Steve Jackson Games Forums - View Single Post

Polkageist · 03-05-2021, 04:16 PM

Underdog is relative, mainline DF characters can very easily be underdogs to appropriately strong or numerous enemies. Situational aspects can also make that so, such as having to defeat a specific enemy or steal/restore/break a specific object where accomplishing that goal is not a pure test of strength or maximizing chances on an attack roll and so forth.

I would really point out the easy trap that many folks who advocate for "underdogs who outsmart the enemies" campaign styles is that in literature relies on the plot armor to give the characters the right opportunities and in gameplay relies on the players to actually be really clever.

I tell you what, being clever after some nachos and beer on a saturday night is hardly easy.

You, as the DM, need to identify not just what provides an unconquerable challenge for the players but also identify the ways that it CAN be overcome and give your players the necessary breadcrumbs and nudges to get them thinking in the right path. It's easy for a DM to come up with enemies with a great-to-perfect defense. It's quite a bit harder to write in the fatal flaw and then let the players SEE that flaw and exploit it. Your buddies aren't Odysseus, or John Wick, or Sherlock Holmes, even if their characters are. It's Bob who rides a bike to work, and Alice who has a kite hobby. You need to make REALLY good use of perception, IQ, and tactics rolls to clue the players in to things that their really smart characters would notice that they don't because they're very normal people.

Also, in the stories you cited as examples, I would point out that while the characters aren't monsters of combat and thus classically "underdogs", they are not underdogs in all areas. Odysseus couldn't go toe-to-toe with the Cyclops, but he was far FAR smarter (mythically so) than the Cyclops, ergo had the "combat" rolls been based off of IQ and mental skills it would have been a rout for poor Cyclops. Sam and Frodo were exceptionally quiet and unnoticeable, Holmes is simply three moves ahead of his opponents and sets up the police to show up before he has to throw any punches. CoC is a bad example because there is no winning there, but that's the point :)

I guess the point is, when running an "underdog" game, identify in which way the characters are actually underdogs and ensure that the encounters and situations are set up so that they CAN be overcome in clever ways, and that the enemies are slouches when it comes to things other than smashing.

03-05-2021, 04:16 PM	#18
Polkageist Join Date: Sep 2007	Re: [DF] The Underdog Campaign? Underdog is relative, mainline DF characters can very easily be underdogs to appropriately strong or numerous enemies. Situational aspects can also make that so, such as having to defeat a specific enemy or steal/restore/break a specific object where accomplishing that goal is not a pure test of strength or maximizing chances on an attack roll and so forth. I would really point out the easy trap that many folks who advocate for "underdogs who outsmart the enemies" campaign styles is that in literature relies on the plot armor to give the characters the right opportunities and in gameplay relies on the players to actually be really clever. I tell you what, being clever after some nachos and beer on a saturday night is hardly easy. You, as the DM, need to identify not just what provides an unconquerable challenge for the players but also identify the ways that it CAN be overcome and give your players the necessary breadcrumbs and nudges to get them thinking in the right path. It's easy for a DM to come up with enemies with a great-to-perfect defense. It's quite a bit harder to write in the fatal flaw and then let the players SEE that flaw and exploit it. Your buddies aren't Odysseus, or John Wick, or Sherlock Holmes, even if their characters are. It's Bob who rides a bike to work, and Alice who has a kite hobby. You need to make REALLY good use of perception, IQ, and tactics rolls to clue the players in to things that their really smart characters would notice that they don't because they're very normal people. Also, in the stories you cited as examples, I would point out that while the characters aren't monsters of combat and thus classically "underdogs", they are not underdogs in all areas. Odysseus couldn't go toe-to-toe with the Cyclops, but he was far FAR smarter (mythically so) than the Cyclops, ergo had the "combat" rolls been based off of IQ and mental skills it would have been a rout for poor Cyclops. Sam and Frodo were exceptionally quiet and unnoticeable, Holmes is simply three moves ahead of his opponents and sets up the police to show up before he has to throw any punches. CoC is a bad example because there is no winning there, but that's the point :) I guess the point is, when running an "underdog" game, identify in which way the characters are actually underdogs and ensure that the encounters and situations are set up so that they CAN be overcome in clever ways, and that the enemies are slouches when it comes to things other than smashing.