The Strand of Prayer Beads is one of the best magic items out there. Why? Because it provides a +4 caster level bonus for 10 minutes. Very few items provide this kind of bonus. Another aspect of this item is that is does not take a magic item slot so you can have and use multiple strands. Combine this item with one of the best offensive divine spells, Holy Word and what do you get?
Any opponent with fewer hit dice than your level is instantly defeated with no saving throw (aka paralyzed at least a minute). Any opponent that isn't at least 4 levels higher then you is blinded and this typically means they are severely limited. Sure, they get spell resistence, but you have that extra +4 to overcome it.
It seems the primary reason people don't use Holy Word is that it will hit their own party members that aren't good aligned. Simple solution: screw em. Eventually they will convert.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Designing a Campaign World
One aspect of the gaming hobby is world creation. This actually stems from a literary tradition started by authors like Tolkien. Tolkien created a rich fantasy world in which to set his story. Other authors have followed suit and you will now rarely find a fantasy story that isn't set in an alternate fantasy world.
The reason for this is because the world can be a story element in itself. In fact the setting can provide a great deal of the story as well as background color.
Dave Arneson was one of the gaming pioneers who took this world building element and moved it into gaming with the development of Blackmoor. Greyhawk and Mystara followed and it became commonplace for game masters to have a fantasy setting to set their games in.
Now a setting could be something as simple as some names for coins, months, towns, kingdoms, and gods or it could be as complex as a long history. One very rich game setting is Battletech. They published several books that were essentially just histories of the various empires. I remember reading these and being incredibly impressed by the depth of the history.
But is it useful to have this depth? Is it really that useful to use a different set of names for coins and gods? I think the question becomes, do these changes in setting actually impact your game? Some obviously do. They are important plot elements in the game. For example, one game might have no elves and forbidden magic that has dire consequences when used. This kind of thing can have a big impact on the story. So big that when you consider a campaign or adventure, you should work those changes in. Gaming is, in part, tellling a story, and the setting can have a major impact, but the setting exists for this impact. That is a key point, the setting exists to serve the story. In many ways games have lost this and game companies have encouraged this separation by pushing defined campaign worlds. Now I am not against the published settings that often have a depth and breadth that a setting made by a single hobbyist can't really compare to. These settings often offer a lot of story ideas, but it helps to hide that fact the the usefulness of a setting is primarily in helping to tell a story.
One thing I want to say about campaign worlds is that little details can also be fun in a game. I remeber during a trip to China I learned about a practice of having a stew that was constantly going with water and new ingredients added, but the pot was never emptied and cleaned out. I adapted this to a game where dwarves did this (instead of Chinese muslims) and it became a whole thing in the game. The dwarf character's family offered them the ancient soup. Later on, when their house was burning they all wanted to save their ancestral soup. Anyway, little campaign world details can be very fun even though they have fairly minor story impact.
Now that I have had a little rant about how the campaign world has to fulfill it's function of adding to the story, I want to take it all back. I think world design can be fun and interesting in and of itself. For example, all those battletech books detailing history would have very little impact on any game, but I thought they were cool. I have also had fun building and detailing campaign worlds. So world design can almost be a separate hobby, but if a world is made to support a game you should remember that the world was made to support the game and details about the world the don't impact the game aren't particularly useful.
The reason for this is because the world can be a story element in itself. In fact the setting can provide a great deal of the story as well as background color.
Dave Arneson was one of the gaming pioneers who took this world building element and moved it into gaming with the development of Blackmoor. Greyhawk and Mystara followed and it became commonplace for game masters to have a fantasy setting to set their games in.
Now a setting could be something as simple as some names for coins, months, towns, kingdoms, and gods or it could be as complex as a long history. One very rich game setting is Battletech. They published several books that were essentially just histories of the various empires. I remember reading these and being incredibly impressed by the depth of the history.
But is it useful to have this depth? Is it really that useful to use a different set of names for coins and gods? I think the question becomes, do these changes in setting actually impact your game? Some obviously do. They are important plot elements in the game. For example, one game might have no elves and forbidden magic that has dire consequences when used. This kind of thing can have a big impact on the story. So big that when you consider a campaign or adventure, you should work those changes in. Gaming is, in part, tellling a story, and the setting can have a major impact, but the setting exists for this impact. That is a key point, the setting exists to serve the story. In many ways games have lost this and game companies have encouraged this separation by pushing defined campaign worlds. Now I am not against the published settings that often have a depth and breadth that a setting made by a single hobbyist can't really compare to. These settings often offer a lot of story ideas, but it helps to hide that fact the the usefulness of a setting is primarily in helping to tell a story.
One thing I want to say about campaign worlds is that little details can also be fun in a game. I remeber during a trip to China I learned about a practice of having a stew that was constantly going with water and new ingredients added, but the pot was never emptied and cleaned out. I adapted this to a game where dwarves did this (instead of Chinese muslims) and it became a whole thing in the game. The dwarf character's family offered them the ancient soup. Later on, when their house was burning they all wanted to save their ancestral soup. Anyway, little campaign world details can be very fun even though they have fairly minor story impact.
Now that I have had a little rant about how the campaign world has to fulfill it's function of adding to the story, I want to take it all back. I think world design can be fun and interesting in and of itself. For example, all those battletech books detailing history would have very little impact on any game, but I thought they were cool. I have also had fun building and detailing campaign worlds. So world design can almost be a separate hobby, but if a world is made to support a game you should remember that the world was made to support the game and details about the world the don't impact the game aren't particularly useful.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Four Aspects to the Game
There are essentially four aspects to role-playing games. I will go over them briefly.
1) Wargaming. This is the act of creating a stimulated combat that obeys a specific set of rules. It is a tactical exercise and also involves mastering the rule set. In games it can range from rock-paper-scissors to chess to 3.5 edition D&D. For this purpose the ruleset is very important because you want this tactial game to be relatively fast paced, balanced, but at the same time to have a rich tactical depth. One thing I have noted about this aspect of the game is that it is important for the players to understand and be interested in the rules, otherwise this aspect of the game fails.
2) Interactive Storytelling. Most games have a central story behind them. While some are very free form with no structure, most center around a plot with the players playing the role of the main characters. Most players will try to fill the role of the main characters, but there are some who prefer to go their own way instead of the expected path and there are a few who delight in trying to disrupt any planned story. Games can range in terms of story structure. Some have a specific plot and the players have a fairly narrow course. Other games have less of a main plot and are more focussed on a series of character with their own motivations. It is important for the game master and the players to be on the same track when it comes to how free form their story will be.
3) Role Playing. By this I mean actual role playing, the act of pretending to be someone else. This can be as simple of having an idea of who your character is and having them act and see the world as you would think they would or it can be more intense with acting, speaking in character, and so on. This process is often fairly subtle and is largely controlled by the player. You can play most role-playing games without this element at all, but you can also play any with it.
4) Character Building. It may seem weird, but a major part of many games is making your character more powerful. Acquiring new powers and items in order to meet previously unbeatable challenges and to laugh in the face of old challenges is a part of the game. There are some games that don't do this very well. One of the successes of D&D has been that despite a poor rule set that it allowed for this character building quite well. This is also one of the key principles behind the compelling nature of many massively multiplayer games.
1) Wargaming. This is the act of creating a stimulated combat that obeys a specific set of rules. It is a tactical exercise and also involves mastering the rule set. In games it can range from rock-paper-scissors to chess to 3.5 edition D&D. For this purpose the ruleset is very important because you want this tactial game to be relatively fast paced, balanced, but at the same time to have a rich tactical depth. One thing I have noted about this aspect of the game is that it is important for the players to understand and be interested in the rules, otherwise this aspect of the game fails.
2) Interactive Storytelling. Most games have a central story behind them. While some are very free form with no structure, most center around a plot with the players playing the role of the main characters. Most players will try to fill the role of the main characters, but there are some who prefer to go their own way instead of the expected path and there are a few who delight in trying to disrupt any planned story. Games can range in terms of story structure. Some have a specific plot and the players have a fairly narrow course. Other games have less of a main plot and are more focussed on a series of character with their own motivations. It is important for the game master and the players to be on the same track when it comes to how free form their story will be.
3) Role Playing. By this I mean actual role playing, the act of pretending to be someone else. This can be as simple of having an idea of who your character is and having them act and see the world as you would think they would or it can be more intense with acting, speaking in character, and so on. This process is often fairly subtle and is largely controlled by the player. You can play most role-playing games without this element at all, but you can also play any with it.
4) Character Building. It may seem weird, but a major part of many games is making your character more powerful. Acquiring new powers and items in order to meet previously unbeatable challenges and to laugh in the face of old challenges is a part of the game. There are some games that don't do this very well. One of the successes of D&D has been that despite a poor rule set that it allowed for this character building quite well. This is also one of the key principles behind the compelling nature of many massively multiplayer games.
Following up a little bit on my last post. One of my players also pointed out a major imbalances in third edition. He found that any battle that focussed around fighting a single entity almost always was easy. This seemed especially true at later levels. Imagine a high level battle. Healing is so powerful that a major bad guy has to dish out enough damage to kill a player every round. If his damage is below that a healer character can easily negate his damage potential because healing is so strong.
One of the tactics is the final battle was for the cleirc to wait invisibily after having used a feat that would allow him to heal from a distance instead of touch. He simply readied his heal action to go off when anyone was badly injured. The big bad guy could have gone after him, but any round lost was a major loss because the players would get an action each while the bad guy got a single precious action.
This is one aspect they tried to fix in 4th by introducing 'elites' and 'solos' as well as focussing encounters as several units against several units.
One of the tactics is the final battle was for the cleirc to wait invisibily after having used a feat that would allow him to heal from a distance instead of touch. He simply readied his heal action to go off when anyone was badly injured. The big bad guy could have gone after him, but any round lost was a major loss because the players would get an action each while the bad guy got a single precious action.
This is one aspect they tried to fix in 4th by introducing 'elites' and 'solos' as well as focussing encounters as several units against several units.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)