[DF] Golem Boss Stats

[Peter V. Dell'Orto]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

Indeed. Give out treasure at the end of the dungeon, not after every fight, and the players may try to sidestep the random encounters in favor of the big prize. Also, since GURPS divorces "experience" from "kills" they don't look at every creature they meet as "potential level-ups".

For sure. I give out treasure (or don't give it out) by encounter, just like my old-school roots. So sometimes the giant rats are gnawing on a corpse with a fat purse, and sometimes a half-dozen trolls are just out hunting and didn't bring any money with them.

That, coupled with a reward scheme for XP that has nothing to do with killing or defeating at all, but which rewards profitable trips, my players have become totally reward-centered. Avoiding fights they don't need to fight is SOP, even in games where the barbarian's player couldn't make it.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

Magic being completely broken is a beloved tradition stretching back to the earliest days of fantasy gaming. =P

Its a general problem of 'whoa, we can take a non-combat stat and turn it into a combat stat!'

[Rasputin]

Originally Posted by Gnome

In the DF games I've run, the party is eager to get into fights, so "ability to avoid random fights" is not an incentive to pick a particular template.

[...]

How do I convince my players that it's worth bringing along a Barbarian, or a Thief, or any other mundane skill-based class?

"Dungeon Fantasy" doesn't have to mean "invincible heroics." You can make a game darker, where the fights can have long-term consequences, even with a win.

[Gnome]

Great suggestions all around. I think the major flaw is that I'm using the advancement system from DF3 p42. That system makes PCs want to kill everything in sight in order to earn more CP. It's also true that no one has expressed a particular interest in playing a Barbarian or Thief, but I've heard some of my players saying things like "well, I would never play a Barbarian or Thief, they're so underpowered." By which they meant underpowered for combat.
The Cleric is obviously necessary for the healing even if he's not as effective at actual fighting (although he can bring along a super-powerful Ally), and the Wizard's overall versatility and ability to provide uber-powerful buffs (Great Haste, anyone?) gets him the nod. Knights and Swashbucklers are obviously powerful fighters, and the Holy Warrior can buy a powerful Ally, so he gets in there as well. Scouts can dish out lots of damage at range. The Barbarian, Thief, Druid and Martial Artist all seem too conditional.
Basically, my players have accepted that every DF game includes battles, but when characters are specialized to do something else, they think they're too conditional, too dependent on the GM deciding not to screw you over.
The Druid is a great example. In a jungle he's great, but if the GM says "hey, the next adventure is in a poisoned wasteland"...well, you're going to be next to useless.

[Jovus]

Originally Posted by Gnome

if the GM says "hey, the next adventure is in a poisoned wasteland"...well, you're going to be next to useless.

In my admittedly limited experience, 'niche' roles work best when the party itself is specialized for something-or-other, like wasteland exploration or stemming the undead threat or whatever. So, in the case quoted, the response would be, "That's great, we'll pawn that off to the Mordor Explorers for a finder's fee," or, more realistically, the GM just doesn't do that because either he or the players have indicated that specialty is called for.

[Peter V. Dell'Orto]

Originally Posted by Gnome

I think the major flaw is that I'm using the advancement system from DF3 p42. That system makes PCs want to kill everything in sight in order to earn more CP.

Yeah. You essentially are making killing things a very significant way to earn XP, so killing everything will be the SOP for the group. Anything that doesn't help kill things doesn't get you towards the goal so it's less useful. I'd expect a group of Clerics, Knights, and Wizards in that case, with the occasional Swashbuckler or Holy Warrior. Everyone else is less useful. Profits are nice, for that 5 point base, but it's okay if you fail to profit if you managed to just kill a couple more opponents.

I went with a profit-oriented approach (which I've written up on my blog), so anything that gets you more money is valuable. Getting loot with a minimum of cost (in deaths, damage, expended power, time wasted fighting, etc.) is critical to gaining XP. I figure that's got more verisimilitude, too - why are these guys on these quests? To kill more monsters and get more powerful so they can kill more monsters? Maybe some. But most of them are looking for the One Big Score, and the XP system I built out of the DF3 guidelines reflects that. So the generalists (wizard, barbarian) and specialists (cleric, thief) have been extremely useful, even if the two knights do the "heavy lifting" of killing stuff.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Gnome

Basically, my players have accepted that every DF game includes battles, but when characters are specialized to do something else, they think they're too conditional, too dependent on the GM deciding not to screw you over.

If your players are that anxious about their GM being a dick, it might be time to sit down and talk with your players about why they're convinced you will "screw them over".

Players playing hostile when the GM is not is just as toxic as the GM playing hostile when the players aren't not.

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by Jovus

In my admittedly limited experience, 'niche' roles work best when the party itself is specialized for something-or-other, like wasteland exploration or stemming the undead threat or whatever. So, in the case quoted, the response would be, "That's great, we'll pawn that off to the Mordor Explorers for a finder's fee," or, more realistically, the GM just doesn't do that because either he or the players have indicated that specialty is called for.

That's fine, but if that's the only thing the GM has planned, and he's not the type to let players off their leashes, then what?

I'm the type of GM that lets players do whatever they like whenever as long as it's in-character. Burn the city down? Fine. Kill the "quest giver?" Fine. Don't even go on the quest? Fine.

But, then you get to figure out what to do.

I consider it my responsibility to design and plan fun and engaging sessions for my players. If they don't involve themselves at the table and have fun, then I take 100% responsibility -- it's my failure as a GM, not theirs as a player.

If I'm designing things that only appeal to the knight's player, then something went really, really wrong. If someone makes an outdoorsman that's only good in one terrain type, 80% of the whole campaign will be in that type. The other 20%? I'd better try extra hard to make the session fun for the fish-out-of-water outdoorsman who spent points on a non-combat skill for the group's betterment.

[Peter V. Dell'Orto]

I feel like I should point out that the Barbarian template isn't exactly combat-weak. He's no Knight or Swashbuckler, but he's not useless in combat and dead weight except when you need a Survival roll.

The basic, unmodified template comes with ST 17 (1d+2 thrust / 3d-1 swing), DX 13, HP 22, Move 7, High Pain Threshold, SM+1, a missile weapon skill at skill 14-15 and a melee weapon skill at 14-16 (and the 14 is only if you choose Flail and Shield, which isn't bad as it comes with "free" defense penalties when you attack with it).

That's not bad. It's not a character that'll wipe out squadrons of guys, but he's pretty good. He's going to be hell with shield rushes - get him a spiked shield and Move 7 and 22 HP will inflict a lot of damage (and he'll take it to his shield, not his lightly armored body). He's got a weapon skill that's reliable enough to hit every turn if he doesn't get fancy, and he'll be doing 3d or more damage every hit.

That's

Again, yes, the combat-only guys will out-combat him. They should. But he's hardly dead weight in a combat heavy situation. If you're fairly regularly exposing him to situations where his ads and disads matter (the other Minority Group members want to talk to him, not Mr. Ka-Nih-Get, you need Tracking to suss the path out of the maze, you need stuff on the top shelf - just kidding, you need to hit stuff outside of reach of SM 0 people) then he'll pull his weight in and out of combat.

I'd still go with a Knight if I wanted to kill stuff for a living, but geez guys, he's not useless even if you spend all of his discretionary points on non-combat stuff.

[thulben]

I had a Barbarian in the party when last I ran DF and he was a beast in combat. I'd have to pull up the character sheet again, but IIRC he was doing over 4d of damage when he hit. And he had a chance to hit often due to the Dwarven axe of his.