Do you typically run T&T using the "stable of characters" idea? If so, do your players pick one PC to take into an adventure, or do they each control multiple PCs at a time?
After reading through some group adventures and looking over the monster MRs, I can't imagine a basic starting party of 3-6 doing anything but dying horribly 100% of the time. The only way around it I can think of is to let each player control a group of 2-4 PCs, sort of like a Dungeon Crawl Classics character funnel.
My experience is basically playing solitaire dungeons in 4th edition and 5.5 edition, so that might colour it. 4th edition is especially hard on the PCs: if I remember correctly, the armour is not only weaker, but there's also no warrior armour bonus, and the hit point soak is ablative; the monsters are generally tougher at lower MRs, and weapons are noticeably weaker. I think in Buffalo Castle I died about 90% of the time in the first combat using 4th edition rules; pretty much the only way I could survive was by cheating and sending in a whole party.
If you're using 4th, that would be a big part of the problem. Most published solos are for 5th and later. Buffalo castle is meant to be a grinder on new characters, no matter the system version. 5.5 and on, though, starts the power curve early.
As for regular group play, it's up to the GM to adjust the monsters to fit the party. The beauty of the MR system is that it's easy to slide the difficulty up or down between encounters. And, a group of delvers can weather encounters far better than a single character can.
Of course, T&T is better suited to players using more than one character at the table than most. In fact, it's probably better to generate a few each.
Remember, the rule of thumb is, if you're not house ruling something, you're not really playing T&T. If something doesn't work for you, change it. It's your game!
Post by Burdbelkus Portabello on Apr 2, 2017 23:15:02 GMT -5
1 PC per player but I will often run two or more NPC's with the party. My group NPC's will have issues so that they are really not suitable for being a leader.
For instance last week I played a game with the wife who played one character a wizard. I created Two Dwarven brothers both Warriors who were great warriors but one tended to charge right in axe swinging EVERY TIME while the other would guard the wizard but run off to aid his brother if he got into trouble, even if it meant leaving the wizard in trouble. The Hobb Warrior was very gullible and would not only fall for ever tactical trap but would try and drag the delvers into every sob story adventure he ever heard.
The Wife had to do her best to keep everyone alive and try and make a few coins. Without her the party would be doomed.
Normally one per player but some people like to play more than one and are good at it. Cool with me just so long as we have a good game. If I'm running a game for just one person then we do normally have multiple pcs and multiple npcs. No game is ever the same
Normally one per player but some people like to play more than one and are good at it. Cool with me just so long as we have a good game. If I'm running a game for just one person then we do normally have multiple pcs and multiple npcs.
We also have multiple personalities.
*jeep! and God Bless! (Thank you, Red!)
"Honesky is the best policy an' spinach is the best veggible!" --Gus Segar 1938
It's really interesting hearing all of your takes on it. I was curious because in the rulebooks all mention the character stable (the 1st-5th edition ones, anyway), but they also seem deliberately vague on what that actually means. Do the players rotate their characters? Do they adventure with them all at once? I guess it's an, "I don't know, you decide!" thing.
I also recall an acquaintance telling me once about his experiences playing T&T in the 1980s, where each player started with probably a dozen characters, and depending on how many players were at the table they'd take as many as they needed to fill out a party of 12-20 PCs(!). I don't think Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG was out at the time, but in hindsight the way he described it sounds a little like a D.C.C. funnel.
That's why I like T&T. It seems that no two experiences are exactly alike.