Does DF ever suffer from "rocket tag"?

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Kalzazz

Due to the high HT scores monsters tend to have even a strapping half ogre weapon master is unlikely to put something down in a single blow unless vitals or skull for the penalty to major wound check

Which is why I don't think DF is generally "rocket tag". The monsters tend to be tough enough that can take what they can dish out.

[lachimba]

I'm going to go with:

It is entirely possible for DFRPG to be the first to damage wins.

This is true at any level of GURPS (Higher level PCs make it less likely to happen if anything). A human getting hit in the skull and damaged is likely to get stunned or knocked unconscious. This is a function of damage, but not an exceptionally high amount. Even 5 points of base damage to the skull (that gets through DR) is likely to take down a human knight.

That's not impossible to happen in a world of critical hits on a 6 or less.

Not taking 10 points of damage to the skull and then not failing the stun check (and instead doing it to the other guy, if possible) is what the PC should be focusing on doing.

Advantages like Luck and Destiny, Higher Purpose and so on make it easier to manage those 'lucky' events.

Good tactis like use of magic, positioning etc and strategy are things the PCs have 100% control over.

[Johnny Angel]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

That's just poor bodyguard design... ;)

It can also be what I perceive to be poor game design as well, but that gets into an off-topic discussion about other games. Suffice to say that (in my opinion), some games are designed in such a way that the crunch is telling a story and giving a feel which is vastly at odds with the story and feel being promoted by the fluff of the game. Such struggles were a catalyst for why I originally tried GURPS.

Originally Posted by Stripe

Around here, for the past 15 to 20-some years I've been around the GURPS community, we call that "swingy." GURPS combat is very "swingy."

....


In standard DF RPG/GURPS DF, "Town" and "Dungeon" are binary conditions. You can't beat up guards or kings or shop keeps. You can only interact in the way the rules state.

I've also found that meta gaming it is best. Otherwise, you'll just not get anything done. There will always be at least one player who simply must intimidate, threaten and outright attack regardless of the situation.

Otherwise, see the Caverntown supplement for GURPS DF.

Regarding swingy versus rocket tag: I'm not exactly sure how to explain it, but it's not the same thing. *shrugs* It's one of those things that I recognize when I "feel it" during gameplay, but it's difficult to quantify exactly how it differs from combat simply being "swingy." I'm not particularly bothered by "swingy" or lethality of action.

The bolded part answers a lot of my questions.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Johnny Angel

It can also be what I perceive to be poor game design as well, but that gets into an off-topic discussion about other games.

What I meant was more along the lines of...

If the King's Guard are the baddest mf'ers in the land why are they given stats that a PC can met or exceed*? Unless your looking to set up a moment for the PC(s) to show their greater might, you always make sure the King's Guard are the baddest mf'ers in the land.

Now, can a PC 'get lucky'? Sure. But they should then feel like they were lucky, not like they just wiped the floor with that foe.


* I don't even give stats to things half most of the time. If the PCs aren't meant to fight it, why bother? I know the PCs capability, I can wing it if it comes up.

Or just keep moving the King's Guard up. Or just except that eventually when the PCs hit the mid 500's in points, the King's Guard aren't a match for them. At which point either they'll be follow the group's social contract and not starting a fracas in town, or regicide in what is on their mind...

[Johnny Angel]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

What I meant was more along the lines of...

If the King's Guard are the baddest mf'ers in the land why are they given stats that a PC can met or exceed*? Unless your looking to set up a moment for the PC(s) to show their greater might, you always make sure the King's Guard are the baddest mf'ers in the land.

Now, can a PC 'get lucky'? Sure. But they should then feel like they were lucky, not like they just wiped the floor with that foe.


* I don't even give stats to things half most of the time. If the PCs aren't meant to fight it, why bother? I know the PCs capability, I can wing it if it comes up.

Or just keep moving the King's Guard up. Or just except that eventually when the PCs hit the mid 500's in points, the King's Guard aren't a match for them. At which point either they'll be follow the group's social contract and not starting a fracas in town, or regicide in what is on their mind...

The "problem" I've had in the past is two-fold:

1) In other games (as both a player and a GM), I've seen play coalesce into a very narrow experience due to the numbers behind how things work. In one particularly bad example (of both game and group) which comes to mind from my time playing a different game, the GM essentially stopped designing social challenges (or virtually anything non-combat) because it quickly became obvious that the PCs were virtually gods compared to the world around them; even the actual gods (and demons and devils) of the game ...which was fine as long as all of the players wanted to play "good" characters and bought into those expectations going in.

2) At some point, the question arises as to why the king is bothering to hire the PCs; if his guard is so godlike to as be able to crush the PCs (who are themselves godlike in comparison to the rest of the world), surely they could handle the army of goblins harassing the countryside -possibly even with just sending one guard. Usually, the group just ignores that and plays along. On the other hand, sometimes a player wants to invest in things like followers or a castle or a ship or whatever -only to realize that investing in those things is a waste because it: a) sucks character resources away from meeting the expectations of the game system, and b) numerically, even an army of followers turns out to be virtually useless against virtually any challenge the PC would be facing.

Both things tend to boil down to just turning off part of my brain and the group socially agreeing to do that same. I'm capable of doing that, but I feel it hampers being able to tell a lot of stories that I would like to tell. Alternatively, the advice for those other games turns into something along the lines of just simply telling a player that something is impossible to try/do for no reason other than the game says so. Sometimes, when running a game, having a conversation of that nature with a player is necessary, but I prefer for it to be an exception to how a campaign generally works, not an expectation.

None of that is necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes a casual beer & pretzels game or a game in which there are hard lines drawn between combat and everything else is exactly what a group wants. Other times, players want to build castles, indulge in political intrigue, and a variety of others things. Personally, I would prefer something which finds some manner of balance between both. I like a lot of dungeon fantasy (the genre) tropes, but I also enjoy characters being connected to the world in which they live; not living numerically above it or mechanically apart from it.

I feel comfortable "winging it" in a non-DF game because I can base what makes sense to me on what I feel makes sense for the situation, and it typically turns out roughly how I expect. Even if there is some magic or otherworldly nature to the campaign, I can still start from a ballpark general ground level and guess at what makes sense to me and tack on the little bit extra needed to fit.

I don't have the same level of confidence in my ability to do the same with Dungeon Fantasy. Perhaps that's simply due to lack of long-term experience with how the game works in actual play.

[Johnny Angel]

Second thought:

If this helps at all, I view fantasy in a way that is similar to professional wrestling. I'm completely aware that it contains a lot of things which are beyond any type of reality.

Do I honestly believe that Undertaker is an undead wrestler capable of shooting lightning bolts or that Kane is a demon? No

However, when it's done well and given some semblance (even a flimsy one) of a believable baseline, I can buy into it and enjoy it. I go along for the ride.

I'm more okay with Undertaker being a zombie than with a dude falling from a 30' ladder, through 3 tables, and onto concrete head-first, and still somehow managing to win a ladder match despite the opponent (who is still in the ring and on the ladder) only needing to take 2-3 steps to pull down the prize and win.

Edit: The newer Hobbit movies didn't bother me because of magic, dragons, or elves. I wasn't even inherently bothered by changes between the books and the movies. What bothered me was that the story being about the struggle of a group of dwarves to regain their homeland and the challenges they faced was difficult to take seriously in the context of a story in which super-Legolas could easily leap over city walls, kill an entire squad of orcs, etc, etc. To me, it made everyone who wasn't Legolas -the dwarves in particular- look incompetent. In contrast, I thought the fight against the goblins was actually pretty cool -despite containing similarly implausible components.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Johnny Angel

1) In other games (as both a player and a GM), I've seen play coalesce into a very narrow experience due to the numbers behind how things work.

Which is a problem with the GM setting the 'gods' too low, or not adjusting challenges to fit the PCs.

This tends to happen with "by the book D&D" games. It's an inverse problem with early Pathfinder where the published adventures presumed extremely min-maxed and polished Characters and often lead to ridiculous numbers of TPKs.

2) At some point, the question arises as to why the king is bothering to hire the PCs...

Because the King's Guard guard the King. Not the town, not the countryside. Likewise the town guard are why the town is safe, not the Dark Woods or the Tomb of the Fell Gods or even the dirt farmer's dirt farm (hey, he decided to put his farm 2 weeks out right next to the Fell Woods and the Tomb of the Dark Gods, he knew what he was getting into).

Both things tend to boil down to just turning off part of my brain and the group socially agreeing to do that same.

Then stick to GURPS Fantasy if you hate that sort of game. DFRPG really presumes a lot of meta "and the PCs won't attack the town and are the good guys and they won't question why all these dungeons exist" play

You can use DFRPG, but honestly I'd recommend picking up Dungeon Fantasy 15 Henchmen and running 125 point Characters. Let them grow into their power.

Just stick with 'lower tier' foes, like Orcs, Ogres, etc and slap 62 point Hireling templates on them (or even weaker templates, like ye olde 25 point mook skill sets).

[Johnny Angel]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

*Which is a problem with the GM setting the 'gods' too low, or not adjusting challenges to fit the PCs.

This tends to happen with "by the book D&D" games. It's an inverse problem with early Pathfinder where the published adventures presumed extremely min-maxed and polished Characters and often lead to ridiculous numbers of TPKs.


Because the King's Guard guard the King. Not the town, not the countryside. Likewise the town guard are why the town is safe, not the Dark Woods or the Tomb of the Fell Gods or even the dirt farmer's dirt farm (hey, he decided to put his farm 2 weeks out right next to the Fell Woods and the Tomb of the Dark Gods, he knew what he was getting into).


**Then stick to GURPS Fantasy if you hate that sort of game. DFRPG really presumes a lot of meta "and the PCs won't attack the town and are the good guys and they won't question why all these dungeons exist" play

You can use DFRPG, but honestly I'd recommend picking up Dungeon Fantasy 15 Henchmen and running 125 point Characters. Let them grow into their power.

Just stick with 'lower tier' foes, like Orcs, Ogres, etc and slap 62 point Hireling templates on them (or even weaker templates, like ye olde 25 point mook skill sets).

*There is truth to that. Though, there came a point at which players were 'breaking' the game without even trying.

**I wouldn't say I hate that style of game. I can (and have) enjoy(ed) it. It simply doesn't tend to mesh well with some of the stories I want to tell.

I appreciate the answers. This discussion is giving me a lot of insight into what the differences are between how I should prep and run Dungeon Fantasy (or even approach it as a player) versus how I might want to do the same with Fantasy.

[Dalin]

Originally Posted by Johnny Angel

This discussion is giving me a lot of insight into what the differences are between how I should prep and run Dungeon Fantasy (or even approach it as a player) versus how I might want to do the same with Fantasy.

I love DFRPG for the simplicity of the rules presentation. For the most part I use everything in DFRPG plus tidbits from GURPS (including GURPS Fantasy). I think of it as a sort of hybrid game. Town(s) have plenty of personality, there is a meaningful social dimension to play, and the world feels a bit more 3-dimensional, but it's not nearly as heavy and serious as my previous long-running 3e fantasy campaign.

As for the rocket tag issue, having fewer hit points than D&D makes things better, IMO. Every attack doesn't need to be optimized to take out dozens (or hundreds!) of hit points. There are a lot of avenues to combat success: tons of basic damage, crippling limbs, weaker attacks to vulnerable locations (eyes, vitals, etc.), attacking weapons, grappling, knockback, etc. We never have two battles that feel the same, even against identical foes.

My group is at around 280 points now, and they definitely don't feel like gods. That may happen some day, but they're still at the point where they pull out all the stops just to survive each encounter. Sure, they could beat up a lot of villagers before being put down, but even against weak opponents, numbers matter. Even the formidable knight in his armor can't do much if the villagers just pile on top of him and hold him down.

The whole party, acting as a team, would be more threatening, of course. I tend to play the world, though, as having a wide variety of threat levels in play and there's not just one uber plot. Other adventurers are putting out other fires. The king (and his guards) are busy and sometimes need to subcontract (but the PCs may not be on the most important mission... they might be simply dealing with a minor annoyance). There are good guys, bad guys, and lots of murky factions in the middle. Many of these are at cross purposes. The PCs rarely know the power level of NPCs, and are careful not to antagonize forces they don't understand. Rightly so... they have enough trouble staying alive without painting targets onto themselves.

[Johnny Angel]

Originally Posted by Dalin

I love DFRPG for the simplicity of the rules presentation. For the most part I use everything in DFRPG plus tidbits from GURPS (including GURPS Fantasy). I think of it as a sort of hybrid game. Town(s) have plenty of personality, there is a meaningful social dimension to play, and the world feels a bit more 3-dimensional, but it's not nearly as heavy and serious as my previous long-running 3e fantasy campaign.

As for the rocket tag issue, having fewer hit points than D&D makes things better, IMO. Every attack doesn't need to be optimized to take out dozens (or hundreds!) of hit points. There are a lot of avenues to combat success: tons of basic damage, crippling limbs, weaker attacks to vulnerable locations (eyes, vitals, etc.), attacking weapons, grappling, knockback, etc. We never have two battles that feel the same, even against identical foes.

My group is at around 280 points now, and they definitely don't feel like gods. That may happen some day, but they're still at the point where they pull out all the stops just to survive each encounter. Sure, they could beat up a lot of villagers before being put down, but even against weak opponents, numbers matter. Even the formidable knight in his armor can't do much if the villagers just pile on top of him and hold him down.

The whole party, acting as a team, would be more threatening, of course. I tend to play the world, though, as having a wide variety of threat levels in play and there's not just one uber plot. Other adventurers are putting out other fires. The king (and his guards) are busy and sometimes need to subcontract (but the PCs may not be on the most important mission... they might be simply dealing with a minor annoyance). There are good guys, bad guys, and lots of murky factions in the middle. Many of these are at cross purposes. The PCs rarely know the power level of NPCs, and are careful not to antagonize forces they don't understand. Rightly so... they have enough trouble staying alive without painting targets onto themselves.

~Happy Holidays~

Are there particular parts of non-DF products which you have found useful for your "hybrid" game?

Are there particular differences between Dungeon Fantasy (the pdf line) and the Dungeon Fantasy boxed set of which one should be aware while mixing the two?