Forums of the Megaverse®

This could be a tough one... but..

Any suggestion on how to best guage the toughness of an encounter?

other RPGs have the monsters rated by levels, or challenge ratings and other such things. But I find with RIFTs, or even PF that you really need to read through the entries and make a judgement call to determine how many bad guys are to many.. know what I mean?

here is the situation that got me thinking about this. I have a Cyber Knight, a Bounty Hunter, and a Full Converstion borg all starting out at level 1, and will be playing a Xititic campagin.. how many Bugs are to many??

So how do most of you determin what is to much or to little for an encounter like that? I need to read the entry before hand and then compare it to the party of players.. any way to shorten down the "book work" on this?

I am not just looking for an answer for this specific example, but general tips and suggestions to help speed things up.

Thanks

OK.. yeah that makes sense.


I think the hardest part is deciding if a Magic using or Psi using bad guy is to tough for the group.

So here is another situation. I have 4 players.. (of various occ types) what levels would they all need to be at before taking on a splurgoth slave barge and Minion.. (including the 3 blind warrior women) I would hazard a guess that they all would need to be all about lvl 4 or more to be able to have a good chance.

Would that be a good threat assesment or would the 4 get wiped out? (taking the players creative thinking out of the equation)

Regards

If they're magic/psi heavy, maybe taking a barge down ~6th lvl is doable but simply surviving to run away without being captured might be doable at 4th with most groups. Of course, if yer talkin city rats and rogue scholars there's never a point at which they should reasonably take down slave barges.

Make it the players domain to decide - fit it into the game that they can choose what they take on - give them a 'menu' of threats. Then tell them as GM you have no idea if they could survive the higher threats.

However, I'm guessing that if the players haphazardly choose a high one and are about to die, you'll fudge it away - ie, you'll take the responsiblity for it back again. Cause you don't really want death to be on the cards (let me guess "Only if they do something reeeeeally stupid")? Right at all?

Its always the players domain to decide.

The guys have complete free will and very free thinking. So they are always coming up with interesting ways of fighting.

I am just trying to gauge the feeling of it, if going strictly by stats and levels.. hence, why i said .......

Would that be a good threat assesment or would the 4 get wiped out? (taking the players creative thinking out of the equation)

They are pretty crafty.. and wouldnt put it past them.


Regards

twhaley wrote:Shouldn't role-playing be a model of real life?
If the encounter is too big the characters run away. If it's too small, they walk away.
My players know it's a dangerous world. As GM I don't want the characters to die, but it would be worse if they got the impression that they couldn't die.

By no stretch of the means do my players ever get the impression that they cant't die. Combat is a brutal affair, and they know it. Hence the reasons why they try and think of many different ways to come out the winners. As a rule, I will always reward creative role playing..

And no, I don't think it should model real life. If that was the case, i wouldnt be able to have super heroic characters with Bionics, Magic and HI Tech weapons duking it out with larger then life evil mutant aliens from a 5th Dimesion who are trying to consum the world.

I am just looking into a way to help guage the power level of the party vs the power level of some encounters based on what I have planed as the GM.

Keep in mind as the GM you have ultimate power of the decisions your NPCs make.

If for example you overestimate the abilities of a PC you can allways pull them out of the fire one way or another.

I think the best example I can give of this is, at one point I had a game going where all the players were new to Rifts. So since they didnt know much of the game setting etc but were eager to learn. I wound up making up a merc group for them to be part of.

That way there was some outside structure and guidance, but I made the merc group unusually loose in what it allowed it's members to do. So they -could- go off on side adventures etc and catch minimal to no flak about it.

What I also wound up doing was giving them abit of a mentor GM PC. But I had to be careful about it. Herein lays the example.

One of the PCs was abit obsessed about obtaining an animal companion, or something like that. He was a level 1 Psi-stalker Cyberknight. So he was fairly capable, but still wasnt anywhere near 'uber' powered etc.

So he'd often take to wandering around thorugh the woods of Rifts Earth.

Alone.

Now and then I'd do up random encounters, and I gave him some base percentage chance to find what he was looking for. Though, the game ended before he ever actually did. Bit of bad luck on his side..

But at one point I decided to roll off a random encounter table in one of the books and the end result was him running into a devil unicorn.

Now, this isnt the sort of thing I'd normally pit a 1st level lone PC aganist. Especially as the average devil unicorn has about 400 MDC main body (Though the head has only 100 MDC which plays into how he beat it)

Personally I figgured the thing would slaughter him outright. And If I'd played it in a really nasty way it probably would have but I took it fairly easy on him (But not -too- easy).

I also decided there was a X% chance that for some reason the NPC mentor decided to tail him. I think I gave it like a 50% chance and rolled under the 50. So he actually had some backup (Though he didnt find out about that untill much later)

So in the end I had this thing play up to part of the description of these things benig intelligent, but overconfident and having a penchant for playing with their prey. So it would taunt him etc.

In the end he barely beat it, got his armor chewed to hell and just about got himself gutted. But he managed (with alot of work) to finally kill it himself by constantly making called shots to the head and a great deal of creativity.

If it had gotten to the point where he would have been killed then I'd have had the NPC intervene at the last moment kinda thing. But I wanted it to be his fight as much as possible. In the end it was close enough he pretty much passed out at the end, with the last thing I had him see was this shimering outline of some one in a tree (The 'guardian' NPC using NE camo along with some other stealtha bilities etc). And later on waking up bandaged and on the (slow) mend.

Suffice it to say he walked away from that encounter with a sizeable whack of XP. But he was also -considerably- more cautious in the future.

In the end I've never had a player complain about me being too hard on them, even when I've thrown something seriously nasty at them. BUt then I try not throw PCs into situations that are beyond them in the first place, unless of course their really asking for it sorta thing. And even then I usually wont kill them.

For example if you throw say.. a splurgoth slaver at them and they try to fight it and obviously cant really win. They could wind up being taken captive for use as slaves and later freed by some other adventuring group that pauses to help them get back on their feet before going their seperate ways again.

Or hell you could even use it to have the PCs have a small side adventure in the dreaded market area of Atlantis.

Generally speaking when ever the PCs inadvertently bite off more than they can chew, or if I've accidentally pitted them against something they cant handle I start to look for -reasonable- ways to dig them out of it. Often starting with them being captured alive (but not necessarily whole, and quite often badly beaten up) for some purpose or other and give them chances to figgure a way out.

That said I wont hesitate to kill foolhardy characters, nor will I necessarily save them in some manner from death if it's just flat out combat, traps etc. I allways try to make sure that there is a chance for them to survive, but never a guarantee.

Ninja Bunny wrote: Snip...

yeah.. thanks, that did help. Thanks for the response
They were some good examples.

CaptRory wrote: Don't be afraid to tweak or invent new critters either. If you want to "SWARM" the group and not kill them, give them 3x as many bugs but make each one 1/4 the power. Then you're into running mass combat... but that in itself can be fun if you find the flow of the battle.

Yeah.. thats a good idea too.. I tend to forget that i can weaken or toughen the bad guys to fit the mold of what i want. I guess I can throw in a couple of reduced powered bugs and also have one or two regular bugs in the mix.. Just to spice it up..

Nethel wrote:..SNIP..

Thats an interesting way to do it.. You find that it works out ok when you do that?

Regards

Shotgun Jolly wrote:Its always the players domain to decide.

The guys have complete free will and very free thinking. So they are always coming up with interesting ways of fighting.

No, I said they choose the battle - if it s a mission list or a choice of monster strewn ways out of a burning castle, they know what's ahead and they make the choice of what they take on.

I'm saying you don't have to guage it, if you hand that responsiblity over.

Oh, I gotcha now..

Yes.. I agree to that 100% Just sometimes, they dont always know what they are getting into. And I don't really want to hit them with something that is to much or to little. (for the more random parts of the adventure they are currently in) So, im just trying to find a way how to guage it.

Thanks

CaptRory wrote:My players accuse me of trying to kill them with realism, like when one drank an entire pot of coffee and I made them roll to Save vs. Poison.

Funny! You know somthing.. I just read somewhere on the net with in the last few weeks something like this.. I wonder if this was the same story!

I dont know if I read it here in these forums, or on another site.. But man, I laughed when I did....

Thanks

Is that much coffee that poisonus though? I mean yes, I realise caffine overload will poison you. But it takes a hell of alot.

Or is it something else in coffee specifically? Again that sounds a touch odd to me given how much coffee the average north american consumes on a daily basis, especially in the US.

EDIT:
Other than that though, in general I think it adds flavour when they have to run up against things like poisons etc.

Forcing the odd HF roll when faced with truely horrific deeds also I think is a nice bit to throw in. Though after a while one would get abit more hardened against such things.

CaptRory wrote:Well, there'd be a ton of caffein in it (they were warned it had been made with caffeinated water as well for that double-caffein goodness). A failed save would've meant irregular heartbeat at the least.

I've drank the equivalent of more than a pot of coffee - 13 cups inside of 2 hours (lack of sleep and 14-year-old stupidity). My whole body vibrated constantly, I couldn't keep my hands from shaking, I talked a mile a minute, and the intestinal effects had me near a bathroom for a while.

But any danger to my life was only from the people who wanted me to shut up.

Nethel wrote:to Shotgun Jolly,

Yup, its a quick calc for low end junk creatures that will not "kill" them persay and you can make them very interesting to encounter. One thats common is a low level demon/dog creature. Supernatural strength 15, 50 mdc body, regens 1d6 md per melee rd. Spell like powers chamelion, sense magic, sense ISP in use.

I had 10 of these things running arround a research station, they killed all the npc's inside the facility and the party had to investigate the cause. I role played up a Doom like scenario with them not knowing what happened and having to find out at the same time as feeling watched... hunted.

They make it to the control both and start watching the security feed and as they see the people being attacked i have one of them jump through the viewing consul and attack them.

Everyone had a good time playing the game.

Did they reproduce at an exponetial rate

Nethel wrote:to Shotgun Jolly,

Yup, its a quick calc for low end junk creatures that will not "kill" them persay and you can make them very interesting to encounter. One thats common is a low level demon/dog creature. Supernatural strength 15, 50 mdc body, regens 1d6 md per melee rd. Spell like powers chamelion, sense magic, sense ISP in use.

I had 10 of these things running arround a research station, they killed all the npc's inside the facility and the party had to investigate the cause. I role played up a Doom like scenario with them not knowing what happened and having to find out at the same time as feeling watched... hunted.

They make it to the control both and start watching the security feed and as they see the people being attacked i have one of them jump through the viewing consul and attack them.

Everyone had a good time playing the game.

This is made of Awesomeness

I love stuff like that.

Now if only I could find a game or two I could actually play in for once Easy to GM a game but thats all I've done for the last few years.

Shotgun Jolly wrote:Oh, I gotcha now..

Yes.. I agree to that 100% Just sometimes, they dont always know what they are getting into. And I don't really want to hit them with something that is to much or to little.

So...make sure they always know what their getting into?

I mean, if there have to be times where they don't know what their getting into, equally there's no way to stop times where splat, the thing just kills the lot of them.

I mean, your trying to guage it so you don't kill them by default? If you trying to avoid that, can't you avoid them not knowing what they are getting into?

Well, if you want to keep the responsiblity, okay. In my mind, the best way to solve your problem is to ditch that responsiblity quick smart.

Noon wrote:

Shotgun Jolly wrote:Oh, I gotcha now..

Yes.. I agree to that 100% Just sometimes, they dont always know what they are getting into. And I don't really want to hit them with something that is to much or to little.

So...make sure they always know what their getting into?

I mean, if there have to be times where they don't know what their getting into, equally there's no way to stop times where splat, the thing just kills the lot of them.

I mean, your trying to guage it so you don't kill them by default? If you trying to avoid that, can't you avoid them not knowing what they are getting into?

Well, if you want to keep the responsiblity, okay. In my mind, the best way to solve your problem is to ditch that responsiblity quick smart.

Well it's not really that hard most of the time. Once you run the PCs through some adventures you tend to get a decent idea of what they've at least been able to handle just fine in the past. So scale it appropriately.

Still worried? STart playing off the NPCs as acting abit stupidly. Unco-ordinated etc.

IF the PCs really start moping them up like no tomorrow start having them act abit more intelligently. Throwing grenades, using cover, stealth etc.

Maybe even have them call in reinforcements.

If on the other hand the PCs are getting a serious pasting if you really feel bad about it you can allways find some way to pull them out of the fire. Thats one thing that incredibly easy to do in Rifts. Be it an (un)intentional rescue squad or hell even a strangely convinent Rift that opens up just long enough for them to escape.

If you really want to give a reason for some strange occurance like that, maybe one of the powers that be needs them for a quest.

Natalya wrote:

CaptRory wrote:Well, there'd be a ton of caffein in it (they were warned it had been made with caffeinated water as well for that double-caffein goodness). A failed save would've meant irregular heartbeat at the least.

I've drank the equivalent of more than a pot of coffee - 13 cups inside of 2 hours (lack of sleep and 14-year-old stupidity). My whole body vibrated constantly, I couldn't keep my hands from shaking, I talked a mile a minute, and the intestinal effects had me near a bathroom for a while.

But any danger to my life was only from the people who wanted me to shut up.

Starting from scratch, sure. It could make you sick.

Although, I've cut back now, I used to drink on average a pot of coffee a day during the work week. Ask MadManMike, he's seen me in action.

Smart Players = Living PCs
Dumb Players = Dead PCs

The stand and fight method is good for last stands and dramatic endings not for "Hey we're first level let's check out that dungeon that we heard there was a ton of treasure and only a small clan of organized goblins. What? they are only goblins"
4 hours of gaming later
And your dead,... new characters

Characters need to RUN if they are out matched. Life is lethal, RPGs doubly so

KillWatch wrote:Smart Players = Living PCs
Dumb Players = Dead PCs

The stand and fight method is good for last stands and dramatic endings not for "Hey we're first level let's check out that dungeon that we heard there was a ton of treasure and only a small clan of organized goblins. What? they are only goblins"
4 hours of gaming later
And your dead,... new characters

Characters need to RUN if they are out matched. Life is lethal, RPGs doubly so

Ah but not all threats are ones you can necessarily run from. Like traps.

I once in a Shadowrun game threw in, on a night mission the basic equivilant to a fishingline trap in a stairwell connected to a claymore. In SR the rules for confined explosions are VERY mean. And have the aptly named 'chunky salsa effect' as... thats really all that's left of you assuming the walls dont give.. and even then it's often far too late.

The main thing was, It was a mission for a bunch of fairly experienced (an intelligent) players. They approached the mission well, they 'did everything right' so to speak.

But I hadnt counted on the perception modifiers to notice the trap being quite so hard to match as they were. Everyone failed to notice the trap the first go.

Woops.

Be really bad of me as a GM to chunk the entire party like that. Especially when they arnt just rushing in but are 'very carefully' decending down the stairs.

So I gave em another roll. They all failed AGAIN.

A more evil GM would have sumarily chunked the party I guess. But I'm not that mean. I really only ment it to be there as a sort of warning for future games.

Though one guy had almost enough 'successes' to 'notice something was off'. So I just sumairly notched him up the needed ammount and he JUST noticed the tentsion in the line in time to stop himself (after a reflex check) from setting off the claymore.

See in that instance I litterally had slightly overdone the setup. I had not thrown this sort of stuff at the PCs before and.. yeah. I twas an exceedingly nasty thing of me to do.

So as I put it I just 'pulled my punches'.

Thats generally how I go about handling these things. I'll try to base an encounter around what a PC has a history of handling (If any assuming it's not a brand new game). And go from there.

But then I consider myself only a slightly evil GM who's actualy some times more linent than he should be. But I'm more about the story and storyline progression, rather than stick by the rules and kill off the characters anyway kinda guy.

I would have killed them. But I got back ups like luck rolls, Perception Sensitivity, ect. not to mention my use of skills like Spot and Detect Ambush. Other things to factor in are the pscing of the individuals and the AOE

KillWatch wrote:Smart Players = Living PCs
Dumb Players = Dead PCs

Characters need to RUN if they are out matched. Life is lethal, RPGs doubly so

Firstly, life is not lethal. at least not in the way RPG's are.... unless you do live somewhere where random things jump out of trees and try to kill you. I'm in Dallas, not even the *worst* neighborhoods are that bad.

secondly, this assumes that the GM is putting the party up against only two categories of creature..

1) things the party can outfight
2) things the party can outrun (or avoid or hide from etc...)

The point of this thread is how to gauge things so you don't put them up against something they can neither outfight nor outrun. To many GM's forget that it's their job to make sure every hostile encounter falls into one of the above two categories. It's also the GM's job to give the party enough information so they know *which* category they are dealing with.

For fighting, I use a rule of thumb of 1/7. A guy with 70 MDC, on average, can fight guys who do 10MD per hit. more for tougher encounters (almost never more than 40 per hit though), less for the easy ones. but that rule kind of works out.

of course, it means that Glitter boys fight guys who do 100 MD, but since they can dish out that kind of damage, it works out.

For avoiding, I'm a little more fuzzy. If this is an encounter they're supposed to avoid, then I'm more likely to let them have their way if they decide to avoid it, but think of a less-than-ideal plan. The fundamental idea is simple, the *player* may have a stupid plan, but the *character* may have the chops to pull it off, so I'll let it go (for example, Joe wants to 'bluff' his way past the Chi Town guards, Joe may be not the sharpest tool in the shed and this is a stupid idea..... but if Joe's *character* has an MA of 22, I'll let it fly even if *Joe* role-plays it badly... because *Joe* is not the one bluffing, (the *character* is).

Kesslan wrote:Well it's not really that hard most of the time. Once you run the PCs through some adventures you tend to get a decent idea of what they've at least been able to handle just fine in the past. So scale it appropriately.

Ugh, even worse - if you know the outcome of a fight, why run it? Just say they take X damage and use Y number of shots - combat over in three seconds!

Still worried? STart playing off the NPCs as acting abit stupidly. Unco-ordinated etc.

IF the PCs really start moping them up like no tomorrow start having them act abit more intelligently. Throwing grenades, using cover, stealth etc.

Maybe even have them call in reinforcements.

If on the other hand the PCs are getting a serious pasting if you really feel bad about it you can allways find some way to pull them out of the fire. Thats one thing that incredibly easy to do in Rifts. Be it an (un)intentional rescue squad or hell even a strangely convinent Rift that opens up just long enough for them to escape.

No, the whole point of ditching the responsiblity is to make players choices count. I've done all the things you've said in the past, I'm done with that now. I'm quite sick of trying to make their choices matter, but fudge away any negative results because if were all honest with ourselves, they made made no choice to begin with.

Shadowmagic wrote:If you have a campaign in mind you HAVE to assume that the characters will succeed to a point because their lives can't hang in the balance of every encounter. You most likely won't see them live long enough to build up the story and definatley won't see them to the end of the campaign if you play it out like that.

You know, I've fudged away a few deaths in my time. But these days, I disagree - that death is the end of the story. It is the end of the campaign. Better to make sure that if you throw in some lowly goons for a throwaway fight, they have a real story to them. Cause if they end up blowing the head off a PC, that's the end - it better be some sort of statement. Sure, it's not the statement you intended with the campaign, but if you wanted predictable endings you could stay at home, imagining by yourself - you don't need friends for predictable.

CaptRory wrote:The game is entirely about having fun. If that isn't accomplished then you've failed as the Game Master. Having the party blown to smithereens because of a few unlucky rolls because the GM didn't compensate correctly isn't fun. Neither is having your skull smashed in by a random goon in a mook fight. You can scare and embarass your players and their characters without killing them outright. And sometimes some one needs to die to keep the correct mood. But, if Fun isn't served then its all meaningless.

I politely disagree. If it all answers a big question, a question everyone in the group wanted to know an answer to, then its met its goal. Having fun is just ephemera, like a popcorn movie - you see it then forget about it five minutes latter. The answer is what gets remembered. Sure, you have fun while seeking the answer to the question, but it's certainly not the point of play.

Mind you, from what I see the vast majority of gamers come to games without the faintest idea of a question in mind, let alone the whole group asking the one question. These gamers fiddle and over socialise and treat the whole game as background noise to just being with friends. And alot of GM's are realising they are working like slaves to make the game, for this result.

Noon wrote:

Kesslan wrote:Well it's not really that hard most of the time. Once you run the PCs through some adventures you tend to get a decent idea of what they've at least been able to handle just fine in the past. So scale it appropriately.

Ugh, even worse - if you know the outcome of a fight, why run it? Just say they take X damage and use Y number of shots - combat over in three seconds!

Because you dont. You seem to have misunderstood what I ment by scaling the threat to their ability to handle it. Some times all that takes is the same sorta NPCs as before, but just playing them smarter, in a different environment, throwing in some traps etc.

PCs have wildly different reactions to different situations. And sometimes that 'really easy' fight turns out not to be for those very reasons. Best example I have of this came from a Shadowrun game.

Basically we were just looking for (at the time) a very short one shot, 2hr tops adventure since folk were short on time. So the guy GMing whips up a quicky that just involved some store keeper getting sick of paying protection to some gangers and hiring the runners to do something about it.

Now, we were all experienced characters. Most of us had gone on some pretty tough runs and lived to tell about it. So things like your average street thug was a total pushover.

Except next thing you know two PCs just bought the farm along with the shop keeper and the third guy gets shot up pretty bad. Out of the four of us I was the only one who came out of it in one piece, and thats because I was sniping.

It was all the result of some very bad calls on the part of certain PCs, and some equally bad luck with the dice. But no one complained about the outcome because thats just the sort of game SR is.

Still worried? STart playing off the NPCs as acting abit stupidly. Unco-ordinated etc.

IF the PCs really start moping them up like no tomorrow start having them act abit more intelligently. Throwing grenades, using cover, stealth etc.

Maybe even have them call in reinforcements.

If on the other hand the PCs are getting a serious pasting if you really feel bad about it you can allways find some way to pull them out of the fire. Thats one thing that incredibly easy to do in Rifts. Be it an (un)intentional rescue squad or hell even a strangely convinent Rift that opens up just long enough for them to escape.

No, the whole point of ditching the responsiblity is to make players choices count. I've done all the things you've said in the past, I'm done with that now. I'm quite sick of trying to make their choices matter, but fudge away any negative results because if were all honest with ourselves, they made made no choice to begin with.

[/quote]

I'm not saying to allways fudge the negative results either you know. I'm just pointing it out as an option. There's times I've pitted the PCs agaisnt far too low/high a threat and I've just reigned it in abit. The claymore example, was honestly the first time I'd thrown something like that at anyone in that game system.

The main reason I went with the call I did was because I honestly hadnt expected such a simple thing to be anywhere near as lethal as it was going to be. I'm not the sort to shy away from killing a PC when they know full well what their going into. But I'm also not the type to kill a PC off just because I made a bad call on a given setup.

I've killed/maimed/injured PCs all on the same basic calls as ever before. If PCs see a threat and dive in uncaring of the danger I'm not about to start fudging things so that they are spared. Hell I've killed off entire parties of PCs before because they made bad calls. And I'll do it again.

It honestly isnt alot of work to get a PCs choice to matter at all. INfact it's very easy.

Just dont plan terribly far ahead. Bingo!

No seriously.

I allways start off with abasic framework on where I'd like to see a game go. But it's allways just some basic plot points, nothing terribly concrete. The only thing that I ever put much work at all into is in a host of specific NPCs I want them to run into at some point, some more as random encoutner NPCs, and then what ever current plot they have dug themselevs into.

If the PCs lack a sense of guidance I'll give it to them and feed them down a plotline. But I honestly most of the time wind up just taking them, kicking them off on a startup adventure. And let them go from there. I've never been the least bit strained for inspiration that way because half of it is being provided by the PCs. Hell some times all of it.

So you have a setup like ok the PCs take such and such hostage. Well how do the people in charge react? That will entirely depend on their personality and that will always be an effective pre-set depending on who their up against ot begin with so it's not even that hard of a call.

The answer isnt allways one PCs will expect either. I had one group of PCs take some guys daughter hostage once. Except what they didnt count on (and I gave them a chance to find out that they didnt follow up on) was that he didnt care about her. At least not beyond a sort of sense of property. So they suddenly wind up with a 'If I cant have her no one can' mentaltiy and next thing you know their facing goons with grenade launchers and all that other kinda stuff not worrying about if the girl lived or died.

Shadowmagic wrote:Sounds like a kind of hack and slash style but, hey, if that's what you like. Some people like story and character development and interaction, game mechanics are secondary in this style of play.

I wouldn't agree they are secondary in character examination. You can tell alot about a man from where he dies.

If death is the end of the story, you must have quite a few dissapointed players in your group on many occasions.

I notice you don't mention the question being answered at all. Can you imagine a bunch of players coming to play to get an answer to a question, and getting that answer - and somehow being disspointed?

Look at the chaos that abounds in any Palladium setting, if no-one ever died, that would take something away from the game as much as allowing people to die just on any off chance roll. Look for a middle ground and a way to keep the ball rolling.

If I keep the ball rolling forever, I'll be keeping myself waiting for an answer forever too.

Keeping the ball rolling is not the only point for playing.

Maybe you're just bored with gaming(I haven't played with my group for about a year so, I'm not making a smart remark to you. We all still hang out and might start up again anyday.) and need a new hobby, GL.

It could be that your uncomfortable thinking of this in the same idea space as your own cherished history of roleplay. I'm not making a smart remark either. Perhaps your group will reform to play when they find a question they all want an answer to?

Kesslan wrote:It was all the result of some very bad calls on the part of certain PCs, and some equally bad luck with the dice. But no one complained about the outcome because thats just the sort of game SR is.

I don't see how scaling the encounter came into your example. The players accepted the challenge of taking it on - that's all that happened. The players could have equally accepted a non scaled encounter just as much.

But I'm also not the type to kill a PC off just because I made a bad call on a given setup.

I've killed/maimed/injured PCs all on the same basic calls as ever before. If PCs see a threat and dive in uncaring of the danger I'm not about to start fudging things so that they are spared.

Bold mine.

And if you make a bad call on whether they were uncaring of the danger?

You don't kill on bad calls. But at the same time you make calls about whether they were uncaring of the danger. As soon as you make a call like this, the whole 'danger' of the situation is vulnerable to being fudged away, because you don't kill on bad calls.

Yourself and others have engaged me discussion about my idea, not the orginal posters idea. It wouldn't be a discussion if I immeditately favour your ideas over mine regardless of my goals, that's obvious.

For myself, I'd be very wary of pulling the 'sour grapes' card during discussion - it could all too easily protect my ideas from investigation and seemingly support them, when no support is warranted. But that's me, of course.

And in a similar vein, I don't see much beyond arguement for my idea (the challenge menu - that's what this discussion stems from, unless that's been forgotten). Nothing but negative spin perhaps?

On topic, I feel most people would enjoy a gaming session that ends with the cheesy, predictable storybook ending instead of the "Your character is dead and there is no real reason why." ending you are supporting. Feel free to disagree, I'm sure you will.

I don't disagree because that isn't what I've suggested. Again your skipping the idea of having a question in mind first, then playing an RPG as one way of answering it (other ways are forming a commitee, researching it in books, asking around, etc). Your thinking of playing for the sake of playing - of course anything that stops play defeats the goal of the activity in that case. But if you have a different goal - of answering a question the group has, it doesn't defeat the goal, it forfils it. Really my suggestion is only for the latter*.

Basically if you have a question in mind and that's why you play, the death does have a real reason behind it.

And vise versa, if you have no question in mind when you come to play, death can not have a real reason behind it.

* I've probably assumed that the original posters and others are like myself when I started gaming - starting out with a question in mind, but not quite knowing it's there or what it was entirely. My suggestion helps jump start that question and really bring it to the fore. Of course, if it's not there to begin with, the suggestion's quite missplaced.

Noon wrote:

Kesslan wrote:It was all the result of some very bad calls on the part of certain PCs, and some equally bad luck with the dice. But no one complained about the outcome because thats just the sort of game SR is.

I don't see how scaling the encounter came into your example. The players accepted the challenge of taking it on - that's all that happened. The players could have equally accepted a non scaled encounter just as much.

The point was that it was a 'scaled down' game that went badly. It was the kinda 'milk run' job that -should- have been extremely easy. The point I was trying to make was that even an 'easy milk run' can actually turn into something that isnt without touching NPC stats at all.

But I'm also not the type to kill a PC off just because I made a bad call on a given setup.

I've killed/maimed/injured PCs all on the same basic calls as ever before. If PCs see a threat and dive in uncaring of the danger I'm not about to start fudging things so that they are spared.

Bold mine.

And if you make a bad call on whether they were uncaring of the danger?

You don't kill on bad calls. But at the same time you make calls about whether they were uncaring of the danger. As soon as you make a call like this, the whole 'danger' of the situation is vulnerable to being fudged away, because you don't kill on bad calls.[/quote]

I think you got a touch confused by what I said here. If I make a bad call on setting up something the PCs cant handle, arnt ready for etc that's my bad as a GM. If say I throw up a splurgoth slaver at a level 1 party and they all want to jump at it dispite my warnings (subtle or otherwise) then well thats their choice and they'll likely drop like flies.

I dont generally kill on MY bad calls as a GM if I really overestimated the PC group. If some PC in the game makes a horrible call and gets himself killed that a completely different issue. I dont see how this makes it me not killing ever on 'bad calls' in general.

I also specifically said not kill.

Killing a character isnt the only sort of danger they can face. They can be maimed, they can be driven insane, depending on the setting there a whole lot of other 'bad things' that can happen to them. Death isnt the only danger in life.