favorite/despised rules

Doing some rough math in my head, and making some simplifying assumptions about 1e level progression, I think if you start at level 1, by the time the rest of the party levels, you will be 1 level behind. When the party next levels you will be half a level behind, and at the next stop it would be functionally equivalent.

You could build that into a newer game with milestone leveling. Like maybe start at the midpoint between level 1, and 1 level behind; when the party next levels, you are 1 level behind; when the party levels again you are treated as having caught up. There would have to be some nuance, taking into account if the rest of the party is close to leveling when your character dies.

Or, maybe level them every session until they are caught up.
 
The1True said:
The DM was also handing out bonus XP based on those old 1-2e 10% race/class bonuses as well as handing out subjective awards for accomplishing role-playing goals, good gaming, and MKS's (Made Kill Strike), which lead to some feelings of unfairness when XP got awarded.
Click to expand...
Assuming we are talking about the same thing, and that "MKS" refers to giving extra XPs to the person who gets the killing blow, then I have encountered MKS out in the wild, and it blows chunks as a mechanic. It will disproportionately reward the character with the highest DPR. Moreover, it entirely ignores the contributions of characters that are good at buffs, debuffs, and hard and soft control. A PC who buffs the dude with the highest DPR or highest damage - and he should be buffed, that is how you win battles - is just giving away XPs. At the very least, he should get points for the assist.
 
It also leads to MKS sniping, where weasils with lower DPR would pick off the most damaged adversaries rather than the most tactically important ones. I think the idea behind it was to encourage players to go get bloody instead of playing cautiously, but mostly it led to friction.

There was other stuff as well, like the Thief getting XP rewards for stealing stuff which leads to that whole "but that's what my character would do" debate at the table which causes so much mistrust. I remember getting clobbered by a demon that I just couldn't do any damage to, and the guy playing the thief is like "oh, here, have a +3 sword" that had just been lying around in his bag of holding, and just wanting to flip the table. Like how long have you had that, fucker?...
 
The1True said:
It also leads to MKS sniping, where weasils with lower DPR would pick off the most damaged adversaries rather than the most tactically important ones. I think the idea behind it was to encourage players to go get bloody instead of playing cautiously, but mostly it led to friction.

There was other stuff as well, like the Thief getting XP rewards for stealing stuff which leads to that whole "but that's what my character would do" debate at the table which causes so much mistrust. I remember getting clobbered by a demon that I just couldn't do any damage to, and the guy playing the thief is like "oh, here, have a +3 sword" that had just been lying around in his bag of holding, and just wanting to flip the table. Like how long have you had that, fucker?...
Click to expand...
Yeah, mechanics that encourage player v player certainly aren't my bag, even if the competition isn't necessarily fatal. And it's worse if you didn't plan it because you didn't think about it when you introduced the mechanic, because then you might not realize why things are going sideways.

This isn't helped by the passage in the 1e DMG (p. 86) describing roleplay that can result in increased training costs:
Clerics who refuse to help and heal or do not remain faithful to their deity, fighters who hang back from combat or attempt to steal, or fail to boldly lead, magic-users who seek to engage in melee or ignore magic items they could employ in crucial situations, thieves who boldly engage in frontal attacks or refrain from acquisition of an extra bit of treasure when the opportunity presents itself, “cautious” characters who do not pull their own weight — these are all clear examples of a POOR rating
Click to expand...
[Emphasis added]

Maybe he meant pilfering that wasn't taking resources away from other players, like pickpocketing customers in a tavern, but even that is going to end up making a mess for the party if the attempt fails and is spotted.
 
Ineffective Voulging said:
“domestic” save-or-die traps
Click to expand...
What do you mean by this? Do you mean high-lethality traps in well-travelled locations that would surely have killed their owners by now? Because I agree. I think sensible traps are one thing that Gygaxian Naturalism sadly overlooked.
 
Beoric said:
Yeah, mechanics that encourage player v player certainly aren't my bag, even if the competition isn't necessarily fatal. And it's worse if you didn't plan it because you didn't think about it when you introduced the mechanic, because then you might not realize why things are going sideways.

This isn't helped by the passage in the 1e DMG (p. 86) describing roleplay that can result in increased training costs:

[Emphasis added]

Maybe he meant pilfering that wasn't taking resources away from other players, like pickpocketing customers in a tavern, but even that is going to end up making a mess for the party if the attempt fails and is spotted.
Click to expand...
I don't consider them 'mechanics' that encourage player vs player, but label it as roleplay. I believe characters SHOULD have their own agenda and because of that, it makes things interesting. A game within a game. Sometimes characters align with each other, sometimes not....inner PC factions. A cleric should be pushing their deities agenda....a thief who is asked to scout and take risks should feel beholden to skim off the top a bit...a mage should feel a bit greedy towards magic items, etc. When sh$% hits the fan, then they come together.
I'm not a huge fan of PvP, but it does happen from time to time in my group, and usually over a long time with a long build-up (1-2 years of actual play)--and everyone sees the writing on the wall.

I know others prefer that everyone works together and use their player knowledge about the game, which I think could be fun too, but we just play a different way.
 
DangerousPuhson said:
My favorite rule: Advantage/Disadvantage. So elegant, so simple. You wonder how it's never come up before.
Click to expand...
I see the attraction. I like this mechanic but I like it less when one disadvantage cancels multiple advantages or vice versa. And then if you adjust for this by summing, you might as well use old-fashioned bonuses and penalties. In spite of this the rule is beautiful and calls to my heart. Good on ya, e^5.
 
Malrex said:
I don't consider them 'mechanics' that encourage player vs player, but label it as roleplay. I believe characters SHOULD have their own agenda and because of that, it makes things interesting. A game within a game. Sometimes characters align with each other, sometimes not....inner PC factions. A cleric should be pushing their deities agenda....a thief who is asked to scout and take risks should feel beholden to skim off the top a bit...a mage should feel a bit greedy towards magic items, etc. When sh$% hits the fan, then they come together.
I'm not a huge fan of PvP, but it does happen from time to time in my group, and usually over a long time with a long build-up (1-2 years of actual play)--and everyone sees the writing on the wall.

I know others prefer that everyone works together and use their player knowledge about the game, which I think could be fun too, but we just play a different way.
Click to expand...
Sure, but roleplaying is different from making it a mechanical requirement, based on a limited number of archetypes, deviations from which are punished. Naturally arising conflicts are to be expected, and in any sandbox, the players are going to want to go in different directions from time to time and they are going to have to sort that out one way or another. That sort of thing is fine. Unless I'm misreading you, and you are suggesting that you require players to run their players in a certain way, and punish them if they don.t?

It is also going to depend on the group. The people I play with, a PC stealing from the party, or otherwise actively undermining party interests, is going to wind up kicked out or dead. Naturally, that hasn't happened since the 80s.

I think agreed PVP is also fine. There's a 4e module where all the PCs are drow from different Houses, and with different and opposing secret agendas. The module is garbage of course, but the concept sounds interesting. I note that in that case, deviations are punished in-game by the Houses, if they find out, but there is no mechanical/metagame enforcement.

Ineffective Voulging said:
I was specifically thinking of “poison needle traps on the small personal treasure chest of the middling baddie”. Fucking nonsense.
Click to expand...
I mean there are so many of those kicking around, they could easily have acquired it the same way a PC can; by taking it from the previous owner, either by killing them for it or stealing it.

But I take your point. You can actually extrapolate from 4e mechanics the cost to build a trap, and to make it as dangerous as a 1e trap would be very expensive.
 
Thanks all for all the responses. Lots to chew on. I think the most interesting topic brought up was PC death/player loss. Yes, there should be a penalty. So maybe something like generate a character who has 50% of the dead PC's XP?
or -10K XP, whichever is greater? Or maybe lose two levels? The party then finds this new PC locked in a cell and play goes on. Maybe don't even generate a character--just use the current PC, but with the level penalty applied? Sibling. Cousin. Just some dude who happens to be very similar to the dead PC? i like this idea, I'm copyrighting it.
 
Beoric said:
Sure, but roleplaying is different from making it a mechanical requirement, based on a limited number of archetypes, deviations from which are punished. Naturally arising conflicts are to be expected, and in any sandbox, the players are going to want to go in different directions from time to time and they are going to have to sort that out one way or another. That sort of thing is fine. Unless I'm misreading you, and you are suggesting that you require players to run their players in a certain way, and punish them if they don.t?

It is also going to depend on the group. The people I play with, a PC stealing from the party, or otherwise actively undermining party interests, is going to wind up kicked out or dead. Naturally, that hasn't happened since the 80s.

I think agreed PVP is also fine. There's a 4e module where all the PCs are drow from different Houses, and with different and opposing secret agendas. The module is garbage of course, but the concept sounds interesting. I note that in that case, deviations are punished in-game by the Houses, if they find out, but there is no mechanical/metagame enforcement.


I mean there are so many of those kicking around, they could easily have acquired it the same way a PC can; by taking it from the previous owner, either by killing them for it or stealing it.

But I take your point. You can actually extrapolate from 4e mechanics the cost to build a trap, and to make it as dangerous as a 1e trap would be very expensive.
Click to expand...
maybe I misread what you wrote....are you saying 'mechanic' like Helm of Opposite Alignment or something?
 
Malrex said:
maybe I misread what you wrote....are you saying 'mechanic' like Helm of Opposite Alignment or something?
Click to expand...
The mechanics I was talking about are those that encourage players to engage in behaviour that undermines the party. One is the houserule that the PC that makes the "killing blow" gets more XPs, which incentivizes healers and characters that buff to attack instead of healing or buffing, and generally changes the incentive for players in combat to chose actions that are likely to get a killing blow, instead of actions that are tactically sound.

Another is rewarding thieves who steal from the party, either by giving them more GP for XP that they pilfer at the expense of the party, or by punishing them for not stealing from the party, which the 1e training rules seems to do. As I wrote above:

Beoric said:
This isn't helped by the passage in the 1e DMG (p. 86) describing roleplay that can result in increased training costs:
Clerics who refuse to help and heal or do not remain faithful to their deity, fighters who hang back from combat or attempt to steal, or fail to boldly lead, magic-users who seek to engage in melee or ignore magic items they could employ in crucial situations, thieves who boldly engage in frontal attacks or refrain from acquisition of an extra bit of treasure when the opportunity presents itself, “cautious” characters who do not pull their own weight — these are all clear examples of a POOR rating
Click to expand...
[Emphasis added]

Maybe he meant pilfering that wasn't taking resources away from other players, like pickpocketing customers in a tavern, but even that is going to end up making a mess for the party if the attempt fails and is spotted.
Click to expand...
 
Beoric said:
The mechanics I was talking about are those that encourage players to engage in behaviour that undermines the party. One is the houserule that the PC that makes the "killing blow" gets more XPs, which incentivizes healers and characters that buff to attack instead of healing or buffing, and generally changes the incentive for players in combat to chose actions that are likely to get a killing blow, instead of actions that are tactically sound.

Another is rewarding thieves who steal from the party, either by giving them more GP for XP that they pilfer at the expense of the party, or by punishing them for not stealing from the party, which the 1e training rules seems to do. As I wrote above:
Click to expand...
Ahh...gotcha.

I got a soft spot for thieves though. The party bullies them to go scout because they have the skills....or deal with traps...essentially taking all the risks---UNKNOWN risks, and then get mad because they skim a bit off the top?--don't forget, the party expects them to fight too. Waiters get tips...why not thieves? Stealing magic items that could be helpful to the party--sure, that can be lame, but a loose gem, jewelry, or a little gold? shrug. We have walked away from gp=xp though, so its not like they are taking XP away from the party.
 
Malrex said:
Ahh...gotcha.

I got a soft spot for thieves though. The party bullies them to go scout because they have the skills....or deal with traps...essentially taking all the risks---UNKNOWN risks, and then get mad because they skim a bit off the top?--don't forget, the party expects them to fight too. Waiters get tips...why not thieves? Stealing magic items that could be helpful to the party--sure, that can be lame, but a loose gem, jewelry, or a little gold? shrug. We have walked away from gp=xp though, so its not like they are taking XP away from the party.
Click to expand...
I like thieves, I mostly played them in my teens and early 20s. It never occurred to me to steal from the party, even though I had heard of other people doing so.
 
There's a guy in our group who's drawn to thief characters. He does indeed skim, but he does it out loud, with a wink. Like if there's a shiny 1000 gp ruby in with the 10000 sp, 6000 gp, jade jewelry set (800 gp), antique urn (1200 gp), 3 potions, 2 scrolls, a sword, and a cloak, he'll look at us and just say "what ruby..." and write it on his sheet. Chances are, he'll use that to bribe someone, or buy something we'd rather not know about, or it might just sit there, adorning his sheet til the end of the campaign, for flavour. The point is, we know about it. If we really want to be petty about it, the table is open to argument. Meanwhile, he's been true to his character.
What few conflicts that have arisen have been between the rogue and the wizard who share similar magic wishlists. There have been a few "after all, why shouldn't I." moments where maybe the bracers of armour +4 never made it to the loot pile and lawyers had to be brought in.
 
Beoric said:
I like thieves, I mostly played them in my teens and early 20s. It never occurred to me to steal from the party, even though I had heard of other people doing so.
Click to expand...
Not all my thieves do it as it really depends on the character and his goals. And I usually don't hide what Im doing from the other players as they are mature enough to know their characters dont know.
Our groups (characters, not players) definitely don't get along all the time.

Gah, I was DMing last week, playtesting this adventure I wrote, and they found this prisoner named Harl Vesk--a priest of Jhumduk (a gluttonous hill giant demi-god of eating, cannibalism, etc.). Harl is a bit creepy "Violence makes the meat honest..." "waste is the only sin, when you fall, I will honor you properly" or when he was attacked "go on, try to make me thinner." I'm roleplaying him completely unfazed and "off". The party does know he is a cannibal from info from another prisoner. So for about 1.5 hours, I had one PC attacking him (actually 2, but he got bored and stopped), 1 healing him and defending him, 2 trying to stop the attacks including trying to cast a Sleep spell, 2 rushing off into a different room looking for treasure or trouble....total chaos and a HUGE waste of resources (I think they are all out of spells now) and time. Harl eventually got a bit angry being attacked and when his assailant was grappled and tackled, I had him flabalanche on top of him and rolled a 20...lol. That was the last moment of the night and Ill probably have him say something like "Don't struggle, you will make the meat tough".

Still not sure if they will keep him in the party, take him as prisoner, or kill him. But ya, definitely difference of opinions and morals with our characters and we try to follow alignment as best we can.
 
My group has learned not to leave dudes like that at our back. You need to free them and put them on the front line where they will quickly die of their injuries. Plausible deniability. If the NPC ends up being particularly heroic, we'll heal them, and start into the Redeeming an NPC rules (Book of Exalted Deeds (sorry, no link) -some pretty sinister magical brainwashing and 'reeducation' when you really think about it...)
 
gameablecontent said:
Thanks all for all the responses. Lots to chew on. I think the most interesting topic brought up was PC death/player loss. Yes, there should be a penalty. So maybe something like generate a character who has 50% of the dead PC's XP?
or -10K XP, whichever is greater? Or maybe lose two levels? The party then finds this new PC locked in a cell and play goes on. Maybe don't even generate a character--just use the current PC, but with the level penalty applied? Sibling. Cousin. Just some dude who happens to be very similar to the dead PC? i like this idea, I'm copyrighting it.
Click to expand...
There should be a mechanical penalty for death or players will use the system if they have bad ability scores or the party finds they need a different class. I start a new character by taking the average level of PCs and rounding down, then subtract one level. New character starts with the minimum XP for that level.
 
Blakely said:
There should be a mechanical penalty for death or players will use the system if they have bad ability scores or the party finds they need a different class. I start a new character by taking the average level of PCs and rounding down, then subtract one level. New character starts with the minimum XP for that level.
Click to expand...
Agreed. My system was less punishing comparatively - I'd start the player at the same level as everyone else, but they'd lose all their XP progress to the next level (unless the party hadn't made much headway into the level yet, in which case the revived player would start one level lower).

I think there is no universal best approach to any of this though. Highly table-dependent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top