Page 2 of 3
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2014 1:09 am
by silva
Isnt there some kind of scouting skill for.. you know scouting ahead and avoiding the more dangerous encounters ?
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2014 10:46 am
by ishy
hogarth wrote:Ice9 wrote:Although in Kingmaker specifically, the random encounters are less of a "difficulty" and more "free XP, sometimes treasure".
Our level 2 party got massacred by the random shambling mound; no one could make the necessary Knowledge check to know that we should have run away instead.
The other killer encounter on the low-level random encounter chart is a will-o'-wisp, which is more than capable of causing a TPK at that level.
I was asked to DM book 4 for a group. The random encounters were weird as fuck.
I had a group of 4-5 level 10 PCs.
The random encounters varied between a single CR 6 Ettin (which I just handled cinematically) and 4 CR 11 Adult Black Dragons.
In fact, the random encounters that I bothered actually playing, were always a lot harder than the planned encounters.
While the book was really bad, the worst part was the mass combat scenario. Basically, both sides have a single attack and defence value and make 1 attack each phase.
Area spells cast in each phase add a + spell level to both the attack and defence rolls (yes it doesn't matter what the spell actually is).
And non spell casters can't influence the mass combat part at all.
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2014 11:42 am
by hogarth
FrankTrollman wrote:Random encounters have exactly the same purpose today as they did when Gygax and Arneson wrote them up in the early seventies: they create a sense of urgency.
I wouldn't quite put it that way; having patrols every 10 minutes creates the same sense of urgency as having a 50% chance of a patrol every 10 minutes.
The point of a random encounter system is that it's a lazy man's way of making it feel like dungeon denizens have actual lives and they're not just sitting in a single room all day waiting for someone to come and kill them. It's a matter of verisimilitude, whether that's making a place realistically dangerous to hang around in (50% of an encounter every two minutes) or peaceful (1% of an encounter every day).
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2014 11:56 am
by silva
Both points, Hogarth and Franks, are valid. Pressure and verisimilitude.
On the pressure part, you dont need to cound time actually, just roll after any attempt by the group. Ie: the Thief tries to open a lock and fails - GM rolls for encounter. Clerig tries to heal a partner and fail - GM rolls for encounter. In resume: any time the group fails at something or is idle is also an opportunity for random encounters.
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2014 12:10 pm
by Laertes
On the pressure part, you dont need to cound time actually, just roll after any attempt by the group. Ie: the Thief tries to open a lock and fails - GM rolls for encounter. Clerig tries to heal a partner and fail - GM rolls for encounter. In resume: any time the group fails at something or is idle is also an opportunity for random encounters.
This is a terrible idea for three reasons.
On the
game level, it fails because it punishes exploration and risk-taking and rewards staid, unimaginative, dull games in which each character is only permitted to do the things in which their chance of failure is small.
On the
narrative level, it fails because it creates set-piece battles rather than battles which occur during other action. If the guards arrive when you failed to open the door, then you're going to ignore the door, kill the guards, and then have another try at the door. Compare this to a battle which occurs
as you open the door - it means you're going to move forward, engage in a rearguard action, use covering fire, use the door as a chokepoint, whatever. It creates interesting action, which "a guard arrives whenever you fail your Lockpick roll" does not.
On the
simulation level, it fails because that isn't how guard patrols work. Failing to unlock a door or bandage a wound does not make sentries patrol any faster. The verisimilitude of the setting is damaged, and a wedge is driven between mechanics and worldbuilding.
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2014 12:33 pm
by silva
I disagree, but dont have the time to elaborate right now. Ill do later.
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2014 1:00 pm
by fectin
Silva's last theorem?
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2014 1:00 pm
by nockermensch
silva wrote:Both points, Hogarth and Franks, are valid. Pressure and verisimilitude.
On the pressure part, you dont need to cound time actually, just roll after any attempt by the group. Ie: the Thief tries to open a lock and fails - GM rolls for encounter. Clerig tries to heal a partner and fail - GM rolls for encounter. In resume: any time the group fails at something or is idle is also an opportunity for random encounters.
It took just two pages for the inevitable silva-world pitch.
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2014 1:10 pm
by fectin
The frequency is increasing. We're heading towards a silvularity.
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2014 1:19 pm
by Laertes
Quick, nobody make any Alertness rolls!
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2014 1:31 pm
by ishy
hogarth wrote:I wouldn't quite put it that way; having patrols every 10 minutes creates the same sense of urgency as having a 50% chance of a patrol every 10 minutes.
Not really. Having patrols on a fixed schedule means you can plan around that.
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2014 2:17 pm
by nockermensch
Laertes wrote:Quick, nobody make any Alertness rolls!
silva don't want to understand that when you set additional complications contingent to dice roll failures you're actually removing incentives to player participation.
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2014 3:54 pm
by Username17
Laertes wrote:Frank Trollman wrote:Unlike silva, I actually do understand what you're talking about, and I don't agree with you. Random encounters have exactly the same purpose today as they did when Gygax and Arneson wrote them up in the early seventies: they create a sense of urgency.
You're right: we do disagree.
If every X minutes of in game time, there's a risk of a random patrol happening, coming along, then it creates a sense of urgency. If every new hex you move into or town you move between or stretch of corridor you move down gives you a random encounter, then it doesn't create a sense of urgency at all; it creates a sense of turtling. If travel causes difficulties then you
don't travel. When you have to travel, you do so slowly and carefully and in battle formation.
A sense of urgency should impel people towards fast, risky, rash action. Anything that punishes them for risky, rash movement does the opposite of that.
If you want a real sense of urgency then you do it right: you put a clock on the scene, and as that clock ticks down the remaining defences get stronger and new ones arrive. That way, sacrificing resources, tactics and reconnaissance in favour of speed becomes a valid choice.
This is just a really weird comment no matter how you try to parse it. But for starters, before you announced that you didn't agree with me, you cut this caveat from the statement you were supposedly disagreeing with:
Frank wrote:If your current mission is just to wander around the wilderness until adventure finds you, then a random Manticore is just like an encounter that means something except it doesn't fucking mean anything.
In short, the thing you just said you didn't agree with me in terms of random encounters creating a sense of urgency is actually one of the two major caveats I already gave about the limits to the use of random encounters as a source of urgent feelings. So I really don't know what the hell you're supposed to be disagreeing with.
For the record, the other thing I said was a limit to random encounters as a source of urgency was
bug hunts - if your goal is to murder every single thing in the compound, encountering some of the things in the compound earlier rather than later is just them doing your job for you and doesn't make things more urgent at all.
-Username17
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2014 5:45 pm
by Blicero
Even in missions that are strictly about the bug hunt, wandering monsters can still create a sense of uncertainty in the environment. If the PCs about to launch an assault on a major area and a wandering monster shows up behind them or whatever, then that creates an interesting and unexpected strategic dilemma for the PCs. And if you have multiple factions in an area, wandering monster tables can generate when and where hostile encounters between factions take place.
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2014 8:40 pm
by Cyberzombie
Laertes wrote:
RPG combat takes a lot of time, slows the game to a crawl and carries the threat of killing PCs. Therefore, to do it at all in a place which isn't actually meaningful is subtracting from the rest of the game. You spend at least an hour and end up with... what? By definition there is nothing meaningful to be gained from a random encounter, and there is the possibility of loss. This isn't worth *free*, let alone at least an hour of my life.
Random encounters made sense back when you could get through combats quickly. In the modern rules-heavy RPG, combats just take way too long to really even want to include random encounters. They're a huge annoyance due to the time sink.
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2014 11:13 pm
by hogarth
ishy wrote:hogarth wrote:I wouldn't quite put it that way; having patrols every 10 minutes creates the same sense of urgency as having a 50% chance of a patrol every 10 minutes.
Not really. Having patrols on a fixed schedule means you can plan around that.
And it's not possible to plan around random encounters on a fixed schedule?
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2014 11:39 pm
by silva
You dont need to preplan fixed schedules to play around that - if a player hacks the patrol database (or persuades some insider to tell the schedules) then just wing it and avoid some encounters temporarily for the players.
Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2014 1:06 am
by virgil
silva wrote:You dont need to preplan fixed schedules to play around that - if a player hacks the patrol database (or persuades some insider to tell the schedules) then just wing it and avoid some encounters temporarily for the players.
How do you not see the disempowerment to players? They ask for a schedule and you give them quantum bears...
Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:55 pm
by Sakuya Izayoi
It sounds like its important that you have an ability that interacts with random encounters. If a Ranger can have "Pacify Dire Weasels" on their sheet, then no one will ever want to roll a Ranger if you decide rolling for dire weasel encounters is too old school. If, however, your system for how many dire weasels a party with a Ranger encounters has been completely Zak Sed, then you might as well not have random encounters, and yes, you're better off turtling.
Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 12:10 am
by silva
virgil wrote:silva wrote:You dont need to preplan fixed schedules to play around that - if a player hacks the patrol database (or persuades some insider to tell the schedules) then just wing it and avoid some encounters temporarily for the players.
How do you not see the disempowerment to players? They ask for a schedule and you give them quantum bears...
They didnt ask for a schedule, they asked for avoiding patrols. Thus, if they have the right skills and succeed at using it, just let them avoid it. I dont see where is the "disempowerment" here.
Now if they want an actual schedule to plan around, well just produce it and hand it to them. All depends on the degree of detailism the group wants from the adventure.
Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 12:19 am
by fectin
Zombocom makes RPGs now?
Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 1:37 am
by virgil
silva wrote:They didnt ask for a schedule, they asked for avoiding patrols.
silva wrote:You dont need to preplan fixed schedules to play around that - if a player hacks the patrol database (or persuades some insider to tell the schedules)
Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 9:43 am
by Cyberzombie
FrankTrollman wrote:
For the record, the other thing I said was a limit to random encounters as a source of urgency was bug hunts - if your goal is to murder every single thing in the compound, encountering some of the things in the compound earlier rather than later is just them doing your job for you and doesn't make things more urgent at all.
Logically yes, but not very many adventures/modules actually deduct random encounters from the dungeon map as a whole. Random encounters are rolled from a table and spontaneously generate out of nowhere. Even if room 10 is the only one with gnolls and you kill 3 random gnoll patrols, the number of gnolls in room 10 probably will not change at all.
Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2017 2:30 pm
by Kaelik
My party is experiencing Kingmaker, and we have a different view than what most people here have said. First off, we are using the SRD rules mostly, but with the occasional add in from the books.
The first thing that happens, is we discover that Brothels don't exist on the SRD for no comprehensible reason.
The second thing is, before any of us except the DM have read the rules, we think we will make a house and herbalist to start, because it creates magic items, and we vaguely remember Smeelbo saying that magic items are a great way to get wealth.
Then we spend a lot of time trying to figure out slot efficiencies because we are all filthy min-maxers. Then we end the session.
The I read the part about the magic items and realize that Smeelbo is full of shit, and there is absolutely no way to use magic items to get extra wealth until you have a base value of your city of at least 16k, which is also the maximum you get at the final level of super metropolis with 3 districts filled with magic items.
So then I go back to sorting slot efficiency info, and discover that the Mint is:
1) The most slot efficient.
2) Adds the second most to economy, after only bank, and only one less than bank, and costs 2BP more.
3) Adds to every single roll.
Apparently the ideal city (assuming you can afford to build one building per turn that is always a Mint) is 84 consecutive Mints, followed by some houses around Magic Shops just so that you can get access to some Major Magic Items to buy with your now insane wealth. Early on, there are going to be a few turns where you can't build a mint but can build something else, and you have to ask yourself if it's worth it to build slot inefficient buildings, but since the only one that would even be worth building besides a Mint (since BP is your god king and nothing else matters) is the Bank, and it's like 2 cheaper, there's not much reason to build it.
Occasionally if you get unrest, throw down a free house if you have the BP to erase said unrest, but even that, you can wait and let your spymaster do it, and you should build those houses to prepare for the 8 magic item shops you are going to want to slap down once you have 84 mints.
Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2017 6:43 pm
by Ice9
The kingdom rules changed slightly between the Kingmaker AP and when they appeared in Ultimate Campaign (which is what the version in the SRD is).
Notably:
* Brothel renamed to Dance Hall
* You can no longer order shops to sell things for extra BP. This used to be the major source of income for the kingdom, and the Black Market was the most efficient way to do it. Now it's pretty useless.
* As you've noticed, Mint is now the most efficient building. Which was a pretty poor outcome, because it's one that looks stupid fluff-wise to have a large number of.
* There are a lot more tile improvements and they're more important than in the AP version.
* Some buildings now modify the settlement stats (Corruption, Crime, etc), which is kind of cool.
* It's still just a bunch of numbers masquerading as a fine-tuned system, there's no mathematical integrity there.