"Sometimes you gotta drive your character like they're a stolen car" - Adam Koebel
One constraint on players' play is the fear of a sub-optimal move. While often the defining characteristic of the power-gamer archetype, this trait can just as easily show up with players who have a more role-playing focused play-style. I can only speak for my group, but coming from years of more tactically-heavy D&D 3.5 games, as well as computer and board games where the main goal (winning the game) relies on making optimal choices, it is often hard for some (myself included) to let go of that mindset.
5e tried to fix this a bit with the inspiration mechanic - sure, you are making a sub-optimal choice, but if it's in-character and/or meshes with your flaws/bonds you get a mechanical reward in the form of inspiration. That carrot goes away if you already have inspiration, or your flaw/bonds don't really fit the situation, or the GM isn't on the ball all the time about rewarding it (something I am certainly guilty of). Without consistency, it's not a good incentive, and by making it a mechanical reward, you are just pushing the optimization decision to be trying to calculate if the value of the reward outweighs the cost of the tactical choice.
As a GM, one (previously huge) peeve of mine is the player that starts making a move or action during their turn, and then wants to re-choose their actions because they started moving and then saw something around the corner, or realized they couldn't move as far as they wanted, or were going to make it within a ranged they needed. I used to make them stick to their original action (unless the choice was clearly from some ambiguous or incorrect information on my part), but really I don't bother forcing the issue any more: They are just going to get miffed about being made to have sub-optimal turn. If that's how they derive their fun from the session, I'm not inclined to put the brakes on it unless it's infringing on someone else's fun.
Some players just get that they, like their characters, are going to have imperfect information and will make bad choices because of it. Other players aren't going to be satisfied unless they achieve as much as mechanically possible each turn. I'd say my current group is a pretty even three-way split, with some players at opposite ends of the spectrum, and some that have a hybrid approach that puts them in the middle. Switching away from grided combat seems to help to some degree, but the tactical crunch of D&D combat is a pretty big factor in the game's appeal for many players, so even that is a trade-off.
Eventually, the decision about how to play is going to have to come from the individual player - the biggest risk you can take with your character is not making the "best" choice, but picking something else because it is fun, or it is just what the character would do, or it's just going to make the story more awesome. As a GM, the best incentive you can provide is making the results of those choices as fun as possible. If the players start to see that their risky choices can lead to more fun by picking something other than mechanical optimization, then risky becomes the best choice.
2017-01-27
2017-01-26
If we be adventurers, let us adventure
How do you make sure your group is actually a group of adventurers?
I had been thinking about this topic for a while, and then yesterday I had a co-worker tell me the story of how the edgy/loner wizard in his Dungeon World game was essentially ruining the game for him (as another player), I listened to episode 4 of Table Top Babble (while not totally on the topic, bumped up against it a few times), and I watched Taking20's latest video.
I'll preface this all with the disclaimer that if you are running an evil campaign, or have a specific story hook (like the party is all from the same family, or are the survivors from the same village, or whatever) then most of this may not apply any you can go merrily on your way. But if you are running a more usual party-of-adventurers style campaign, then this stuff can be pretty important.
If a campaign is going to go on for any length of time, having the characters debate "why should we go there?" or "why should we do that?" with every adventure path will get really tiresome and risk grinding the game to a halt. The characters need to have a built-in reason to do stuff. Most newer RPGs include some of this baked into character creation, but I don't think most go quite far enough. D&D 5e has personality traits and bonds and ideals as part of the backgrounds, but I find that they are not always enough.
Characters need to have their own motivation to be part of the party and to seek adventure. That's it. But how do we make sure that happens? And, since I am (and most players are) pretty lazy, how do we do this as easily as possible?
You could just tell the players that, and leave it there. But let's see if we can come up with some tools to help them get to that goal in a way that is going to stick with their character through the game.
While you can require players to come up with pages upon pages of backstory, not all players find that enjoyable, and it does little to guarantee that the character will have a reason to explore the world and to find how the story of their character is the part of the story of the other characters.
Currently, this is what I'm thinking is a "minimum requirement" for a character questionnaire -- we want this to be as small as possible, but still force the players to think about their character in a way that will make the game better for everyone. Also included are some questions that go less towards character motivation and more towards mine-able material for the GM. If your campaign is less sandbox and more modules, you may not need to have extra story seeds, so feel free to ignore.
That's it, five questions. Some of them are going to have the same (or related) answers, and that's fine. As a GM, when looking over the answers (or when explaining to the players why answering them is important), here is what I would focus on:
How would someone (who knows well) describe you?
This is meant to get the player thinking about the character's personality. Again, it should tie into the previous questions. If the personality traits aren't evident from those answers, the player should go back and figure out what they need to add to make it so. There should be a reason a character is studious, foolhardy, brash, abrasive, curious, sarcastic, or whatever -- and if it is their defining trait, what is the event or story behind it?
What do you want to accomplish?
This is the final check to make sure everything is roughly aligned. Not all party members need to (or should) have the same goal(s), but as a GM this is going to give you a good idea of the theme or possible arcs of your campaign. For the players, they can consider if their character's only goal is adventure, or if they have other goals that influence or may be at odds with that purpose. Again, goals here should have a reason for being here, if they don't go back and come up with an event or important people/places/things/ideas that gives them a reason, or change the goal to align with an event or important people/places/things/ideas.
That's it. Five questions, several of which you probably have at least partial answers just from doing the regular character generation. As a GM, they'd give me the framework to make sure the characters are all member of an adventuring group.
I had been thinking about this topic for a while, and then yesterday I had a co-worker tell me the story of how the edgy/loner wizard in his Dungeon World game was essentially ruining the game for him (as another player), I listened to episode 4 of Table Top Babble (while not totally on the topic, bumped up against it a few times), and I watched Taking20's latest video.
I'll preface this all with the disclaimer that if you are running an evil campaign, or have a specific story hook (like the party is all from the same family, or are the survivors from the same village, or whatever) then most of this may not apply any you can go merrily on your way. But if you are running a more usual party-of-adventurers style campaign, then this stuff can be pretty important.
If a campaign is going to go on for any length of time, having the characters debate "why should we go there?" or "why should we do that?" with every adventure path will get really tiresome and risk grinding the game to a halt. The characters need to have a built-in reason to do stuff. Most newer RPGs include some of this baked into character creation, but I don't think most go quite far enough. D&D 5e has personality traits and bonds and ideals as part of the backgrounds, but I find that they are not always enough.
Characters need to have their own motivation to be part of the party and to seek adventure. That's it. But how do we make sure that happens? And, since I am (and most players are) pretty lazy, how do we do this as easily as possible?
You could just tell the players that, and leave it there. But let's see if we can come up with some tools to help them get to that goal in a way that is going to stick with their character through the game.
While you can require players to come up with pages upon pages of backstory, not all players find that enjoyable, and it does little to guarantee that the character will have a reason to explore the world and to find how the story of their character is the part of the story of the other characters.
Currently, this is what I'm thinking is a "minimum requirement" for a character questionnaire -- we want this to be as small as possible, but still force the players to think about their character in a way that will make the game better for everyone. Also included are some questions that go less towards character motivation and more towards mine-able material for the GM. If your campaign is less sandbox and more modules, you may not need to have extra story seeds, so feel free to ignore.
Background
1. What key event(s) shaped/changed/influenced/defined you?
Personality
2a. Why do you seek adventure?
2b. What people/places/things/ideas are important to you?
2c. How would someone (who knows well) describe you?
Goals
3. What do you want to accomplish?
That's it, five questions. Some of them are going to have the same (or related) answers, and that's fine. As a GM, when looking over the answers (or when explaining to the players why answering them is important), here is what I would focus on:
What key event(s) shaped/changed/influenced/defined you?
This is the "cornerstone memory", to borrow from Westworld. Some players are going to have some key backstory events in mind before they start to flesh out their character, but not all will. You can easily come back and think of some key events if you would rather start with things like personality or more mechanical things like race and class. For now we just want the player think about the event(s), and we'll work on making the events mesh with the personality traits and such as we go on.
A character could have several key events, but I think they should have at least one. It might be the time they first saw a magic spell, or when orcs raided their village, or they stood up to a bully, or they stole something to survive. The player doesn't need to decide every last detail of each event, but they should have enough specifics that it makes sense as something that clearly shows how and why it has shaped their current personality and and goals. It should be a turning-point for a character, something that they can point back to and say "that is the reason I am x", for whatever x most clearly defines them.
If the event(s) don't tie into the personality and goals, the GM and the player need to work together to come up with something that does tie them together.
Why do you seek adventure?
This is the one that makes sure the characters have motivation to go out and do stuff. I don't see any reason to beat around the bush with this one, I think it's best to just ask it straight out. We not going to ask if they seek adventure, but why. If the character isn't going to have a reason to delve into dungeons or fight monsters or save the town, then you are setting the group up to have a dysfunctional party. If you've got a non-traditional campaign in mind, you may not need this, but for the stereotypical band of adventurers, this is the most important question to answer.
This is not to say that parties should be a hive-mind of homogeneous do-gooders, in fact different values and approaches are what is going to lead to interesting role-play, but having a reason to adventure is a pretty essential part of making an adventurer. Reluctant adventurers are fine, as long as the reason for them overcoming their reluctance isn't something that is going to be resolved too early on.
If a player can't answer this, they either need to work with the GM to find something that would motivate their character (and perhaps the GM can incorporate such motivation into some of the campaign's initial events), or go back to the drawing-board with their character concept.
This is where you root out the lone wolf, spotlight hog, moody edge-lord, evil necromancer/warlock/rogue, classic chaotic-neutral asshole, PvPer, and such. If you and the players want that type of game, that's fine, but set that expectation up front and make sure everyone is on-board.
What people/places/things/ideas are important to you?
This questions has three goals. The first is to reinforce the previous questions, as the things listed here should probably tie into the key events or the reason to seek adventure.
The second purpose is to give a tie-in to the party, be it its member or its goals. This is where the bonds and relationships that cement the party together need to be defined. Again, this isn't a suggestion that every character is a life-long best friend of every other character, as there's a lot more fun role-playing space with characters that aren't always seeing eye-to-eye or know everything about each other. There should be enough of a web connecting characters that there's some overlap and that a single character isn't the linchpin of the group's cohesion.
The third goal is optional, and that's to give the GM seeds for NPCs and events and locations for the campaign that will have a built-in reason for the the character to care about them. It can be part of the world-building, and give you a lot of material to work with, from individual encounters to story arcs that span the entire campaign.
And again, you want to make sure that there aren't too few things here that if some of them are resolved there's no motivation left.
How would someone (who knows well) describe you?
This is meant to get the player thinking about the character's personality. Again, it should tie into the previous questions. If the personality traits aren't evident from those answers, the player should go back and figure out what they need to add to make it so. There should be a reason a character is studious, foolhardy, brash, abrasive, curious, sarcastic, or whatever -- and if it is their defining trait, what is the event or story behind it?
What do you want to accomplish?
This is the final check to make sure everything is roughly aligned. Not all party members need to (or should) have the same goal(s), but as a GM this is going to give you a good idea of the theme or possible arcs of your campaign. For the players, they can consider if their character's only goal is adventure, or if they have other goals that influence or may be at odds with that purpose. Again, goals here should have a reason for being here, if they don't go back and come up with an event or important people/places/things/ideas that gives them a reason, or change the goal to align with an event or important people/places/things/ideas.
That's it. Five questions, several of which you probably have at least partial answers just from doing the regular character generation. As a GM, they'd give me the framework to make sure the characters are all member of an adventuring group.
2017-01-21
Character Backgrounds
Character backgrounds usually serve up to three purposes:
The 2nd point is the one I want to focus on. Players will often use their backstory as a foundation that defines or shapes their character's outlook or personality. If the player finds their character in unfamiliar emotional territory, they can go back to the backstory as reference if it includes some sort of roughly analogous event or situation. This help give the player a consistency for how they portray their character.
Sometimes the character has a secret that may or may not be revealed during the course of play. Those usually tie into the 3rd point, where the secret and its reveal can become part of the story, though sometimes no GM intervention is needed.
However, I rarely see it used as a source for exposition where it isn't some secret, but rather just some event from the character's past. Not to say it doesn't happen, but (at least in the games I've played), character background exposition for its own sake is kind of rare.
Now, look at films like Jaws with Quint's story about the USS Indianapolis, or Saving Private Ryan and Ryan's story about his brothers before they shipped out (or Miller's reveal that he is a teacher, though the way that is set up gets a little into secret/surprise territory), or Gangs of New York and The Butcher's story about cutting out his own eye. These all give the audience a flood of details about the character in question. And why is that?
If you conduct a lot of job interviews (and I have), you learn not to ask questions like "How well do you do..." as the answer gives you no useful information other than what the person wants to tell you. A much better question is "Tell me about a time you recently did something that showed..." followed by whatever quality or skill your are interested in hearing more about. Things people have done in their past speak volumes about how they will act in the future. The movie examples do just that, by telling a story of how they acted in the past, you learn what to expect from them in the future.
How does this help RPGs? Especially when introducing a new character to a group, until the opportunity arises for you to show you are a cold-blooded killer or a nervous bookworm or whatever traits your character has, there's not much you can do to effectively convey your character. But if you take a cue from the movies, you can easily tell a story about yourself that tells others what type of character you are.
As a player, I think it's just too good a thing not to do. As a GM, I want to incentivize it. More thoughts on that later.
- Source for mechanical effects
- Roleplaying source for player
- Mine-able material for the GM
The 2nd point is the one I want to focus on. Players will often use their backstory as a foundation that defines or shapes their character's outlook or personality. If the player finds their character in unfamiliar emotional territory, they can go back to the backstory as reference if it includes some sort of roughly analogous event or situation. This help give the player a consistency for how they portray their character.
Sometimes the character has a secret that may or may not be revealed during the course of play. Those usually tie into the 3rd point, where the secret and its reveal can become part of the story, though sometimes no GM intervention is needed.
However, I rarely see it used as a source for exposition where it isn't some secret, but rather just some event from the character's past. Not to say it doesn't happen, but (at least in the games I've played), character background exposition for its own sake is kind of rare.
Now, look at films like Jaws with Quint's story about the USS Indianapolis, or Saving Private Ryan and Ryan's story about his brothers before they shipped out (or Miller's reveal that he is a teacher, though the way that is set up gets a little into secret/surprise territory), or Gangs of New York and The Butcher's story about cutting out his own eye. These all give the audience a flood of details about the character in question. And why is that?
If you conduct a lot of job interviews (and I have), you learn not to ask questions like "How well do you do..." as the answer gives you no useful information other than what the person wants to tell you. A much better question is "Tell me about a time you recently did something that showed..." followed by whatever quality or skill your are interested in hearing more about. Things people have done in their past speak volumes about how they will act in the future. The movie examples do just that, by telling a story of how they acted in the past, you learn what to expect from them in the future.
How does this help RPGs? Especially when introducing a new character to a group, until the opportunity arises for you to show you are a cold-blooded killer or a nervous bookworm or whatever traits your character has, there's not much you can do to effectively convey your character. But if you take a cue from the movies, you can easily tell a story about yourself that tells others what type of character you are.
As a player, I think it's just too good a thing not to do. As a GM, I want to incentivize it. More thoughts on that later.
2017-01-20
Crabjack-21 - An update to the polyhedral dice gambling game
Crabjack-21 is a dice-based gambling game that uses a single set of d20/d12/d10/d8/d6/d4 dice, so it can make a nice fit for an RPG setting using something the players have on hand. It's based of off Crabjack, but adds the d20 and has the payouts balanced to account for the extra die and higher total.
Crabjack-21 is played by a single player against the house, although any onlookers might make side-bets with each other about the outcome of any next roll. The player makes their initial bet (within the house limits). From now on the player is going to pick a die and roll it, adding it to their running total. Each die can only be rolled once. Depending on the total they are at, they will either win a payout (ending the game), bust out (ending the game), or have to keep rolling.
Getting an exact total (of all dice rolled so far) of 7 or 11 or 21 wins a payout. The player busts out if they go over 21, having a total of 22 or higher. If the player manages to roll all six dice without busting out, they win regardless of their total. Some versions of the game (you can pick which version you like, or have multiple versions in your world representing local variants of the game) have special rule if you roll a 1 on the first roll: It can immediately end the game (with or without a payout).
Here are a couple versions of the game, these all have a base payout of the bet plus half, and then a bigger payout for the 6-dice win:
1 (1st roll): Keep rolling
7 or 11 or 21 (1st to 5th roll): 1.5x
21 or under (6th roll): 2x
1 (1st roll): End game, lose bet
7 or 11 or 21 (1st to 5th roll): 1.5x
21 or under (6th roll): 6x
1 (1st roll): End game, but get half bet back
7 or 11 or 21 (1st to 5th roll): 1.5x
21 or under (6th roll): 5x
Outside of a casino-like environment, gamblers can take turns being the house. They should agree on each taking the same bet and number of turns being player and house. If played this way, you can can tweak the payouts to whatever you want, e.g. 2x on 7/11/21 and 10x on a 6-dice win. Those higher payout numbers would make being the house all the time a losing proposition (with perfect play), but it doesn't matter if both sides take turns playing the same way.
Crabjack-21 is played by a single player against the house, although any onlookers might make side-bets with each other about the outcome of any next roll. The player makes their initial bet (within the house limits). From now on the player is going to pick a die and roll it, adding it to their running total. Each die can only be rolled once. Depending on the total they are at, they will either win a payout (ending the game), bust out (ending the game), or have to keep rolling.
Getting an exact total (of all dice rolled so far) of 7 or 11 or 21 wins a payout. The player busts out if they go over 21, having a total of 22 or higher. If the player manages to roll all six dice without busting out, they win regardless of their total. Some versions of the game (you can pick which version you like, or have multiple versions in your world representing local variants of the game) have special rule if you roll a 1 on the first roll: It can immediately end the game (with or without a payout).
Here are a couple versions of the game, these all have a base payout of the bet plus half, and then a bigger payout for the 6-dice win:
1 (1st roll): Keep rolling
7 or 11 or 21 (1st to 5th roll): 1.5x
21 or under (6th roll): 2x
1 (1st roll): End game, lose bet
7 or 11 or 21 (1st to 5th roll): 1.5x
21 or under (6th roll): 6x
1 (1st roll): End game, but get half bet back
7 or 11 or 21 (1st to 5th roll): 1.5x
21 or under (6th roll): 5x
Outside of a casino-like environment, gamblers can take turns being the house. They should agree on each taking the same bet and number of turns being player and house. If played this way, you can can tweak the payouts to whatever you want, e.g. 2x on 7/11/21 and 10x on a 6-dice win. Those higher payout numbers would make being the house all the time a losing proposition (with perfect play), but it doesn't matter if both sides take turns playing the same way.
2017-01-18
Crabjack - A polyhedral dice gambling game
Crabjack is a dice-based gambling game that uses a single set of d12/d10/d8/d6/d4 dice, so it can make a nice fit for an RPG setting using something the players have on hand.
Crabjack is played by a single player against the house, although any onlookers might make side-bets with each other about the outcome of any next roll. The player makes their initial bet (within the house limits). From now on the player is going to pick a die and roll it, adding it to their running total. Each die can only be rolled once. Depending on the total they are at, they will either win a payout (ending the game), bust out (ending the game), or have to keep rolling.
Getting an exact total (of all dice rolled so far) of 7 or 11 wins a payout. The player busts out if they go over 11, having a total of 12 or higher. If the player manages to roll all five dice without busting out, they win regardless of their total. Some versions of the game (you can pick which version you like, or have multiple versions in your world representing local variants of the game) have special rule if you roll a 1 on the first roll: It can immediately end the game (with or without a payout).
With that framework, there's a lot of possible payouts you can use to get a respectable game -- one that has close to even odds that still slightly favour the house with optimal play.
Here are a couple versions of the game, these all have a base payout of the bet plus half, and then a bigger payout for the 5-dice win:
1 (1st roll): Keep rolling
7 or 11 (1st to 4th roll): 1.5x
11 or under (5th roll): 15x
1 (1st roll): End game, lose bet
7 or 11 (1st to 4th roll): 1.5x
11 or under (5th roll): 50x
1 (1st roll): End game, but get half bet back
7 or 11 (1st to 4th roll): 1.5x
11 or under (5th roll): 40x
1 (1st roll): End game, but get all of bet back
7 or 11 (1st to 4th roll): 1.5x
11 or under (5th roll): 25x
The third version, with half the bet returned on a 1, is close enough to an even payout with perfect play that two players could take turns being the "house" outside of a casino-like establishment. Lack of perfect play will give the house an edge, though, so players should at least agree on an even number of turns. The second game has a payout of 99%, and the other two are around 98%. Really, alternating house would work pretty well with any variant -- it probably depends whether you just want to have the players rolling dice or yourself as the GM. The first version probably makes the most sense for a smaller "back-alley" games, with the lower 5th-roll payout requiring less of a safety-net bankroll.
Update: Check Crabjack-21 for a version using the d20!
Crabjack is played by a single player against the house, although any onlookers might make side-bets with each other about the outcome of any next roll. The player makes their initial bet (within the house limits). From now on the player is going to pick a die and roll it, adding it to their running total. Each die can only be rolled once. Depending on the total they are at, they will either win a payout (ending the game), bust out (ending the game), or have to keep rolling.
Getting an exact total (of all dice rolled so far) of 7 or 11 wins a payout. The player busts out if they go over 11, having a total of 12 or higher. If the player manages to roll all five dice without busting out, they win regardless of their total. Some versions of the game (you can pick which version you like, or have multiple versions in your world representing local variants of the game) have special rule if you roll a 1 on the first roll: It can immediately end the game (with or without a payout).
With that framework, there's a lot of possible payouts you can use to get a respectable game -- one that has close to even odds that still slightly favour the house with optimal play.
Here are a couple versions of the game, these all have a base payout of the bet plus half, and then a bigger payout for the 5-dice win:
1 (1st roll): Keep rolling
7 or 11 (1st to 4th roll): 1.5x
11 or under (5th roll): 15x
1 (1st roll): End game, lose bet
7 or 11 (1st to 4th roll): 1.5x
11 or under (5th roll): 50x
1 (1st roll): End game, but get half bet back
7 or 11 (1st to 4th roll): 1.5x
11 or under (5th roll): 40x
1 (1st roll): End game, but get all of bet back
7 or 11 (1st to 4th roll): 1.5x
11 or under (5th roll): 25x
The third version, with half the bet returned on a 1, is close enough to an even payout with perfect play that two players could take turns being the "house" outside of a casino-like establishment. Lack of perfect play will give the house an edge, though, so players should at least agree on an even number of turns. The second game has a payout of 99%, and the other two are around 98%. Really, alternating house would work pretty well with any variant -- it probably depends whether you just want to have the players rolling dice or yourself as the GM. The first version probably makes the most sense for a smaller "back-alley" games, with the lower 5th-roll payout requiring less of a safety-net bankroll.
Update: Check Crabjack-21 for a version using the d20!
Legendary Resistance and Cinematic Boss Fights
The problem: If you want to have single-creature "boss" fights that aren't over in the first round, the creatures need to have some survivability against high-level magic.
Asking whether or not that should be a problem is perfectly valid. You can argue that if the characters can open with a battle-ending spell, then so be it. The response is probably that it 1) makes creatures that should be hard to kill rather easy to kill, and 2) makes high-level casters way better at slaying (and even solo slaying) than any other class.
In older editions of D&D, tougher creatures had Spell Resistance, which give a flat failure chance to any magic. It gave them an extra layer of defense against magic, but the end result is that magic just has a much lower chance of working. There's still a chance of a battle-ending spell landing on the first round, but only if the dice are on your side. That brings high-level magic users down to a more balanced chance of ending the fight quickly, but it also means that they could spend a good portion of a long fight having spell after spell whiff. Not so much fun.
5e replaced Spell Resistance with Legendary Resistance -- the choice to just decide to make a save, limited to a fixed number of uses. I don't think Legendary Resistance has a balance issue, but certainly has a fun issue -- it's just a boring/flavorless mechanic that makes save-or-die or save-or-suck spells less able to take out a boss on the first round or two. As a mechanic, from the players' point of view, it is not much fun. It is not fun to outright shut down magic spells. It doesn't matter if you use magic or not, whiffing on your turn is always disappointing, but magic spells being a limited resource, a spell getting wasted stings a lot more than weapon attacks failing to hit the target's AC. Using a precious high-level spell slot and a creature saving for no damage or effect sucks as a player. Legendary Resistance just guarantees that it's going to suck.
Legendary Resistance's advantage (over more random methods, like rolling Spell Resistance, etc.) is that it has a fixed number of uses, and after burning through the uses, you now know you can go hog-wild with big spells. Well, as wild as you can. Some creatures are going to have Magic Resistance, giving them advantage on saves, so it still can be hard to land a spell. But Spell Resistance gets around the issue of the creature being able to survive a few rounds without shutting down casters for the whole fight.
On a related note, I think it's a good idea to make any Legendary Resistances on a creature encounter just a up-front fact, so "Surprise! Legendary Resistance!" doesn't happen, because that sucks. "It's got 2 Legendary Resistances left, what middle-level spell can I cast to maybe force it to burn a resistance?" is a much more fun and tactical question to have to answer as a player.
The whole idea of making "boss" fights feel cinematic is something I think a lot of RPGs struggle with. If you want to draw on action and fantasy movies for inspiration, those final fights in cinema usually follow the same pattern: They have the heroes start out the fight heading downhill precipitously faster than the bad guy (or girl, or creature), then there's a turning point where the heroes gain the upper hand (often just in the nick of time, but sometimes a hero falls before), followed by the bad guy getting their ass handed to them. That's good, exciting fun. When that happens in a game, that's the stuff you talk about for months or years later. You don't want all your encounters to be cookie-cut from the same pattern, but most RPG mechanics make that sort of battle narrative arc really unlikely. As a GM, you can engineer stuff like special defenses the bad guy has to help force it, but that risks putting the encounter on rails.
I'd argue that Legendary Resistance actually does a good job of helping the narrative of the big battle. The last Legendary Resistance getting burned can be that turning point of the battle -- high-level caster holding back their biggest spells are now able to unleash them. D&D battles are usually front-loaded with big damage spells and special abilities all happening in the first round or two, which runs counter to the cinematic battle. For all its warts, Legendary Resistance can be a great tool to help push that back to enable the cinematic turning point.
Asking whether or not that should be a problem is perfectly valid. You can argue that if the characters can open with a battle-ending spell, then so be it. The response is probably that it 1) makes creatures that should be hard to kill rather easy to kill, and 2) makes high-level casters way better at slaying (and even solo slaying) than any other class.
In older editions of D&D, tougher creatures had Spell Resistance, which give a flat failure chance to any magic. It gave them an extra layer of defense against magic, but the end result is that magic just has a much lower chance of working. There's still a chance of a battle-ending spell landing on the first round, but only if the dice are on your side. That brings high-level magic users down to a more balanced chance of ending the fight quickly, but it also means that they could spend a good portion of a long fight having spell after spell whiff. Not so much fun.
5e replaced Spell Resistance with Legendary Resistance -- the choice to just decide to make a save, limited to a fixed number of uses. I don't think Legendary Resistance has a balance issue, but certainly has a fun issue -- it's just a boring/flavorless mechanic that makes save-or-die or save-or-suck spells less able to take out a boss on the first round or two. As a mechanic, from the players' point of view, it is not much fun. It is not fun to outright shut down magic spells. It doesn't matter if you use magic or not, whiffing on your turn is always disappointing, but magic spells being a limited resource, a spell getting wasted stings a lot more than weapon attacks failing to hit the target's AC. Using a precious high-level spell slot and a creature saving for no damage or effect sucks as a player. Legendary Resistance just guarantees that it's going to suck.
Legendary Resistance's advantage (over more random methods, like rolling Spell Resistance, etc.) is that it has a fixed number of uses, and after burning through the uses, you now know you can go hog-wild with big spells. Well, as wild as you can. Some creatures are going to have Magic Resistance, giving them advantage on saves, so it still can be hard to land a spell. But Spell Resistance gets around the issue of the creature being able to survive a few rounds without shutting down casters for the whole fight.
On a related note, I think it's a good idea to make any Legendary Resistances on a creature encounter just a up-front fact, so "Surprise! Legendary Resistance!" doesn't happen, because that sucks. "It's got 2 Legendary Resistances left, what middle-level spell can I cast to maybe force it to burn a resistance?" is a much more fun and tactical question to have to answer as a player.
The whole idea of making "boss" fights feel cinematic is something I think a lot of RPGs struggle with. If you want to draw on action and fantasy movies for inspiration, those final fights in cinema usually follow the same pattern: They have the heroes start out the fight heading downhill precipitously faster than the bad guy (or girl, or creature), then there's a turning point where the heroes gain the upper hand (often just in the nick of time, but sometimes a hero falls before), followed by the bad guy getting their ass handed to them. That's good, exciting fun. When that happens in a game, that's the stuff you talk about for months or years later. You don't want all your encounters to be cookie-cut from the same pattern, but most RPG mechanics make that sort of battle narrative arc really unlikely. As a GM, you can engineer stuff like special defenses the bad guy has to help force it, but that risks putting the encounter on rails.
I'd argue that Legendary Resistance actually does a good job of helping the narrative of the big battle. The last Legendary Resistance getting burned can be that turning point of the battle -- high-level caster holding back their biggest spells are now able to unleash them. D&D battles are usually front-loaded with big damage spells and special abilities all happening in the first round or two, which runs counter to the cinematic battle. For all its warts, Legendary Resistance can be a great tool to help push that back to enable the cinematic turning point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)