Fun stuff for Friday.
- I am a big fan of posts like this - actual play rulings and feedback.
RPM Mistakes- some made, some avoided
I probably would do the proper potion thing in the future. I suspect some players would groan about how they "need" potions and that 1 second to Fast-Draw and open and drink a potion and have it take effect is reasonable . . . and that more than that is really a game-breaker.
- This is nonsense from the DMG is why I know so much about taxes, tithes, etc. but I don't enforce them in my game - and make rules to explain why not. They're not fun.
Random Roll: DMG, p. 90
- I'm slowly posting my comments on the DFD Thieves playtest. Overall it's good stuff. No spoilers - it's not even my book, so I really can't say much more than that.
- Otherwise I'm writing as I can, and getting back through comments to try and respond.
I'm with Potions taking 3 turns (Draw, Ready, Imbibe), but I allow potions to affect unconscious targets. Otherwise you end with PCs going to lengths to find work around anyway and that's even less fun for me.
ReplyDelete"This is nonsense from the DMG is why I know so much about taxes, tithes, etc. but I don't enforce them in my game - and make rules to explain why not. They're not fun."
Agreed. If I don't want the PCs to have resources, I restrict the inflow of resources. Giving them huge gobs of cash only to yank the rug out from under them later is a jerk move.
Now, that said, i do enjoy baroque byzantine seeming taxation, but the Players will roll in //knowing// that whatever they haul out of the dungeons will be subject to onerous 'taxations' so they'll be scheming like proper weasels to figure ways around it, and that becomes part of the game (if I'm running that type of game).
I always liked Bill Webb's approach to treasure as XP, where you got XP not for finding treasure, but for spending it in class appropriate ways: donations to the church for clerics, "wine, women, and song" for fighters, etc. It incentivized the characters to behave like their literary forebears, and kept them broke and needing to adventure.
ReplyDeleteThat's stagnating. It forces Characters to be played in only one manner, exactly like someone else's "iconic" Character. What if I want to play a debauched Cleric? A Barbarian who enjoys libraries and reading and the arts? A gutter-rat thief who donates heavily to the orphanarium that raised him?
DeleteThose are Webb's examples. I'd certainly let a player define for themselves what they're spending on. I find it interesting as a game-mechanical way to avoid murder-hobos -- the player is getting something for the money, while the character is behaving like a real person and buying more than just swords and armor.
DeletePersonally, I don't even use treasure=XP, so it's all academic. This is just one system that I've always found interesting.
It's a potentially fun and interesting way to do a game. It's not terribly different from "act out your disadvantages" - just treasure-centric. Given that I had to limit the kind of things you could buy in my game to keep the PCs from being broke, it's not for my current game - but it's an interesting way to encourage certain behaviors that also encourage more adventuring.
Delete