Question about D&D

[jiawen]

It's important to give the players a feeling of agency, like they're empowered to change things in the game world. So I wouldn't even present options, just present situations. Or, if you do present options, make it clear that you're only showing a small selection of the possibilities, and that they can do something completely different if they want. That's the advantage of tabletop RPGs over computer RPGs: with tabletop, the possibilities are nearly infinite. So yes, flexibility is very important.

Suit the challenge to the group. If they're all low-level PCs, a castle might be too unassailable. Maybe say the duchess is headquartered in a ruined castle that has plenty of ways to sneak in, or she's hiding in some woods that are dangerous but not totally impregnable, etc. The castle might be appropriate, though, if there are courses of action that they can reasonably take: the castle has a secret postern gate that one of the PCs knows about, or one of the PCs is good friends with the castle's cook, or a group of the duchess' soldiers agree to sneak the PCs in as their 'prisoners'. Make sure that the situation you present the PCs with isn't totally impossible, and make sure there are multiple ways of resolving it. If the PCs can only resolve the situation in precisely one way, and they happen to miss it, they will have reason to grumble.

[Dubious_wolf]

Agency/consequences.
Those are two important words for any RPG ever.
Also @jiawen when I say "present options" I mean set up the story to make those as obvious as possible. Not necessarily, "pick A or B" but my language wasn't very clear on that point.

[Valkyrie-Lemons]

Strangely enough I was imagining she'd be in a ruined castle. HOW CAN YOU READ MY MIND? D :

Although in that case it was just her and a couple of guards.

And with the options things, I was thinking more that a NPC proposed an option, rather than the DM, if you understand what I mean?

As for the duchess being evil... I'd lead into that little twist somehow. Foreboding that she has mystic powers and maybe isn't "good". But generally stay away from deliberately throwing big creatures that are way over their heads." (Exalted is again the exception)

So you could do something like local villagers saying she has magic powers but others saying that's just stupid, something like that?

Like you make the PCs decided whether to believe that or not?

[Utilitarian]

Consequences especially. This was one of the reasons that I moved away from D&D 4th edition, where I felt like nobody was worried about what could happen in the game, given the strong focus on padded sumo combat and shift away from out of combat danger and challenge.

I compare it to my time spent playing 2nd edition Shadowrun where the game was extremely high risk and the only thing keeping our runners from turning into a fine red mist was careful planning and smart thinking. It made the game intense and engaging in a way that most other systems haven't for me.

I can recall one moment where I was holed up in a doorway wanting to run and rappel down a window, but I knew that the security forces had the hallway covered... so I threw a smoke grenade... and waited. I just did nothing while the enemies all opened fire into the smoke. In almost any other system I'd have just gone for it but here it ended up being a smart and awesome play that everyone in the room loved because it's the kind of play I'd make if I really were looking at a cloud of bullets

[Dubious_wolf]

@utilitarian the exception of course being exalted.

[Valkyrie-Lemons]

Is Exalted always the exception?

[Utilitarian]

@utilitarian the exception of course being exalted.

Well yea, games that are more about comedy or spectacle get a pass.

Paranoia also gets a pass, given that danger is everywhere but most of the fun involves getting killed by it.

HAVE A FANTASTIC DAYCYCLE, CITIZEN!

[Dubious_wolf]

@utilitarian the exception of course being exalted.

Well yea, games that are more about comedy or spectacle get a pass.

Paranoia also gets a pass, given that danger is everywhere but most of the fun involves getting killed by it.

HAVE A FANTASTIC DAYCYCLE, CITIZEN!

I want to play this game SO BADLY!
a guy at my LGS was going on about it and it sounded hilarious.
He got a toaster, and said "oh this is a toaster!" "that's above your security clearance citizen!" *Zzap!*
yep that was his 1st sentence in the game. and the 3rd time he had died.

[Del]

yep that was his 1st sentence in the game. and the 3rd time he had died.

There's a reason you get 6 clones of yourself in Paranoia.
I can't wait until I am masochistic enough to run another game of Paranoia at a con, perhaps even a playstyle straight LARP.

[Dubious_wolf]

Eeyup.
It sounds like a lot of fun.
IDK about A larp though, that might be a bit far.
I mean it'd be pretty hard.

[Utilitarian]

Because I DM/GM more than I play these days my favorite thing about Paranoia is that knowledge of the rules is punishable by death.

That's right... if a player says "I'll take cover behind this rock so they'll have a harder time hitting me" that's fine

but if I hear "I'll get +2 armor by getting behind this rock" it's a one way ticket to the clone dispenser!

Paranoia is one of the few games that I feel is genuinely just as fun on both sides of the table.

[jiawen]

Strangely enough I was imagining she'd be in a ruined castle. HOW CAN YOU READ MY MIND? D :

Great minds think alike. We do, too!

And with the options things, I was thinking more that a NPC proposed an option, rather than the DM, if you understand what I mean?

Totally. I usually don't even go that far, though. NPCs are more likely to present the problem: "I need this person removed. I don't care how." It's up to the PCs to figure out a solution. The NPC could fill in some details: "Castle Cragmere is a nasty place. I heard the last resident was a huge spider. I wonder how she got rid of the spider?" But, in my games, the NPC wouldn't actually suggest a course of action.

As for the duchess being evil... I'd lead into that little twist somehow. Foreboding that she has mystic powers and maybe isn't "good"

Personally, I wouldn't have the duchess be evil, for several reasons: 1) Women too often get portrayed as evil in RPGs. 2) Having a big nasty bad guy at the end is cliched. 3) Having a big interesting antagonist with their own reasonable motives leads to more interesting adventures later.

[Del]

As for the duchess being evil... I'd lead into that little twist somehow. Foreboding that she has mystic powers and maybe isn't "good".

My favourite option to present afterwards is that maybe the enemy isn't as _evil_ as they thought.

I once ran a short storyarc where the city leader was set up in multiple instances like your classic villain that needed to be deposed. The party then proceeds to find personal journals and evidence ex post facto that said deceased individual was actually the good guy and was set up. A good guy that they just murderated in accordance with a Xanatos gambit on behalf of the _real_ bad guy. And the city guards just showed up to arrest the party. Woopsie.

Maybe its just because I like darker campaign worlds, but the two elements I always hope to inspire when I ST are
1) Doubt: do the PCs believe they did the right thing, and
2) Consequences: the realization that something they did was _definitely_ the wrong thing

[Dubious_wolf]

I agree the duchess shouldn't be evil. I was highlighting the point that she shouldn't be RANDOMLY Evil.
IMO there's never random danger. It's always alluded to.

[jiawen]

I agree the duchess shouldn't be evil. I was highlighting the point that she shouldn't be RANDOMLY Evil.

IMO there's never random danger. It's always alluded to.

Ah, yes, that makes sense. Yes, you should never just suddenly spring a deadly encounter on your players with no forewarning.

[Valkyrie-Lemons]

Women too often get portrayed as evil in RPGs.

Really? Why is that?

I normally have the women as the hero if I have to choose a character in an RPG. E.G Femshep or Vaultgirl in Fallout. Actually I play most of my roles as women. Mostly because it's hilarious in games that haven't been well adapted from the male model to a female role (Dragon's Dogma is the best example I can think of).


Also, what Dubious Wolf said was what I was kind of getting at, not just making someone randomly evil, since I know all baddies need a good motivation, but more at how difficult random encounters should be and the such.

[SixFootTurkey]

Edit: Holy carp batman... sorry for the wall.

What I meant by the duchess thing is that is it okay to make what seems to be the safe option into the worst option possible?

I would say as long as they had the chance to figure it out beforehand. If you're trapping them just for the sake of trapping them that's a jerk move. If, on the other hand, you're trying to make them think through their decisions and do some legwork (research) before they start... that can be a great way to let them show off their non-combat skills and have some fun RP and non-combat intensive encounters.

Never feel like everything must always be combat. Played a session with a different rules set - Alternity - where the entirety of our combat consisted of one of the party knocking out a scientist before he could leave and potentially set off alarms. While full sessions without combat won't necessarily be common, they're a great way to change up pace; monotony can kill an otherwise interesting campaign.

...And with the options things, I was thinking more that a NPC proposed an option, rather than the DM, if you understand what I mean?

As someone else stated, NPCs by virtue of who they are, tend to deal less with specifics. 'I need this person gone.' They might add snippets onto that, such as '[monetary bonus] if you manage to keep a low profile, [other incentive] if you can frame one of my competitors.' They might hint at points of access, 'several of the guards are unhappy about their new lord' or 'it's been a while since the sewers have been maintained,' (hinting at potential bribe opportunities or a stealthy approach). Keep in mind that the PCs aren't forced to use any of these approaches, even one the NPC explicitly wants them to use (he might dock their pay, but if they get the job done he'll typically still pay them some of it, depending on other factors of course).

Rather than that though, hold off on giving much information until the PCs 'ask for it.' If they go to the pub frequented by soldiers, they'll be able to hear the discontent for themselves rather than having someone tell them about it. Letting the players find things out on their own has two benefits. First, it lets them feel like their actions have consequences (making things easier for them or giving them alternate routes). Second, it shows them that sitting around and waiting for the DM to tell them everything is seldom the right course of action.

So you could do something like local villagers saying she has magic powers but others saying that's just stupid, something like that?

Like you make the PCs decided whether to believe that or not?

Honestly, this is the art that is DMing. If every time you say something it's important, there's never a reason not to believe you. Even if it's only once in a while, having false rumors or slander campaigns will keep your players from just taking things at face value. As above, I wouldn't just say 'btw, she's rumored to have magic.' Instead, work it into that crazed and starving peasant's rant about oppression or leave some magical artifacts or residue at the castles (both the ruined one she's staying at and the one her family held for generations).

Is presenting options that are above the group's level something you should or shouldn't do?

I'm guessing that that options that are above the group's level are obvious. E.g Storming the castle would be something that'd be obviously above the group's level, but killing the duchess and then she turns out to be the devil incarnate, or something, is bad?

I don't think you should ever put the players up against something like that without ample notice ahead of time, and not just the opportunity to find out. For instance, instead of the duchess being the [supreme being], you could make it so she's been possessed or tainted by said being. This way when you go to kill her, you can still kill her, but you also just pissed off something pretty big. The players now know the situation their in, and can react accordingly. Do they just turn tail and leave the country? Do they seek advice from a nearby religious or arcane society? Do they seek the duke for protection? Do they attempt to placate the being, possibly doing favors for it to make up for their interference?

I'm not a fan of head fakes that have that much of an impact in the present, where the players have no room to do anything. (If done well, the very rare occurrence of something like this can be used to drive home the importance of something, but it shouldn't be used lightly.)

On the topic of 'devil incarnate' though, be careful not to make your campaign too 'opera-esque.' If they're dealing with the devil incarnate at level 1, fighting bandits at level 5 or 10 seems much less important. It's great to set the table for future arcs, but don't get in over your head. Something to keep in mind, is that the players don't necessarily need to be fighting the 'main bad guy' to defeat him. Working as messengers amidst the war-torn countryside might not be as epic as duking it out with the Lord of Hell, but it might allow one army or another to come out victorious. (Just make sure you make their contributions noticeable; some of them at least, things that come to bite them in the butt or help them out later on are great for cohesion.)

I'm also guessing you'd need to be flexible just in case the group goes radically off what you'd imagined. What do you do then?

Flexibility is huge. Keep some side encounters (bandits, negotiating with [thing], etc) up your sleeves for when you either need a breather or you can fit it into the story. Don't worry about creating the whole thing though, just get the monsters you would want (and don't worry about reskinning them on the fly; those starving bandits you had could just as easily be posh nobles caught in the middle of conspiring). Have a few details about how they might react in certain situations (the bandits might flee if you kill their leader or X of their members, returning to plague the PCs later if they don't catch them all). Also be ready for your players to do odd things; bargaining, escaping, joining, or negotiating with the bandits are all valid options, even if you had intended it to be a combat scenario. (Of course there will be times they don't even stop to demand goods, but that's a different story, and even then you might be able to force them into submission, either with strength of arms or intimidation - illusion or show of magic.)

[jiawen]

Women too often get portrayed as evil in RPGs.

Really? Why is that?

Do you mean why do I say that, or why does it happen?

I normally have the women as the hero if I have to choose a character in an RPG. E.G Femshep or Vaultgirl in Fallout. Actually I play most of my roles as women. Mostly because it's hilarious in games that haven't been well adapted from the male model to a female role (Dragon's Dogma is the best example I can think of).

Cool, sounds like you're doing well with it.

Also, listen to the Turkey; that's good advice.

One thing I'd differ on, though: for a beginning GM, flexibility is important, but not absolutely critical. If it's your first self-written adventure, it's legit to say, "This is going to be a little railroady, folks. Bear with me." If your group is okay with that, then go for it. (And heck, some groups even prefer railroady adventures.)

[Valkyrie-Lemons]

Kinda of both.

Why do you say that and why does it happen?

It maybe just me that finds a women hero WAY more interesting then any male heroes.

[SixFootTurkey]

I assumed he was talking purely (or at least primarily) about tabletop RPGs. If that isn't the case, I apologize for reading into it. (Also, this is my view, not I'd love to hear how similar or vastly different his reasoning was.)

With respect to PC creation, it's simply easier to play as someone 'similar' to you; a heroic version of you that shares many of your values or perceptions. Playing as the opposite sex, while fine and dandy, is a needless 'expense' for those less familiar with roleplaying (like myself). Admittedly you could just 'play as you normally do,' but it kills the flow when you need to keep being reminded (by yourself or others) that you're playing the opposite sex.

As for creating NPCs, I'd say 'male' is still default when creating a generic or random NPC. Certainly some DMs are better at diversifying than others, but I'm talking about the rule, not the exception (and to be honest I could be really far off here). When you see a female NPC, more often than not they were female for a very specific reason. Whether this reason is something as simple as 'barmaid = female' or 'need a princess,' it might also be 'would be great to have an evil step-mother-esque figure here.' The latter is fine, but it gives an exceptionally high 'evil' ratio for women if that's the main time you intentionally make someone female.

I'd say it's very similar to why you see relatively few (good) female characters in video games. So often they're 'okay they're female, boobs, emotional, indecisive, and other horrible stereotypes' instead of 'okay she's female... now to make the rest of her character.'

[Dubious_wolf]

Which is really too bad. I like some of the Serenity scenarios precisely because they have some really interesting female NPC's written into them.
(Unrelated: Guess who's starting a 7th seas RPG!) yay me!

[Del]

(Unrelated: Guess who's starting a 7th seas RPG!) yay me!

Yay for you indeed.

[jiawen]

I assumed he was talking purely (or at least primarily) about tabletop RPGs.

She, actually. (I'm a woman.)

I agree with much of what SixFootTurkey said, though. I was talking about tabletop RPGs, though CRPGs probably count, too. In much of gaming, men are taken to be the default; women are considered somehow a variation from the norm. There are far too many women characters who are slutty seductresses or helpless princesses; there are far too few who have agency, complexity and originality.

[Dubious_wolf]

Btw. Do we have an RPG thread?

[Valkyrie-Lemons]

Btw. Do we have an RPG thread?

I would be helpful and answer that, but I haven't been here long enough to really know.


Also, on this thing about female characters being quiet shallow, and in video games I am well aware of this, if you guys know about this then do you write or create well rounded female characters in scenarios you make?

Or is it the case that your PCs always suspect a women no matter what?