Samuel Wise
Demigod
Ready to Help...
Posts: 989
Favorite D&D Class: Warlock
Favorite D&D Race: Mousefolk
|
Post by Samuel Wise on Nov 24, 2015 1:55:23 GMT
There is only a single type of video game I play purely for the gameplay (without any regards to the story), and that would be Stealth Games. When it comes to stealth in Dungeons and Dragons, I do not get the same feel (although I have not played a stealth character directly, this observation would be purely from the rules). It seems that there would be no timing, skill, nor meaningful decisions that a player can use.
It could be I am overthinking this (and correct me if I am wrong, I have never played a stealth focused character), but I would love to bring the Stealth feel of games such as Splinter Cell to D&D. Any ideas on how to do this?
|
|
|
|
Post by frohtastic on Nov 25, 2015 6:24:59 GMT
I was always partial to the use of decoys and such, like throwing rocks to make some noise somewhere else, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by joatmoniac on Nov 25, 2015 8:49:56 GMT
I think that the biggest issue is the difficulty in mimicing the razors edge of a stealth based game once things are in a turn based format. The other thing is that you could wave away a minutes worth of sneaking in a single die roll. I think that a chain of checks could potentially help things along, but I'm not sure if it would work. Maybe adding in the dread element of a jenga tower, but that is more equipped for overall group scare factor. Giving options on how the stealth is approached could help elevate the intrigue, but who knows. The problem with making it more awesome for stealth is that typically only one or a few of the players will be involved in the events. I think you can find some interesting systems to incorporate whatever role playing system you are using, but could be more trouble than it's worth, haha.
|
|
|
|
Post by lasersniper on Nov 25, 2015 17:29:09 GMT
I honestly think that the standard rules are fine, but it is up to the player to add the creativity to it. Instead of "I want to sneak over there" he/she might say "I want hide under this box and slowly walk past the guards."
Of course the GM can prompt this behavior by asking HOW they do something. However, if they offer redumentry descriptions I often don't press further, because for my players it usually means they are not really into the scene and want to move on.
Mechanics wise, I don't do very much, especially from what the players see. For any skill check I adjust the DC on the fly depending on the description for the action. Though I am pretty sure that is a standard GM practice.
|
|
|
|
Post by friartook on Nov 25, 2015 17:33:28 GMT
I'm going to be blunt: I don't think you will get what you are looking for on this level without inventing new mechanics in D&D. And I'm pretty convinced you shouldn't bother.
I also love stealth gameplay. In Skyrim, I tend to sneak everywhere and get really good at picking pockets and archery. Its just a fun way to play!
However, at a TTRPG table, all that ends up being narrative punctuated by a couple of die rolls. I still love stealthy characters at the table too, and there's plenty of opportunities for tension in there, but I think the feeling you are looking for is going to be pretty elusive within the D&D RAW.
I find that it's easier (better?) to let go of the gaming styles we enjoy from video games. Think about all the problems I had in my previous campaign with the optimizers and loot hogs. That's pure video gamey fun; that player is a big fan of Destiny, which seems to entirely revolve around leveling up and building powerful weapons and armor.
Instead of seeking the same sort of fun feeling, seek a different flavor of fun with the same things. Stealth D&D play has tons of room for hilarity, bad@$$ery, and tension filled encounters. You just have to play that angle up in your character!
|
|
Samuel Wise
Demigod
Ready to Help...
Posts: 989
Favorite D&D Class: Warlock
Favorite D&D Race: Mousefolk
|
Post by Samuel Wise on Nov 25, 2015 18:25:42 GMT
After I wrote this I realized that many probably said the same thing about combat. Perhaps that is why they built 4th edition, they wanted to turn their focus to combat instead of what D&D was good at. It is the same problem, just with focus on stealth. Whether it is combat or stealth, it makes a lot more sense. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by friartook on Nov 25, 2015 18:58:53 GMT
Perhaps that is why they built 4th edition, they wanted to turn their focus to combat instead of what D&D was good at. You hit the nail on the head there. WotC was attempting to make their game more like an MMO video game. They looked at the slow waning of the TTRPG popularity and the rise of games like DDO and World of Warcraft and attempted to emulate that style. This is part of why I gave the feedback I did. Experience says that attempts to make TTRPGs emulate video games fail. |
|
|
|
Post by catcharlie on Nov 25, 2015 21:48:02 GMT
they wanted to turn their focus to combat instead of what D&D was good at Can you clarify what you mean by 'What D&D was good at', I have recently been listening to some old episodes of a RPG podcast and one of the hosts is quite against D&D. Note: I'm not trying to be ****y or anything, I love D&D and I think no system is perfect as it's the DM/GM that can make or break a game; just curious. If you feel it's too 'off topic' for this thread feel free to PM me, or say no. |
|
|
|
Post by frohtastic on Nov 25, 2015 23:13:33 GMT
they wanted to turn their focus to combat instead of what D&D was good at Can you clarify what you mean by 'What D&D was good at', I have recently been listening to some old episodes of a RPG podcast and one of the hosts is quite against D&D. Note: I'm not trying to be ****y or anything, I love D&D and I think no system is perfect as it's the DM/GM that can make or break a game; just curious. If you feel it's too 'off topic' for this thread feel free to PM me, or say no. iirc most of the bad rep against 4e was the "lack" of customizinisation ( sick words equals bad spelling) which I have to admit I dont entirely grasp because in 3.5 you were more or less set within the path you wanted to take since you created the character (prestige pathing etcetera) But on this line, it would be the storytelling aspect and chances for roleplay I reckon. |
|
|
|
Post by catcharlie on Nov 25, 2015 23:35:40 GMT
Can you clarify what you mean by 'What D&D was good at', I have recently been listening to some old episodes of a RPG podcast and one of the hosts is quite against D&D. Note: I'm not trying to be ****y or anything, I love D&D and I think no system is perfect as it's the DM/GM that can make or break a game; just curious. If you feel it's too 'off topic' for this thread feel free to PM me, or say no. iirc most of the bad rep against 4e was the "lack" of customizinisation ( sick words equals bad spelling) which I have to admit I dont entirely grasp because in 3.5 you were more or less set within the path you wanted to take since you created the character (prestige pathing etcetera) But on this line, it would be the storytelling aspect and chances for roleplay I reckon. The Host's views were formed of pre-4e D&D (I think 3rd/3.5), and they tend to play very rules loose, story based games from what I understand from listening to them. Okies regarding 4e's lack of customizinisation (my impressions of it are): when you picked a class that was it, that was the class you were until you died or rolled up a different character, while there was a thing they called 'multiclassing' it really wasn't, you gained a slither of a different class' power. Coming from 3.5 where you could take a level of a different class every time you leveled up if you really wanted to, to that, was a kick where it hurts. BUT I will say this, I played 4e for a year (of almost weekly games) and I enjoyed every bit of it, was my character hindered by the lack of customizinisation, yes; was my enjoyment of the game, no. Unrelated Additional: I'm very surprised the B-word gets censored, is there a list of censord words anywhere? |
|
|
|
Post by Tesla Ranger on Nov 26, 2015 19:38:10 GMT
I'm not sure if it would be possible to -exactly- replicate the same feel short of building a 3D map out of foam/lego that the minis can physically move through. But I think our group has managed to effectively evoke an approximation of it on one or two occasions and with some difficulty. The biggest challenge has been that the party typically as 1 or 2 sneaky PCs and at least 1 or 2 who are decidedly not sneaky. It's hard for the rogue to stealth around when the Paladin's following 10' behind them clanking along in their plate armor. If the party splits up for some reason and the stealther is off on their own then the DM can simulate some stealth by dropping down to an action-by-action scale. I'd note that the downside to this was that we had to back and forth between the stealther and the rest of the party every 10-15 minutes. It worked out in the end for everyone but not every group might appreciate the approach and it was pretty ad hoc in our case.
I would suggest that stealth is, in essence, a puzzle. The player wants to achieve an objective (getting from Point A to Point B) under a specific condition (not being seen by the guard). Like any puzzle the "best" way to portray it will depend on the group more than the RAW. My approach would incline towards creating a physical map of props with some patrol routes and traps and things but that's pretty prep-intensive. Your mileage may vary.
|
|
