TOPIC: my experience... not good

Druegar wrote: I can't explain why some people took it upon themselves to take the words "Psychic attack", which is what's written in the module, and then somehow twist that into "Psychic poison."

bpsymington wrote: Ah...I didn't read that module. Totally different. Maybe a DM used the word "posion" inadvertently.

That's the point I was trying to make. When people who have read the module don't say what the module says, this kind of shit happens.

I know this wasn't in your module bpsymington. I should have specified that my annoyance wasn't directed at you, it was towards the folks who had read the script and chose to diverge from it.

valetutto wrote: Where you get people angry "for a good reason" is when you basically lie to them. You give them fire protection and then say "oh no sorry this is special fire". To repeat a phrase I once heard, its mystic hellfire, hotter than regular hellfire.
Just let the token work.

Well, in the RPG, there actually is Divine Fire.

In some versions, the 5th level Cleric spell "Flame Strike" actually does half fire damage and half divine damage (which is not affected by fire resistance).

So there actually is a canon precedent in the RPG....

This comes back to my point about having multiple damage types, actually. Unresistable is going to annoy people. Half fire/half cold (or half cold / half lightning, or any other combo) is actually a win/win;

If people can expect to face more damage types, then using several damage resistance effects is going to be more likely to apply. Hell, have a creature that randomly gets a combination of them, making it difficult or impossible to prepare against in advance. Doesn't even need to be a lot of damage. "Deals 4 damage total, 2 Lightning, 2 Fire"; you can have 5 Fire Resist and it's still 2 damage getting through unless you also had Lightning Resistance on hand (equipped, spell, scroll, potion, whatever).

Unless there are enough resistance tokens in the game that it's possible to load down at 5+ per type (ignoring the current 'unresistable' ones, obviously)

So damage isn't as easy to avoid, and tokens of that type are more likely to be usable, rather than less. Players feel rewarded, either for their luck in drawing some resistance gear, or thinking ahead and using what they have, even if it just enhances their *chance* of resisting some damage. And if they don't happen to have those resistance types, then the damage goes through, no different than if it were 'unresistable' anyways. Tokens become more useful/valuable.


I'm still also rather proud of the idea of making more tokens situationally consumable. To let them be expended to solve (or help solve) puzzles or rooms. Make them a resource and thus reward people for choosing to use them while weighing the pros and cons.

If instead of being 'a failure', using the Lava Boots to walk all the way across (rather than simply a 'minor save' if I stumbled or miss-stepped) had simply resulted in them being punched (like a potion or scroll) and "used up" I would've had an interesting choice to make.

Like good improv theater, being told "no" shuts down a lot of possibilities. Being told "yes, but..." keeps things flowing and presents opportunities.

Incognito wrote:

valetutto wrote: Where you get people angry "for a good reason" is when you basically lie to them. You give them fire protection and then say "oh no sorry this is special fire". To repeat a phrase I once heard, its mystic hellfire, hotter than regular hellfire.
Just let the token work.

Well, in the RPG, there actually is Divine Fire.

In some versions, the 5th level Cleric spell "Flame Strike" actually does half fire damage and half divine damage (which is not affected by fire resistance).

So there actually is a canon precedent in the RPG....

Ya know I'm actually TOTALLY cool with a damage attack that requires someone to have resistance to 2 types before they can apply any resistance. Sacred Fire would be a perfect example. This would require me to have resistance to Sacred AND Fire before I could apply any resistance. It opens up a bigger world where you might have to try and make some choices not just stack 1 type. Its easy to explain to players, many are already familiar with this mechanic as its already in DnD, and lastly it STILL gives the play a way to prevent the damage provided they can resist both elements. It negates the need to make up crap you don't want to be easily resisted but still allows for an avenue.

Lots of combinations as well, Fiery Poison, Cold lightning, and the dreaded Icy Hot!

As long as the existing damage types are adhered to you shouldn't run afoul.

I like valetutto's idea. I also am cool with a half & half concept. E.g., if you were attacked by (to use his example) Sacred Fire, if you had Fire immunity, would only take half damage.

This came to play in a way in the salamander room - when she attacked, her weapon did both melee damage and fire damage. If you had fire resistance, you would take reduced damage from the fire, but would not reduce the weapon damage.

Druegar wrote: I like valetutto's idea. I also am cool with a half & half concept. E.g., if you were attacked by (to use his example) Sacred Fire, if you had Fire immunity, would only take half damage.

I like this idea as well

I am also good with dual damage types (e.g. Sacred Fire) because we are likely to be visiting some elemental planes of energy in this upcoming chase. But we need to decide how to handle resistances for them. For example, if a monster hits you with 10 points of Sacred Fire and you have the following tokens equipped:

Ioun Stone Ruby Rhombus (-3 Fire)
Drow Raider Necklace (-2 Darkrift, Fire, Poison & Sacred

Do you take?

• 5 points of damage because you have at least 5 resistance to Fire
• 8 points of damage because you must have both Fire and Sacred (which the Necklace provides)
• Or do we mandate a split of damage like with the Fire Salamander (5 points Fire & 5 points Sacred

• If there is a split like above then we take 3 damage (0 Fire, and 3 Sacred)

[/ul]
Again I am all for multi-damage types but we need to clearly spell out the rules. Note we should include vulnerabilities, including multi-damage types, in the rules discussion as well.

Ed

A feedback poll would be nice. I would love o know how players felt I did as a DM. (I ran room 2 of the dungeon described above. There were no angry people I could see based on this room, so I assume I was running it well. Finding out what people thought of the runs might help me to improve in areas I might not realize I was lacking in.

Yeah I tend to think people are chasing shadows if they are worried about the power creep of a COMMON foot slot item. If it a common breaks a room....well...that's up to the dungeon to take it on the chin. I've played many a dnd game where someone had some sort of random little maguffin that was useless except in a random ass specific event...and when it happened it was awesome! No reason to over ride that, if a person can walk on lava, that's great, how did the other 8 players get across? By solving the puzzle.

Bradley Wayne wrote: if a person can walk on lava, that's great, how did the other 8 players get across? By solving the puzzle.

[/color]

Exactly....

memegenerator.net/instance2/1608681