy OL rolls still :)), I think it's generally been
ruled by our DM that it makes a fair amount of noise. That's certainly easy enough
to turn against the characters. Or make the door extra-heavy or something, so it
proceeds to fall on them if they take out the hinges. And of course actual removal
of a door means it cannot be closed, which might be a problem if being chased by
something. And of course it DOES take a fair amount of time. Just don't rule it
out entirely; failing an open locks roll pretty much makes the door impassible any
other way besides destruction, so unless you want your party to be utterly screwed
by failing one roll, leave some options (abeit less desirable ones) for them to
use in such cases.
> Chests are invariably opened with grappling hooks and ropes. I suppose I can
> start making the traps be *inside* the chest, in that they only take effect
> when, say, hands are in there... but it still sucks.
Our DM often makes the chest itself valuable (i.e. a silver box or such), so
damage done by hauling the sucker away with grappling hooks and such lessens its
value. Or do the Raiders of the Lost Ark approach and have the whole complex turn
against anybody who sets off the trap. And of course magic makes a perfect excuse
to have a trap that operates only when opened. Again, though, be careful not to
paint the characters into a corner if they fail a vital find/remove traps roll or
similar and it was important they got the item in question.
> I would like to occasionally use larger numbers of weaker opponents, but
> flaming oil seems doomed. I can't just hand out 30 rings of fire resistance,
> either.
Require flaming oil to take some preparation to use, like our campaign (where
throwing/lighting the stuff inevitably takes about 2 rounds minimum). Allowing the
monsters to get two rounds or so of unopposed attacks (especially if you give them
missile weapons to hit the folks in the back; even low-intelligence humanoids can
make throwing spears and such) if you're fiddling with getting oil out, throwing
it, then lighting... helps prevent pulling it out all the time, while still
allowing its use as a weapon with proper planning. And of course it sucks to face
it as a player, so feel free to use it when it is appropriate (our campaign had us
face oil thrown down from a tower occupied by bandits; since it was a night attack
and we had a torch lit, that took care of lighting it...).
> Basically, the problem I'm having is that the experienced players tend to have
> a pretty good answer to almost any problem, and it's *not* the game logic one,
> which (IMHO) can sorta wreck the mood.
>
> I guess I have this weird idea of heroic fantasy where you open a locked chest
> by picking the lock, after trying to disable traps, not where you look for
> hinge pins or weak fittings. I know it's *rational* to do it the other way,
> but rational people don't cast spells at monsters, now do they?
Well, like you may have noticed we've pulled these solutions out IMC when we've
had to. I don't think it's really a bad thing to encourage, since it does show
some thinking and prevents characters from "getting stuck"; just make sure there's
some risk or other discouragement to doing it the "non-heroic" way and your
players will probably at least try it the "proper" way first like we do. But also
remember your vision of what the game should be like in terms of solutions may not
match theirs, so make allowances for different perspectives here (they may feel
quite clever avoiding the "obvious" solutions; we managed to be smart with a door
we took off the hinges by taking the door and using it to cross a pit elsewhere, I
think that sort of thing SHOULD be encouraged if it brilliantly solves problems).
--
Mike Bruner...@delaware.infi.net
"Yes, I am a servant of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial".
Give a hobbit a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Turn a hobbit invisible, and he'll
eat fish for a lifetime.
Mike Bruner
The Wandering Ogre wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Aug 2000 16:32:46 +0200, Peter Knutsen
> <pe...@knutsen.dk> scrobe aimlessly upon the ether:
>
> > Peter Seebach wrote:
>
> > > I would like to occasionally use larger numbers of weaker opponents, but
> > > flaming oil seems doomed. I can't just hand out 30 rings of fire resistance,
> > > either.
> >
> > Make an enviroment where the use of fire is near lethal. Maybe
> > the air in the dungeon contains gasoline (petrol) fumes. Any
> > spark and the whole thing explodes.
>
> Friend of mine once employed a trap involving a few bags of flour
> that broke open, violently, when a door was open. The torch the
> party was carrying was all that was needed to set off a massive
> fireball.
>
> Fortunately, I missed that session...
Ouch! Actually, I might steal this as a player trap...
> > > Basically, the problem I'm having is that the experienced players tend to have
> > > a pretty good answer to almost any problem, and it's *not* the game logic one,
> > > which (IMHO) can sorta wreck the mood.
> >
> > I don't really see your problem. Experienced adventurers will
> > know these solutions from experience. Unexperiened adventers
> > might hav the INT and the skills that allows them to develop
> > those techniques.
>
> 'Cept it's not the adventurers' experience that's the problem,
> it's the players'. I've got the same problem - I tried to start
> a game with 1st-level-equivalent characters (I'm running GURPS,
> not D&D) in a rural setting, and every doorway they came to they
> wanted to check for traps. "You're fresh off the friggin' farm,
> what do you people know about traps?" I wanted to scream at them.
Well, if they have a thief capable of checking for traps, the thief should certainly
know to worry about traps; that's why he was trained about them, after all! If there's
no thief, they shouldn't be able to check for traps anyway then.
> I caved, though. "You don't find any". I haven't even rolled
> for it yet.
>
> I did stand up on the cursed ring bit, though. "How would you
> even think to wonder if it's cursed?" (Magic, as far as the
> characters know, is the stuff of bedtime stories. Or was, at the
> beginning of the game. That's beginning to change... And yes,
> the rings _are_ cursed...)
Well, curses are probably as legendary as other magic types (wouldn't a story about
somebody getting killed by a scarab of heart seeking or stabbing himself in the back
with a backstabber spear get quite a bit of interest?) so the possibility occuring to
them isn't exactly cheating. Of course, they shouldn't KNOW an item is cursed after
all. If you really want to be sneaky, have the item in question (especially if the
curse is subtle) be used by an NPC they defeat; they'll never assume the NPC was using
a HARMFUL item... :)
> The bigger, more annoying, problem, is the min-maxing. Half the
> party can't be hit by mere mortals, even at 1st-level-equivalent,
> and never misses a combat roll.
*shrug* Can't help you there, though.
Mark Horning
Anivair <ani...@aol.com> wrote:
>Peter Seebach rolled these dice:
>
>>Yeah, but if the pins are on the inside, how do I make the door so it doesn't
>>open inwards - encouraging bashing.
>
>Well, that IS what the open doors stat is for. And there are traps made just
It is the chance to bash in a warped stuck UNLOCKED dungeon door.
Mark E. Horning "You can not enslave a free man. The most
Physicist you can do is kill him."
Phoenix AZ --Robert A. Heinlein-- (Free Men)
SD Anderson
se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) wrote:
> In article <bgrubb-73FDA6....@www.zianet.com>,
> Bruce Grubb <bgr...@zianet.com> wrote:
> >Repeating crossbows showed up in AD&D previously, Oriential
Adventures IIRC.
>
> Yes. And I think they're in 3E. But I still don't think PC's should
just
> automatically be able to invent things that took us until the 1700's
or
> later...
Unfortunately the basic D&D world is just that with roman
shortswords, Viking Longswords, Knightly Broadswords and two handed
swords, platemail, mascled scale mail, chain mail round scale mail all
existing together conveniently forgetting that once the longsword was
developed the shortsword users either switched or were killed off, the
broadsword similarly replaced the longsword due to the fact it wasn't
much heavier and far less prone to breaking etc.
Any dwarf or gnome with a good Intelligence score can claim to be an
inventor.
One wonders given ten thousand year old cultures why this world
didn't develop interplanetary traveling non-magical vehicles given all
the dwarven inventors...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
SD Anderson
Bruce Grubb <bgr...@zianet.com> wrote:
> In article <39909715$0$8320$3c09...@news.plethora.net>,
se...@plethora.net
> (Peter Seebach) wrote:
> >
Magica
> >wizard to fight.)
>
> Personally I would think for their level a GURPS wizard would be more
fun.
> What GURPS Magic spells lack in damage potential is more than made up
for in
> their diversity. Besides is more fun to watch the party's face as
the wooden
> pole that they are poking the chest with suddenly develop all the
consistancy
> of silly puddy (Shape Plant), the rope fall to pieces (Whither
Plant), and
> the spot the chest is on starts making this horrid noise (Watchdog)
sure to
> draw the attention of any monster in the area. :-)
>
I'd frustrate them by attacking at range with Missile shield up.
The GURPS spell using that name is just a tad more effective than the
AD&D one. AD&D version puts up a notable forcefield type effect that
stops non-magical missles. The GURPS version stops all missile
attacks, magical +1 arrows, fireballs etc. It also is subtle. Owing
to the defense roll mechanism in the rules, the person bouncing dice
for the defender rolls and is permitted to state 'I made my defense'
regardless of what was rolled. Unless the attacker rolls a critical
hit or the defender rolls a critical failure, the attacker's player has
to figure out what's going on on his/her own. (in the event of a crit,
the attack STILL misses but it's clearly obvious something caused the
attack to miss.
In an AD&D setting, just giving the wizard defense rolls in which he
parries an attack blocks it with a shield, buckler or a cloak or moves
out of the way *and STILL* gets to cast a spell should get most of your
players to the point where they grab handfulls of nails, stuff them in
their mouths and start chewing them. ;)
SD Anderson
Bruce Grubb <bgr...@zianet.com> wrote:
> In article <20000808231051...@ng-fw1.news.cs.com>,
> bardva...@cs.com (BardValerian) wrote:
>
suppose I
> >>can start making the traps be *inside* the chest, in that they only
> >> take effect when, say, hands are in there... but it still sucks.
> >>
> >
come
traps
> >far far too frequently. Trapped chests should be an *occasional*
> >occurance for that special cash of choice items, NOT the norm for
> >every grunt's footlocker.
>
had been
> wild about the Grimtooth Trap books and as a result they were scared
of their
> own shadow. For those of you who don't know the Grimtooth Trap
series of
> kill/maim the adventures traps; many of the trap refered to by the
Trap
> Collection <http://www.ddream.com/#traps> are Grimtooth in style.
>
work
> >surprisingly well a great deal of the time... unless you have a
Thief in
> >your party. The *vast* majority of the population doesn't know how
to pick
> >locks, so a good lock is all that is needed.
Most of the 'basic D&D world' was shaped by module writers. Rooms
had traps or monsters in them to kill the adventurers.
Some folks a while back were talking about a Top Secret adventure
that came with one version of that game. In it EVERY NPC the PCs
encountered was a spy of some sort. Literally all of France was an arm
of the KGB.
Thus treasure is magical, and all locks not enchanted are trapped.
Susana Gregory writes Medieval Mysteries circa 1350 at Cambridge.
In "An Unholy Alliance" she deals with a poison pin trapped lock. She
details how they worked, why the poison would be effective decades
after the lock was made and just how expensive in gold and manhours it
was to make the damn things. Also how dangerous they are if damaged or
worn out. NO ONE in their right mind would use such a lock on a box
that did a lot of traveling around and was jolted by rough seas or bad
roads.
If you know of poisoned locks through old movies and the like it's
easy to put them in the setting. If you know what they are, you tend
to use them less frequently.
>
> Or what passed for a lock in the c1300-c1600 period. Locks in the
middle
> ages tended to be very primative by our standards making them all the
easier
> for a thief to pick.
>
> >Not to mention, how would you like to have to circumvent a trap
every time
> >you open your medicine cabinet? Think about it...just 1 screw up
and you're
> >dead... No thanks. I'd rather *hide* my valuables than risk that...
>
> This brings of the lack of logic about many traps. Not only in what
keeps
> the local populous from setting these things off, but also who resets
them
> and most importantly who maintains them? Never mind that some traps
seem to
> have been designed by Rube Goldberg making maintaining and resetting
them all
> the more problematic.
Then there are magical items. Most games make item creation a
lengthy time consuming resource consuming problem. I like WitchCraft's
solution. You cast the spell on an item spend the essence and *leave*
it there for a permanent effect. Disenchant it? Reclaim your spent
essence.
Many items found/described would NEVER be made. Armor that takes 30
years to make won't be ordered by most human knights. They're not
likely to be needing it by then. And the prices listed often are so
high that a knight's suit of armor might take CENTURIES to pay off on
the rents of his Lord's lands.
If you get realistic you need to go over all the items in the books
look at their costs, time to make and the sort of finances available by
the mundane NPCs who supposedly ordered them made years ago so the PCs
could find them in a dungeon.
It won't be pretty.
Aristotle
>e.g., every time characters are confronted with a locked door, they want
>to see if the hinge pins are on the same side they are, so they can remove
>them "easily". Anyone got a good way to make this less practical, so they
>stop wasting time with it?
The end that would slide out has metal soldered on it so it is larger than the
width of the hinges. That would be a very simple task.
>I would like to occasionally use larger numbers of weaker opponents, but
>flaming oil seems doomed. I can't just hand out 30 rings of fire resistance,
>either.
If your players use a lot of flaming oil, create situations where those flasks
could get broken or ignited. They might not be too excited about carrying so
many after that.
-Aristotle@Threshold
--
VISIT THRESHOLD - Online Roleplaying at its Finest. Player run clans, guilds,
legal system, economy, religions, nobility, and more in a world where roleplay
is required! Roleplay online with thousands of people from all over the world.
http://www.thresholdrpg.com -**- telnet://thresholdrpg.com:23
Bill Silvey
SD Anderson <10225...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:8mr6qa$b3v$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
: Some folks a while back were talking about a Top Secret adventure
: that came with one version of that game. In it EVERY NPC the PCs
: encountered was a spy of some sort. Literally all of France was an arm
: of the KGB.
...and that differs from reality, how, exactly?
:-)
--
Bill Silvey, Oathmaster, Clan Wolverine - Fuck the IDSA
"I post to see what kind of responses I will get. I don't know of every
single facet of a subject I post on."
- ATN082268's confession in posting
<19980604050705...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
that it does in fact post in rec.games.mecha only to troll.
Y'wanna email me? Get the F outa my email address!
The Wandering Ogre
<bgr...@zianet.com> scrobe aimlessly upon the ether:
> In article <3990bd2f...@news.newsguy.com>, og...@hellshalfacre.org
> wrote:
> >I did stand up on the cursed ring bit, though. "How would you
> >even think to wonder if it's cursed?" (Magic, as far as the
> >characters know, is the stuff of bedtime stories. Or was, at the
> >beginning of the game. That's beginning to change... And yes,
> >the rings _are_ cursed...)
>
> I find a little hard between the GURPS equivalent of the Wizard and Priest
> class that the party that this ignorent of magic. Even at first level these
> two classes know magic is far more than "the stuff of bedtime stories".
There are no such things in my world. Or, at least, no Wizards
that the party (or, indeed, the entire human population in a
heavily-segregated world) has run into or heard about.
There are no Priests at all. The gods gave up on the place a
long time ago.
> Also
> even with no training the Magery advantage has some small change of giving
> general vibes on mage (M 104).
Magery wasn't available to player characters. I wanted them to
be ignorant of it, starting out. But they're about to come into
contact with a strange race that can use magic more freely, so
they'll have a chance to learn about it soon, if the encounters
go well for the party.
> Never mind that a GURPS mage in a place like
> Meglos Yrth or Forgotten Realms would have to be braindead stupid not to have
> learned Analyze Magic
Home-grown campaign world. Things aren't quite the same as they
might be in FR or Meglos Yrth.
> >The bigger, more annoying, problem, is the min-maxing. Half the
> >party can't be hit by mere mortals, even at 1st-level-equivalent,
> >and never misses a combat roll.
>
> It sound like they are NOT 1st-level-equivalent then and the reasons are
> mainly do to the differences in the two system as I point out on my AD&D to
> GURPS convertion sheet <http://members.aol.com/BruceG6069/ADnD_to_GURPS.html>:
1st-level-equivalent, as far as adventuring experience, I think I
meant, not in terms of skills or overall ability. But it's not
just a problem in the GURPS game; the players have characters
with similar characteristics (never miss, can't be hit) in D&D
games we play, too. Frustrates the hell out of me, 'cause I'm
just the opposite - never missed, can't hit...
Thanks for the info & link, though.
Bruce Grubb
<10225...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>In article <bgrubb-6B8F45....@www.zianet.com>,
> Bruce Grubb <bgr...@zianet.com> wrote:
>> In article <20000808231051...@ng-fw1.news.cs.com>,
>> bardva...@cs.com (BardValerian) wrote:
>> >Not to mention, how would you like to have to circumvent a trap
>> > every time you open your medicine cabinet? Think about it...just
>> > 1 screw up and you're dead... No thanks. I'd rather *hide* my
>> > valuables than risk that...
>>
>> This brings of the lack of logic about many traps. Not only in what
>> keeps the local populous from setting these things off, but also who
>> resetsthem and most importantly who maintains them? Never mind that
>> some traps seem to have been designed by Rube Goldberg making
>> maintaining and resetting them all the more problematic.
>
> Then there are magical items. Most games make item creation a
>lengthy time consuming resource consuming problem. I like WitchCraft's
>solution. You cast the spell on an item spend the essence and *leave*
>it there for a permanent effect. Disenchant it? Reclaim your spent
>essence.
What happens when you run out of essence? :-)
> Many items found/described would NEVER be made. Armor that takes 30
>years to make won't be ordered by most human knights. They're not
>likely to be needing it by then. And the prices listed often are so
>high that a knight's suit of armor might take CENTURIES to pay off on
>the rents of his Lord's lands.
At least the GURPS Magic system is flexable enough that there are ways around
this problem. Stephan Beal's <http://www.he.net/~sgbeal/gurps.alt.html>
house rules comes to mind.
> If you get realistic you need to go over all the items in the books
>look at their costs, time to make and the sort of finances available by
>the mundane NPCs who supposedly ordered them made years ago so the PCs
>could find them in a dungeon.
>
> It won't be pretty.
Espeically given the fragle nature of some items.
Lawrence Mead
list of
> things that "ought to work" that I feel disrupt part of the game
logic. Now,
> to a certain extent, I want to *encourage* creative thinking.
>
> But it's *NOT* creative thinking to use the same strategies every
time.
>
want
> to see if the hinge pins are on the same side they are, so they can
remove
> them "easily". Anyone got a good way to make this less practical, so
they
> stop wasting time with it?
>
These "solutions" may take considerable time (if the pins are rusted,
say) and may make considerable noise as well. How about wandering
monsters/humans/guards whatever? Have the local denizens alerted: at
the very least, one will not gain surprise on those beyond the door.
> Chests are invariably opened with grappling hooks and ropes. I
suppose I can
> start making the traps be *inside* the chest, in that they only take
effect
> when, say, hands are in there... but it still sucks.
>
AGain a big noise maker; and I really don't see how a locked chest
can be opened with a grappling hook on a rope.
> I would like to occasionally use larger numbers of weaker opponents,
but
> flaming oil seems doomed. I can't just hand out 30 rings of fire
resistance,
> either.
>
If you allow hurled oil to do damge (I do not -it is vegetable oil, not
petroleum and you cannot make a "Molotov cocktail" out of it) have the
larger numbers of weaker opponents do the same to the PCS.
> Basically, the problem I'm having is that the experienced players tend
to have
> a pretty good answer to almost any problem, and it's *not* the game
logic one,
> which (IMHO) can sorta wreck the mood.
That is always a problem. One must simply take the time to invent
"better" more unconventional settings for them.
DMgorgon
Bryan J. Maloney
cnei...@telusplanet.net (Colin Neilson) wrote:
> seen them all before this post, in many different sources. As such,
> why should the DM assume that the PCs are the first to think of these
> things? Unless it is a particualarly inventive idea, others have
> proably thought of it, and thought of ways to prevent it.
If "adventuring" exists as a profession, I'd lay down dollars to donuts
that people would open schools for it, schools that teach the various
tricks to would-be adventurers.
--
For those in the know, potrzebie is truly necessary.
Bryan J. Maloney
> I design my game world to follow logical (not "realistic", but
> CONSISTENT) patterns of behavior. If you do that, then as a GM you can
Exactly. Unfortunately, many people conflate "logical" with "resembles
our own world". All that matters is that the world makes sense *in its
own terms*. If mammoths on rafts really DO sink because the spirit of
water is terrified of them and tries to flee out from under the apparent
weight, then work it out accordingly. If you put big wings on the back of
the mammoth, it might not be able to fly, but you might be able to fool
the spirit of water into thinking that it's light enough to carry (or you
might not).
Peter Seebach
Bryan J. Maloney <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>If "adventuring" exists as a profession, I'd lay down dollars to donuts
>that people would open schools for it, schools that teach the various
>tricks to would-be adventurers.
Fair enough.
The party in my game world wouldn't have gone; they started out as cops.
azothath
se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) wrote:
> So, here's my problem. Over time, players have started acquiring a
list of
> things that "ought to work" that I feel disrupt part of the game
logic. Now,
> to a certain extent, I want to *encourage* creative thinking.
>
> But it's *NOT* creative thinking to use the same strategies every
time.
>
> e.g., every time characters are confronted with a locked door, they
want
> to see if the hinge pins are on the same side they are, so they can
remove
> them "easily". Anyone got a good way to make this less practical, so
they
> stop wasting time with it?
well - a good thing to do is to have the players write up a standard
operating procedure (SOP) for specific events. Such as Door opening
SOP, Treasure chest opening SOP....this creates a shortcut that both
sides can agree upon and consistently use.
> Chests are invariably opened with grappling hooks and ropes. I
suppose I can
> start making the traps be *inside* the chest, in that they only take
effect
> when, say, hands are in there... but it still sucks.
lol - some traps are IN the chest. Remeber to roll for potions and
such, then roll on the miscibility table (BOOM!). Sometimes the traps
are designed to ruin the contents if the chest is not opened properly.
You also have to look at the treasure, think about who owned it at what
resourses they had to protect it, and what they would have reasonably
done. Remember also, that the owner had to have a reasonable way to use
and open the chest/item in a reasonable time. A high level mage is
likely to use various levels of physical and magical traps, but not
poison (in case of an accident).
> I would like to occasionally use larger numbers of weaker opponents,
but
> flaming oil seems doomed. I can't just hand out 30 rings of fire
resistance,
> either.
this is a matter of strategy and tactics, not PC creativity. No PCs
would willingly go into a HTH battle with 10 to 1 odds against, even if
they're opponents are kobolds. If yours will - well - then you need to
review how to fight a battle. It's also an issue of supply, what the
PCs have available and handy, and how quickly they can re-supply. If
you make it generic and easy, you need to add some realism and curtail
the ready supply of throwing oil.
I say this as paraffin/kerosene grade lamp oil is really the standard,
and it WON'T do the molitov cocktail kinda thing when you throw it, it's
most likely to go out. Historically, olive oil or rendered fat was used,
which are highly unsuitable to molitov. Throwing oil has to have a low
flash point and (if oil) would have to have some benzene, acetone,
toluene, and/or toluols in it. This generally requires some type of
refining, which means alchemists (synonomyous with expensive and in
limited supply). The other simple option is ethyl alcohol (grain
alcohol) of at least 60% concentration (120 proof). Again, you'll be
fighting the liquer market for that fine a grade of alcohol and it's
hard to come by. I'd also note that the water content will seriously
lower the flame time and damage of the alcohol.
> Basically, the problem I'm having is that the experienced players tend
to have
> a pretty good answer to almost any problem, and it's *not* the game
logic one,
> which (IMHO) can sorta wreck the mood.
I'd take a close look at player knowledge versus character knowlege. So
much of what we have today is taken for granted or as simple, which is
not at all true. These ideas seep into the game quite easily. PBS has
a historical series called "The 1900's House", where people have to live
as they did 100 years ago, and it's not pretty. <eg> A prime example is
laundry, which used to take an ENTIRE DAY of HARD LABOR and exposure to
strong alkelies(bases) to do a weeks worth of laundry.
> I guess I have this weird idea of heroic fantasy where you open a
locked chest
> by picking the lock, after trying to disable traps, not where you look
for
> hinge pins or weak fittings. I know it's *rational* to do it the
other way,
> but rational people don't cast spells at monsters, now do they?
well - the game is a fantasy, and it's a created thing which we do for
fun. If it becomes too real or a pain in the ass then it won't be fun
and that scenario will fall by the wayside. You as the GM have to come
to some sort of accomodation with yourself as to how much "reality" you
want. You lead and the players have to play by your rules. The trick
is to make it tasteful, reasonably consistent within the theme, fun, and
subtly educational.
--
/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/
can it be? Azot...@hotmale.com.invalid
USCM_Sulaco
se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) wrote:
> In article <8mpmbf$ckv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> USCM_Sulaco <uscm_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >Why is that a waste of time? It is the players being smart.
>
> I suppose. It gets to be a pain that they insist on trying this stuff
every
> time.
Then throw them some changeups. Hell, ask your players to remove a door
in the house using only a dagger and see how ell they do. The idea of
popping the pins on hinge is fine, it just isn't very practical in a
game setting. They would probably need chisels, hammers and pliers, if
not a hacksaw, to do it and it is far from easy or quiet when dealing
with a pre-industrial society hinge. A medieval hinge is not the tiny,
dainty thing we have holding our doors up, nor are the doors the light,
hollow things we use today.
> >> Chests are invariably opened with grappling hooks and ropes. I
> >suppose I can
> >> start making the traps be *inside* the chest, in that they only
take
> >effect
> >> when, say, hands are in there... but it still sucks.
>
> >Why?
>
> I dunno. It's out-of-genre. It's like when someone starts trying to
invent
> repeating crossbows, or whatever.
Not really. Despite experiences masny of us have had in games over the
ears, caution isn't really out-of-genre. :)
If someone wants to invent a stethoscope and x-ray machine to spy-out
the contnets of a chest than *that* is OOG.
You could try a dungeon where all the chests are cleverly made so that
the lid can open normally, from the back or from either side. Each chest
can only be opened safely *one* way, and someone must be holding pin X
or pushing stud Y to do so. If the chest is opnend any other way it
detonates, seriously inconveniencing anyone in the room and destroying
the contents. If the PCs want to get any loot out of these things they'd
better start doing some proper lockpicking. A few encounters ending up
with gold coins imbedded intheir forheads might lead to some more
stealthy and roguish behavaiour.
> >How are any of these outside of game logic? Are you suggesting that
> >in-game people are too stupid to find clever ways of doing things? Do
> >people in your games just blunder around like buffoons?
>
> Well, I'd sort of hope that the 1st level ones wouldn't be aware of
> *everything* when they start out. :(
True, but allow them a chance to learn.
I have a similar situation with a player. He is much more into what is
"efficient" rather than what is appropriate. Every one of his characters
wants a soldier's-harness, frame-pack, folding e-tool shovel, etc. These
things may be efficient but they are not appropriate.
I don't think the examples you give fall in this category though. Your
players are just being cautios and clever, not really bringing in OOG
knowledge or experiences.
> >Why not? Why are you trying to force the players to play your way?
Why
> >not adapt to their way? How is it a hewroic game to berate the
players
> >for being clever and whining cos you can't damage them enough with
> >monsters and traps?
> :)
If monsters are spread out it makes it harder for an area-effect spell
to affect them all.
> They're just not *sporting* about it. (Although I've gotten a lot of
really
> good ideas out of this thread, so I may not care next game.)
I knew this NG was good for something! :)
Seriously though, the best way to deal with this is just to make things
different that the *players* expect.
--
"Superstition is the religion of fools."
Dave's Wyrld http://www.homestead.com/daves_wyrld
My D&D Page http://www.homestead.com/daves_wyrld/adnd.html
Coyraven
Salutations,
i have not read all the posts, so excuse me if I am repeating anything,
but...
>
> e.g., every time characters are confronted with a locked door, they
want
> to see if the hinge pins are on the same side they are, so they can
remove
> them "easily". Anyone got a good way to make this less practical, so
they
> stop wasting time with it?
Trap the hinges! :)
Seriously- any dungeon keeper interested in trapping the locking
mechanism of the door.. is probably not silly enough to ignore the
hinges or other ways of getting through the door.
> Chests are invariably opened with grappling hooks and ropes. I
suppose I can
> start making the traps be *inside* the chest, in that they only take
effect
> when, say, hands are in there... but it still sucks.
Use other treasure holding devices- in-wall safes, wardrobes, and other
containers difficult to manipulate.
As for chests- are they moving it with the ropes? There could always be
a trap situated with the moving of the chest :)
> I would like to occasionally use larger numbers of weaker opponents,
but
> flaming oil seems doomed. I can't just hand out 30 rings of fire
resistance,
> either.
Try to remember this: It is likely that a monster community has ran
into other "invaders". (Could be other adventurers, local "heroes", or
just other monsters)
They have most likely seen such tactics in the past and have figured
out ways of dealing with them. (like attacking from all side instead of
straight on to avoid area fire attacks)
You can also have the monsters learn. If the players do something
clever and are clearly going to kill most of the monsters, then have
the living run away and learn from the encounter.
> I guess I have this weird idea of heroic fantasy where you open a
locked chest
> by picking the lock, after trying to disable traps, not where you
look for
> hinge pins or weak fittings. I know it's *rational* to do it the
other way,
> but rational people don't cast spells at monsters, now do they?
>
Remember the key to dungeons/traps/and such is the intelligence of the
creature who made them. If we are talking low int, then we are talking
about basic traps that go for killing/trapping.
If we are talking high int, then we could be talking about going for
more subtle methods. Illusions, magical glyphs/symbols, and maybe even
teleportation traps.
Another idea is that maybe you should try different types of adventures-
try running one of political intrigue, piracy, war, or even just
exploration of untamed lands. Get them away from the opportunities they
are used to.
If the dungeon crawl is leaving you a bit frustrated, then stay away
from it for a bit.
You could also look for the books printed by different companies filled
with traps/puzzles.
Good luck!
CR
SD Anderson
The trick is to earn experience and buy replacement essence.
Aaron F. Bourque
>>Or how about "fake" doors. The heroes pull the pins out of the hinges,
>>and then try to push down the door . . . but can't, either because the
>>door is actually connected to the wall, or there's a wall behind it, or
>>there are also hinges on the OTHER side. . .
>
>Trying to imagine how such a door would open....
Exactly, doors that won't open. Fake doors.
Those can be very frustrating to adventurers.
Aaron "The Mad Whitaker" Bourque
--
Being grown up all the time is only a sign of immaturity.
Come on, people! Grow up! Act stupid!
Randy Patton
<j...@excelonline.com> wrote:
> I think he was complaining about experienced *players* playing
> begining *characters* this way.
> jbs
That's even *more* justification for screwing them, as punishment for
cheating. ;-)
It boils down to the same result anyway. If experienced adventurers
know all the tricks, experienced dungeon designers will know all the
countermeasures. The fact that the party is nominally low-level doesn't
change the fact that high-level parties have existed in the past and
thought of all their tricks before, prompting countermeasures from the
bad guys.
To be fair, a DM should reward players for role-playing their surprise
when they think up some "logical" trick, actually gleaned from prior
games, and discover that the bad guys have been dealing with that old
chestnut for centuries.
Bruce Grubb
>In article <3990ae24...@news.edmonton.telusplanet.net>,
>cnei...@telusplanet.net (Colin Neilson) wrote:
>
>> seen them all before this post, in many different sources. As such,
>> why should the DM assume that the PCs are the first to think of these
>> things? Unless it is a particualarly inventive idea, others have
>> proably thought of it, and thought of ways to prevent it.
>
>If "adventuring" exists as a profession, I'd lay down dollars to donuts
>that people would open schools for it, schools that teach the various
>tricks to would-be adventurers.
Even AD&D in its first edition took this view: Character had to go to the
guild to get the proper training though the costs were totally loony toon
time.
Peter Seebach
Lawrence Mead <lrm...@orca.st.usm.edu> wrote:
>These "solutions" may take considerable time (if the pins are rusted,
>say) and may make considerable noise as well. How about wandering
>monsters/humans/guards whatever? Have the local denizens alerted: at
>the very least, one will not gain surprise on those beyond the door.
I always wondered why there were "wandering monsters". Now I know; to keep
players moving.
>If you allow hurled oil to do damge (I do not -it is vegetable oil, not
>petroleum and you cannot make a "Molotov cocktail" out of it) have the
>larger numbers of weaker opponents do the same to the PCS.
Good point.
Hmm. I wonder what the "flaming oil" rules are *supposed* to represent.
Still, I already got the big wake-up call; it's *d3*, not *2d6*, unless
it's a full flask on one target.
Andrew Tellez
Peter Seebach wrote:
>
> In article <8mrstr$psv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Lawrence Mead <lrm...@orca.st.usm.edu> wrote:
> >If you allow hurled oil to do damge (I do not -it is vegetable oil, not
> >petroleum and you cannot make a "Molotov cocktail" out of it) have the
> >larger numbers of weaker opponents do the same to the PCS.
>
> Good point.
>
> Hmm. I wonder what the "flaming oil" rules are *supposed* to represent.
> Still, I already got the big wake-up call; it's *d3*, not *2d6*, unless
> it's a full flask on one target.
Mead brings up a good point, though. Most lamp oil is either vegetable
oil or rendered fat, not petroleum. I think the damage is supposed to
represent not only the oil, but the burning of the victims hair and
clothing, and possible oil scalds on the skin.
I wouldn't let lamp oil do 2d6 even if someone is coated in it, though.
My revised flaming oil rules are 1d3 for a hit from lamp oil, no real
damage (1d2-1, maybe) for standing in it. Greek fire does 2d6 for a
direct hit, 1d6 for the next round or two depending on how it's applied,
and 1d6 for anyone who stands in a pool of it.
The biggest reason for this is that holy water and greek fire cost the
same. As a balance issue, they should be about equally damaging to
those things that are hurt by them.
Bryan J. Maloney
<bgr...@zianet.com> wrote:
That's not what I'm referring to. I don't mean training as "fighters" or
"theives", etc. I mean generalized training as "adventurers". The
schools might be run by retired parties.
Staffan Johansson
>Hmm. I wonder what the "flaming oil" rules are *supposed* to represent.
>Still, I already got the big wake-up call; it's *d3*, not *2d6*, unless
>it's a full flask on one target.
At least in 2nd ed, there are two types of oil available for purchase:
1. Lamp oil, costing something like a few silvers per pint, with each
pint burning for six hours in a normal lantern (the big bad beacon
lanterns consume far more, of course).
2. Greek Fire, which is the classical "molotov cocktail" inflicting
2d6+1d6 on a direct hit. This costs something like 10 gp per bottle.
It's also much more susceptible to DM whims regarding availability.
Judging by the 3e character generator, Greek fire has been renamed
"Alchemist's fire" in 3e.
--
Staffan Johansson (bal...@crosswinds.net)
john v verkuilen
>Art Wendorf wrote:
>>
>> Flaming oil shouldn't catch fire all that easily. It's basically lamp oil
>> from a pre-industrial age, right? [Not sure how you think of it IYC]. It
>> didn't take my group long to figure out that lamp oil is NOT napalm or
>> gasoline.
>It's probably equivalent to naphtha, or "Greek Fire." In fact, I think I
>recall at least one D&D book that described it as such, but I could be
>wrong.
Dierdre is right--flaming oil is enhanced. It's called Greek Fire because
the Byzantines used it and it was quite nasty.
Jay
--
J. Verkuilen ja...@uiuc.edu
"Man has such a predilection for systems and abstract deductions that he is
ready to distort the truth intentionally, he is ready to deny the evidence of
his senses only to justify his logic." - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
john v verkuilen
>Yeah. It's rational, but it's rational because the players grew up in
>a post-enlightenment society. I don't *believe* the characters would
>think this way.
This is, alas, too common. With some characters it's more reasonable than
others, but I have had players who just can't see how the pre-scientific
mindset is *very* different.
john v verkuilen
>>I dunno. It's out-of-genre. It's like when someone starts trying to invent
>>repeating crossbows, or whatever.
>Repeating crossbows showed up in AD&D previously, Oriential Adventures IIRC.
Interestingly enough, they showed up in the real world, too. But yes, I know
what the poster was thinking--we live in a time where invention is not unusual
and have a much more flexible mindset than many people would. Of course,
there's no reason people in a fantasy world *couldn't* have this mindset.
Perhaps much of it is channeled into magical development.
>>>How are any of these outside of game logic? Are you suggesting that
>>>in-game people are too stupid to find clever ways of doing things? Do
>>>people in your games just blunder around like buffoons?
>>
>>Well, I'd sort of hope that the 1st level ones wouldn't be aware of
>>*everything* when they start out. :(
>Even in 1st edition AD&D one did not become 1st level overnight. It can be
>argued that some of these methods have worked so well that they got
>incorperated into the basic training methods. Some methods are so obvious
>that you have to be blind not to see it.
Of course sometimes it's just plain old player knowledge.
Douglas Milewski
shorthand. Just accept it quickly and move on.
Creating traps that destroy treasure will get them to slow players down. After a
huge rock falls, "It looks like it used to be some very expensive gems and a +4
sword. It now looks like sand and scrapmetal." If activating the trap destroys
what they are after, then they need to address the trap. (It's a valid tactic,
too. "If he lives, he still doesn't get the treasure. hahahah.")
A few suggestions. I hope they make sense.
Douglas
Peter Seebach wrote:
> So, here's my problem. Over time, players have started acquiring a list of
> things that "ought to work" that I feel disrupt part of the game logic. Now,
> to a certain extent, I want to *encourage* creative thinking.
>
> But it's *NOT* creative thinking to use the same strategies every time.
>
> e.g., every time characters are confronted with a locked door, they want
> to see if the hinge pins are on the same side they are, so they can remove
> them "easily". Anyone got a good way to make this less practical, so they
> stop wasting time with it?
>
> Chests are invariably opened with grappling hooks and ropes. I suppose I can
> start making the traps be *inside* the chest, in that they only take effect
> when, say, hands are in there... but it still sucks.
>
> I would like to occasionally use larger numbers of weaker opponents, but
> flaming oil seems doomed. I can't just hand out 30 rings of fire resistance,
> either.
>
> Basically, the problem I'm having is that the experienced players tend to have
> a pretty good answer to almost any problem, and it's *not* the game logic one,
> which (IMHO) can sorta wreck the mood.
>
> I guess I have this weird idea of heroic fantasy where you open a locked chest
> by picking the lock, after trying to disable traps, not where you look for
> hinge pins or weak fittings. I know it's *rational* to do it the other way,
> but rational people don't cast spells at monsters, now do they?
>
Marcel Parent
Dharmaserf
Bryan J. Maloney <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:bjm10-08080...@potato.cit.cornell.edu...
> In article <qUWj5.12750$fV5.1...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>, "Marcel
> Parent" <mrpa...@sprint.ca> wrote:
>
> > Most doors of this period probably don't have hinges like we do with
pins.
> > They are probably like the hinges on the PHB in that the hinge is bolted
> > into the door and the stonework. One would break a sword trying to take
the
> > hinge off. In fact, it would probably be easier to smash through the
door
> > than pry out hte bolts.
>
> That doesn't matter. That type of hinge still has pins.
Bruce Grubb
verkuilen) wrote:
>se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) writes:
>
>>Yeah. It's rational, but it's rational because the players grew up in
>>a post-enlightenment society. I don't *believe* the characters would
>>think this way.
>
>This is, alas, too common. With some characters it's more reasonable than
>others, but I have had players who just can't see how the pre-scientific
>mindset is *very* different.
Considering what constitutes the "scientific mindset" has changed over the
years (see Burke's _Day the Univerese Changed_) this is a non-point. In fact
once anthoropology got out 'its superstition so its irrelevent' mind set they
found there were many simularities to the 'rule of magic' and scientific
thought.
"since the structure of reality changes over time, science can
only answer contemporary questions about a reality defined
in contemporary terms and investigated with contemporary
tools." (Burke 1985:337)
"The knowledge acquired through the use of _any_ structure
is selective... Scientific knowledge, in sum, is not
necessarily the clearest representation of what reality is; it
is the artifact of each structure and its tool." (Burke 1985:337)
"Before any such research can be carried out, it is necessary
first to establish the existance of the phenomena to
be investigated. Evidence must be gathered. But this
evidence is accepted or rejected according to the
value placed on it by the structure" (Burke 1985:321)
Suggested readin fto understand what science -really- is not what some
believe it to be:
Binford, L.R.
1972 "Some Comments on Historical versus Processual Archaeology"
_An Archaeological Perspective_
Burke, James
1985 _Day the Universe Changed_ (London Writers Ltd.)
Cole, John R.
1980 "Cult Archaeology and Unscientific Method and Theory"
_Advances in Archaeological Methods and Theory, Vol 3_ pp 1-33
Dunnell, Robert C.
1986 "Methodological Issues in Americanist Artifact Classification"
_Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory_ vol 9.pp. 149-207
Gleck, James
1987 _Chaos_ (Penguin Books)
Schiffer, M.B.
1988 "The Structure of Archaeological Theory"
_American Antiquity_ 53(3) pp 461-485
Trigger, Bruce G.
1989 _A History of Archaeological Thought_ (Cambridge University Press)
Zurav, Gary
1979 _The Dancing Wu Li Masters_ (Bantam New Age)
Bruce Grubb
verkuilen) wrote:
>Bruce Grubb <bgr...@zianet.com> writes:
>
>>>I dunno. It's out-of-genre. It's like when someone starts trying to
>>>invent
>>>repeating crossbows, or whatever.
>
>>Repeating crossbows showed up in AD&D previously, Oriential Adventures
>>IIRC.
>
>Interestingly enough, they showed up in the real world, too. But yes, I
>know what the poster was thinking--we live in a time where invention is
> not unusual and have a much more flexible mindset than many people would.
> Of course,
>there's no reason people in a fantasy world *couldn't* have this mindset.
>Perhaps much of it is channeled into magical development.
As Burke explained in both _Connections_ and _Day the Universe Changed_
culture and ease of communications is what focuses the forces on already
existing 'triggers' that cause change. These forces are:
1) War
2) Enviroment
3) deleberate search (usially for profit)
4) looking for one thing and finding something else
5) Religion
6) using something from a totally different field
7) Accident
It is how these different factors come together that desides as Burke 'which
potential trigger will cause change and which will basicly sit on the shelf
and do nothing.' In a world where magic is common and realiable some of
these 'technaologic triggers' will be spells. For example the Copy spell out
of GURPS if acceassable to everyone (its castable by non mages) would have
the same effect as the printing press did in our world.
Deirdre M. Brooks
The Wandering Ogre wrote:
>
> Magery wasn't available to player characters. I wanted them to
> be ignorant of it, starting out. But they're about to come into
> contact with a strange race that can use magic more freely, so
> they'll have a chance to learn about it soon, if the encounters
> go well for the party.
So you wanted characters ignorant of the perils or glories of magic, and
then you immediately foisted cursed items on them that they have no
logical reason to avoid?
What kind of sadist are you?
--
Deird'Re M. Brooks | xe...@teleport.com | cam#9309026
Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
"Atlantic City is Oz envisioned by used car salesmen and pimps."
http://www.teleport.com/~xenya | --Rick Glumsky, Celtic Filth
Deirdre M. Brooks
john v verkuilen wrote:
>
> Dierdre is right--flaming oil is enhanced. It's called Greek Fire because
> the Byzantines used it and it was quite nasty.
Thanks.
It strikes me as silly or pointless to use a not-so-flammable oil for
"flaming oil weapons."
Deirdre M. Brooks
"Aaron F. Bourque" wrote:
>
> ::confused::
> He's a _GM_. I thought that was obvious . . .
Oh, right, what was I *thinking*? Carry on.
Deirdre M. Brooks
The Wandering Ogre wrote:
>
> They deserve what they got, imho.
That's the best kind of player - he who gets what he deserves.
> Ogre, also a powerless one, at the moment. but I'm hoping the
> electricity comes back on before the ice cream in the freezer
> melts...
Your only hope is to eat it.
Peter Knutsen
The Wandering Ogre wrote:
>
> <pe...@knutsen.dk> scrobe aimlessly upon the ether:
> > Make an enviroment where the use of fire is near lethal. Maybe
> > the air in the dungeon contains gasoline (petrol) fumes. Any
> > spark and the whole thing explodes.
>
> Friend of mine once employed a trap involving a few bags of flour
> that broke open, violently, when a door was open. The torch the
> party was carrying was all that was needed to set off a massive
> fireball.
Yes, flour is good too, but the problem is it won't stay airborne
for long, unlike fumes. Also, I believe the explosive power is
a bit smaller, but if you have a room filled wit
> > I don't really see your problem. Experienced adventurers will
> > know these solutions from experience. Unexperiened adventers
> > might hav the INT and the skills that allows them to develop
> > those techniques.
>
> 'Cept it's not the adventurers' experience that's the problem,
> it's the players'. I've got the same problem - I tried to start
If the players use OOC-experience in my campaign, I throw EXP
penalties at them until they beg for mercy. Then I keep
throwing EXP penalties at them until they apologize and promise
never ever to cheat again.
> a game with 1st-level-equivalent characters (I'm running GURPS,
> not D&D) in a rural setting, and every doorway they came to they
> wanted to check for traps. "You're fresh off the friggin' farm,
> what do you people know about traps?" I wanted to scream at them.
The correct thing so scream is "why is your character *searching*
for traps?!?!?!"
If you can, go for triple digits in decibels.
> I caved, though. "You don't find any". I haven't even rolled
> for it yet.
Major baddie. You should always roll dice, even if you don't
really look at them (pretend you do, though). Otherwise the
players will know that there is nothing to find.
I make about 5 to 20 times as many dice rolls as I actually need
for outcome-production. The superflous ones are just to keep
the players at their toes and remind them that I'm a neutral
entry "running" the gameworld and the gamerules, not an
opiniated interferer.
> I did stand up on the cursed ring bit, though. "How would you
> even think to wonder if it's cursed?" (Magic, as far as the
> characters know, is the stuff of bedtime stories. Or was, at the
> beginning of the game. That's beginning to change... And yes,
> the rings _are_ cursed...)
If they suspect the ring to be magical, it's fair that they
suspect the magic to be evil. Traditionally (outside of
RPGs), most magic is seen as suspect if not downright evil.
But if they don't have reason to suspect the ring is evil,
then of course their characters can't behave as if they do.
> The bigger, more annoying, problem, is the min-maxing. Half the
> party can't be hit by mere mortals, even at 1st-level-equivalent,
> and never misses a combat roll.
Min/maxing is not a problem if you use a good ruleset.
--
Peter Knutsen
Peter Knutsen
Mike Bruner wrote:
>
> The Wandering Ogre wrote:
> > Friend of mine once employed a trap involving a few bags of flour
> > that broke open, violently, when a door was open. The torch the
> > party was carrying was all that was needed to set off a massive
> > fireball.
> >
> > Fortunately, I missed that session...
>
> Ouch! Actually, I might steal this as a player trap...
Be carefull. Most farmers will already know that flour-dust is
explosive and that you should avoid sparks in such cases.
> > 'Cept it's not the adventurers' experience that's the problem,
> > it's the players'. I've got the same problem - I tried to start
> > a game with 1st-level-equivalent characters (I'm running GURPS,
> > not D&D) in a rural setting, and every doorway they came to they
> > wanted to check for traps. "You're fresh off the friggin' farm,
> > what do you people know about traps?" I wanted to scream at them.
>
> Well, if they have a thief capable of checking for traps, the thief should certainly
> know to worry about traps; that's why he was trained about them, after all! If there's
> no thief, they shouldn't be able to check for traps anyway then.
Wrong. Every character can search for traps. Saying otherwise is
nonrealistic and idiotic. The big issue is that in many cases it
is nonrealistic for the character to even think of searching for
traps.
> --
> Mike Bruner...@delaware.infi.net
--
Peter Knutsen
Aaron F. Bourque
>The Wandering Ogre wrote:
>>
>> Magery wasn't available to player characters. I wanted them to
>> be ignorant of it, starting out. But they're about to come into
>> contact with a strange race that can use magic more freely, so
>> they'll have a chance to learn about it soon, if the encounters
>> go well for the party.
>
>So you wanted characters ignorant of the perils or glories of magic, and
>then you immediately foisted cursed items on them that they have no
>logical reason to avoid?
>
>What kind of sadist are you?
::confused::
He's a _GM_. I thought that was obvious . . .
?
mathew
> e.g., every time characters are confronted with a locked door, they want
> to see if the hinge pins are on the same side they are, so they can remove
> them "easily". Anyone got a good way to make this less practical, so they
> stop wasting time with it?
Give 'em a learning experience.
Start with some kind of obstacle that takes them a while to get across
-- for instance, a rope bridge that'll only take the weight of one
person.
Then have a really big entrance door with the pins on the same side as
the characters.
Then have a sequence of hallways with nowhere to hide and no doors.
Then have something really big, really slow, and really deadly. Way too
deadly for them to fight. Have it relentlessly chase them as they
retreat back to the one thing that could have stopped it -- the huge
metal door that they carefully removed from its hinges.
Of course, there's the rear entrance they could run around to, but the
huge deadly thing will reach them long before they manage to knock the
pins out of *that* one...
Or: "The temple door's about fifteen feet high, but very narrow. The
hinges are at intervals of about a foot..."
> Chests are invariably opened with grappling hooks and ropes. I suppose I can
> start making the traps be *inside* the chest, in that they only take effect
> when, say, hands are in there... but it still sucks.
"The lid doesn't open... instead, the entire chest flips backwards, as
if it's carved from solid wood. A lever of some sort rises up from
under where the chest was. There's a loud 'clunk' from under the floor,
and metal doors drop down in both doorways. You can hear some sort of
hissing sound. And before you ask -- the metal doors don't have hinges,
they dropped vertically..."
"It's a big hunk of marble, with a smooth marble lid that fits exactly.
Where were you intending to stick the grappling hook?"
"Judging from what's left of the chest after the explosion, you'd say
the mechanism was triggered by some kind of magnet arrangement that was
distubed by the presence of metal next to the lid."
> I would like to occasionally use larger numbers of weaker opponents, but
> flaming oil seems doomed. I can't just hand out 30 rings of fire resistance,
> either.
"You search the body. You find some kind of parchment... Opening it
up, it looks like the map you were hoping to find. It's rather badly
burnt, but you can still read the left hand side..."
"You know, the funny thing about flaming oil is it produces a lot of
toxic smoke. And the funny thing about small enclosed rooms deep in
dungeons, like this one, is that they don't have a lot of ventilation.
Particularly rooms where you have to crawl through water-filled
passageways to get to them. Do you know how long it takes someone to
fall unconscious and choke to death in a smoke-filled room?"
"Wow, who'd have thought that much fire would be enough for them to
complete a spell, contact their fire god and summon assistance at such
short notice?"
"Hey, this body isn't a kobold; it's a young human girl. I guess she
must have been their prisoner. Hmm, she looks kinda like the Alderman's
wife, maybe a family resemblance even. Oh well, I'm sure he'll be
delighted to finally find out what happened to her..."
> Basically, the problem I'm having is that the experienced players tend to have
> a pretty good answer to almost any problem, and it's *not* the game logic one,
> which (IMHO) can sorta wreck the mood.
"So, how much oil does your character reckon he should throw, based on
the zero experience he has of how well flaming oil burns?"
mathew
--
Wanted: Disk image of "Lemmings" graphics disc for Mac.
(Mine is corrupted.)
Colin Neilson
Maloney) wrote:
>In article <3990ae24...@news.edmonton.telusplanet.net>,
>cnei...@telusplanet.net (Colin Neilson) wrote:
>
>> seen them all before this post, in many different sources. As such,
>> why should the DM assume that the PCs are the first to think of these
>> things? Unless it is a particualarly inventive idea, others have
>> proably thought of it, and thought of ways to prevent it.
>
>If "adventuring" exists as a profession, I'd lay down dollars to donuts
>that people would open schools for it, schools that teach the various
>tricks to would-be adventurers.
My point exactly. And if these things are taught in common schools,
then the villains (intellegent ones any ways) have almost certainly
heard of them and can be permitted to develop defenses against them.
Colin Neilson
>Until she works out that all she needs is a hammer, a punch and a
>file. Only the latter will be expensive or rare.
Now she also needs time and will make a lot of noise. Not as useful
as the quite hinge removal set. An acceptable alternative as far as I
(as the DM) is concerned.
Colin Neilson
>>are the monsters charging into the oil? Much better to light the oil
>>with flaming arrows, and then force the PCs into their own oil. If
>>they can light it while it is being poured, even better.
>
>No, they were throwing flaming oil at monsters - but I was allowing for "real"
>damage (not 1d3) from pools, not just from direct hits.
I see. Okay, that makes more sense. Never had a flaming oil problem
in my campaigns, so I've never worried that much about it. Something
about pyromaniac PC mages and fireball backlash...
The Wandering Ogre
> I always wondered why there were "wandering monsters". Now I know; to keep
> players moving.
Some of us just like to drive.
--
"Most people learn from their past mistakes, and in future lives go on
to grow into better people. Others, who don't, become ogres."
- E. A. Scarborough, _The Godmother_
Portrait of an Ogre: http://www.iglou.com/profile/view.cgi/ogre