So it's clear, I have a "shit happens" approach to scheduling. While it was regrettable that we lost an hour of game time, I wasn't annoyed or anything.
Similar for your reaction to the dragon. I figured there was partly an out-of-character miscommunication and partly an in-character curiosity. Still, I wasn't at all annoyed with anything you did at the table! I was, however, annoyed with how I'd painted myself into a corner using old-school GM-oomph and railroading.
At some point, we're all gonna have to sit down as players and talk out how we want to play. We're winging it right now. What I mean is, how do we want to treat the game? as a strict simulation of metrocalyptic transformation? as whatever is fair in terms of the rules first and foremost? as whatever seems most interesting from a thematic and storytelling point of view?
Because, depending on the group's decision, I would run that same encounter three different ways.
I'd argue that a compelling setting improves any gaming experience!
What Metrocalypse does -- where its magic lies -- is that it removes PC race and class from the weirdness equation. A lot of people, I think, feel that 4E is at once too strange with all its unusual race choices and too mundane with its uniformity of mechanics across classes and its pre-colored powers.
Reskinning powers and classes and races is something any DM can do, even if the setting is Forgotten Realms or whatever.
I had a similar giant dragon close-encounter in my first 4e game, though my GM truly ran it totally by GM-fiat - not even a skill-check, just a "look how awesome the monster is" sort of deal.
I think the idea of handling it as a hazard (with dragon colour) is a much better way to put that sort of thing in the game; Something i'll have to keep in mind for future sessions!
Comments 8
Reply
Similar for your reaction to the dragon. I figured there was partly an out-of-character miscommunication and partly an in-character curiosity. Still, I wasn't at all annoyed with anything you did at the table! I was, however, annoyed with how I'd painted myself into a corner using old-school GM-oomph and railroading.
At some point, we're all gonna have to sit down as players and talk out how we want to play. We're winging it right now. What I mean is, how do we want to treat the game? as a strict simulation of metrocalyptic transformation? as whatever is fair in terms of the rules first and foremost? as whatever seems most interesting from a thematic and storytelling point of view?
Because, depending on the group's decision, I would run that same encounter three different ways.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Kudos to you as a Game Master and World Builder!
Reply
I'd argue that a compelling setting improves any gaming experience!
What Metrocalypse does -- where its magic lies -- is that it removes PC race and class from the weirdness equation. A lot of people, I think, feel that 4E is at once too strange with all its unusual race choices and too mundane with its uniformity of mechanics across classes and its pre-colored powers.
Reskinning powers and classes and races is something any DM can do, even if the setting is Forgotten Realms or whatever.
Reply
Reply
I think the idea of handling it as a hazard (with dragon colour) is a much better way to put that sort of thing in the game; Something i'll have to keep in mind for future sessions!
Reply
Leave a comment