Rise of the Runelords, HARD CORE MODE! - OG Myth-Weavers

Notices


GM Workshop

A community-created and maintained place for Game Masters of all systems to bounce ideas around. It's a place for inspiration and sharing tips.


Rise of the Runelords, HARD CORE MODE!

   
Rise of the Runelords, HARD CORE MODE!

Im in the works of over hauling the Rise of the Runelords campaign for pathfinder to fit the fallowing parameters.
3-5 triple gestalt players.
10 additional levels. So that there will be pre written plan for what they can do after taking down Karzoug (the big bad of the campaign

Intricate encounters. I plan on taking a War Game approach to setting up encounters, with hazards, flanking, little mercy. Think flanking one of the players with a pair of rogues for starters.

Im going to construct encounters for 4 players and adjust minor on the fly. Ill have options in the encounter construction that will make modding them easy.

A "tomb of Horrors" feel would be nice to achieve, with out the blatant guarantee of death.

What Im looking for is suggestions and input for what would make intriguing modifications to the encounters in the adventure as it sits, ranging from NPC stat blocks, agendas, and what could happen to the majority nps should they fail combat at any point, even though it isnt a tpk. (IE, alternate punishment for failure in combat then PC death)

I do not plan on making any npc or creature tri-stalt.

Check out Mythic Adventures and give some of those traits to the monsters. Especially the bosses. Bosses will need to be something else in that game.

10 additional levels? So you mean to say that you're taking a path designed for L1 characters and wanting to rebalance it for L10 "tristalt" ones? That sounds bold (and also, I'm not sure it's necessarily "hard mode", though it will probably be harder to keep track of all the rules and stuff ).

I am very much in favor of alternate failure modes, but encounters generally have to be created with them in mind. If the enemies spend the whole battle trying to kill the PCs and then just rob them or imprison them, it comes off as the GM removing any actual failure from the game.

The baseline I like to use is to have a goal in the encounter that the PCs can't take their time achieving. Maybe the PCs fail if the enemies are defeated (e.g. the boss is holding a deadman's switch that the players must deactivate or obtain before he dies or is knocked out), if a set number of rounds pass (e.g. the obelisk with the information on it is sinking into the lava), or if the enemies achieve their goal (e.g. the orcs cut the ropes on the bridge while the refugees are still crossing it). The PCs can survive, maybe not even take a scratch, yet still lose if they don't devote time to achieving their goal.

Failure of the goal has ramifications. A good baseline is that the next encounter is harder, or a resource is lost, but you can do anything. Ideally, the game continues and the players are still participating meaningfully, even if they completely drop the ball.

Now that I've adopted that approach for my own games, I find I can be very, very tactical and challenging in combat, because losing doesn't necessarily mean the game grinds to a halt or that someone loses a beloved character, and there's no need to convince oneself that those states are actually fun. Even if the characters are never at risk of dying, they might be at immediate and constant risk of failure, and will feel it when they do. Two different groups might play all the way through the adventure, yet have succeeded and failed at an entirely different set of goals.

I hope that helps. I don't know from Pathfinder, except insofar as it's 3.5, but I feel this advice is edition (and even system) neutral.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tofts View Post
What Im looking for is suggestions and input for what would make intriguing modifications to the encounters in the adventure as it sits, ranging from NPC stat blocks, agendas, and what could happen to the majority nps should they fail combat at any point, even though it isnt a tpk. (IE, alternate punishment for failure in combat then PC death) ... I do not plan on making any npc or creature tri-stalt.
Well. Before you see the "Heroes". Probably foes with good ranged attacks. And/or flying. Often many to most of the PCs are much less good at ranged than melee.

If you want to 'cheat'. Wait until you see the "Heroes". Then you can easily 'metagame' if you want. I don't personally like this approach as GM or prospective Player. I try to 'cover the bases' as a Player with my PC. Try to have something to try against a variety of threats. Maybe not my PC, but as a party as a whole. But... if you want. If it's "wargame" type rules. Maybe you and anyone interested would figure 'fair game' for you to exploit 'weakness' in PC / party 'construction'. With like... fire resistance. Flying. Ranged attacks. Ranged / melee touch attacks.

"Alternate punishment for failure in combat then PC death" ... Wait, did someone ask you to type this? ... Just kidding.

Some examples given above. PC, or two or more, losing their primary weapon. I had a Ranger with Combat Reflexes and a Spear intending to make use / advantage of Reach and Attacks of Opportunity. That I volunteered to have 'lose' the spear after GM fiat allowed our party to not get the TPK we brought on ourselves. Partly as it seemed fitting. Partly because the Reach was seeming to be ... cumbersome for GM and myself. This would fit "war game" sort of as well. "Might think twice about 'weapon focus / weapon specialization' unless you got more than one X weapon on you."

Losing armor. Shields. Magic items. Spellbooks. Bonded Objects (Pathfinder Wizards). ... WOAH! Stop typing! That is mean. Disregard the Strikethrough stuff I typed. I could never ever even allow myself to plant such seeds. Much less advocate such consequences. Even in a "war game" type encounter. Would seem like unfair GM punishment. ... Wait, did someone ask me to type that? ...
(Warm regards BetaC, really is meant good-naturedly .)

Cheers and enjoyable GMing to come. Not really my cup of tea. But interesting. And you will likely get some good suggestions. (Other than what I just blabbed.)

Oh that is a bit confusing. It sounds like the game is going from L1 to L30... or is the game going from L20 to L30

I almost always base my games around the players. How did you want to setup the encounters? Who is the new big bad evil guy? Knowing that would really help setup the new encounters and scenes.

I would frankly just make some mythic adjustments, vs pc without having to change anything on the players. PC are already very strong, making monster and bosses mythic just help with their survival a lot. I'd also recommend to use the Rise of the Runelords anniversary edition , stats have been updated.





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Last Database Backup 2024-03-19 10:26:06am local time
Myth-Weavers Status