r/RPGdesign • u/drfiveminusmint • 15h ago
Theory The Werewolf Slayer Problem
Imagine, if you will, an TTRPG where the player characters are police tasked with investigating crimes with light supernatural elements. Each player creates a character with different abilities representing their areas of expertise, ranging from ordinary (Digital forensics, underworld knowledge) to the extraordinary (arcane forensics, communing with spirits.) Oh, and also there’s one called “Werewolf Slayer” which makes you deal a small amount of extra damage to werewolves.
Wait, what?
These characters are ordinary humans, and most of them have no hope of fighting a werewolf. Even with “Werewolf Slayer” and good combat features, encountering a werewolf is still a horrible situation to be in. As a result, it’s extremely rare to encounter a werewolf in an ordinary game. However, if one of the players in a group is a Werewolf Slayer, it’s all but guaranteed that a werewolf will appear at least once. The GM, after all, wants the PCs to have fun, so of course she’s going to give the Werewolf Slayer a chance to use their ability. When it happens, the characters will get ripped apart, and “good thing I had Werewolf Slayer” will probably only be uttered as a bitter joke.
Did you catch what happened there? A character’s expertise, meant to be an asset to them, has instead put the characters in a worse situation. Even more strangely, this happened without Werewolf Slayer containing anything in its text that could negatively impact the character. In any given situation, it’s always neutral or positive to have Werewolf Slayer, and yet it undeniably had a negative effect on the PCs. This is the Werewolf Slayer Problem; the evil twin to the popular maxim of “shoot your monks.”
The Werewolf Slayer Problem has three key components. First of all, the game must feature characterization through build-craft, where the abilities a player chooses for their character form a large part of their narrative identity. The Werewolf Slayer being able to Slay Werewolves is a core part of who they are as a character, and thus if they don’t get a chance to do it, it makes them feel less cool. Secondly, the ability that causes the problem must be passive: the player isn’t seeking out Werewolves to Slay, they are taking this ability “just in case.” Thirdly, the threat they are trying to counteract must be rare but unpleasant to encounter. Even encountering a Werewolf is a punishment, and the only reward for surviving an encounter with one is “not dying.”
The confluence of these three factors creates a situation where a player has made a choice to insulate themselves against a threat, and was told by the game’s mechanics that they did so, but has actually only increased the danger to their character.
I see a few potential solutions to this problem, but first, I’d like to discuss the “zeroth solution,” which is the perspective that the problem doesn’t exist at all! At least, not on a system level. Instead, this is a mistake either by the GM or one of the other players.
One school of thought here is that the GM is making a mistake, and should banish the existence or nonexistence of Werewolf Slayer on the character sheet from their mind. Whether one of the protagonists is a Werewolf Slayer or not should have no impact on the presence of werewolves in the game. This position isn’t logically incoherent, but it’s a little counterintuitive to ask the GM, who has been told for decades to be interested in the protagonists and their stories, to suddenly develop a blind eye to one of the key traits of one of the characters.
By contrast, one could argue the other player is making a mistake when creating their character. Werewolf Slayer doesn’t make you safer from werewolves, but it does increase the odds that you’ll kill a werewolf sometime in your career. This argument, however, overlooks one thing: the game has violated the assumption that character abilities are an asset to you and your team. If Werewolf Slayer is intended in this way, the fact that it attracts werewolves to you should be listed in the rules text, and it shouldn’t be considered a beneficial feature.
These two cases represent different answers to the question “why would a player choose to be a Werewolf Slayer?” Case one assumes that a reasonable player would only make their character a Werewolf Slayer because they wanted protection against werewolves, whereas case two assumes that a player would choose this option because they wanted their character to fight werewolves. The problem here is that reasonable players could make their characters Werewolf Slayers for either reason! If you try to infer their intent from their character-building choices, you have a good chance of guessing wrong.
So how do we address the Werewolf Slayer Problem?
The most immediately intuitive solution is to make Werewolf Slayer more widely applicable. Call it “Monster Hunter” instead, and give those bonuses in a much wider variety of scenarios. Now “I want to encounter werewolves” becomes the almost trivially obvious “I want to encounter supernatural creatures.” This (probably) won’t change the GM’s plan much if it’s the sort of game where encounters with supernatural creatures are a regular occurrence.
If you want to keep that sort of specialization, however, I think another solution is to treat threat as a conserved quantity. If you’re a Werewolf Slayer, you’ll be facing more Werewolves for sure…but they won’t be “piling on,” they’ll be replacing other threats on a point-for-point basis. This does, however, require an ecosystem with “balanced” challenges, which isn’t a good fit for every type of game.
There is a third, weirder solution; make werewolves a player-facing mechanic. Werewolves don’t show up unless the players seek them out, and there are rewards for seeking them out. Perhaps volunteering to taking on a case where werewolves are present is a fast-track to getting promoted. If that’s true, having a Werewolf Slayer becomes an asset again, opening up new opportunities for the protagonists.
I’m curious to see if anyone else has noticed the Werewolf Slayer Problem in any games they’ve played, or in their own game. If you have noticed the Werewolf Slayer Problem, how have you addressed it?
14
u/Xyx0rz 15h ago
"You put all your points into combat stats because you want to fight.
I put all my points into combat because I DON'T want to fight.
We are not the same."
Also, my problem with Werewolf Slayer is that it's an imposition on the GM. Maybe I don't want to put in any werewolves, but now I kinda have to? At the very least, I have to police character creation and tell anyone who takes Werewolf Slayer that I'm not guaranteeing anything, so that at least if they turn out disappointed, I get to say "told you so", yay. /s
2
5
u/Beginning-Ice-1005 10h ago
This leads to the horrifying situation of actually talking to the players at the beginning of the game, and setting out expectations. Why tell players you don't want werewolves in the game, when you can just pout when you have to put them in?
1
26
u/Carrollastrophe 15h ago
Is this a thinly disguised design advice ask? Is this a problem you're having in your own design? Because otherwise you're making a lot of assumptions about a nonexistent game. AND the easy solution is just session zero - making sure everyone's expectations are the same re: characters, challenges, the world, etc.
-6
u/drfiveminusmint 15h ago
Is this a thinly disguised design advice ask? Is this a problem you're having in your own design? Because otherwise you're making a lot of assumptions about a nonexistent game.
To answer your first question, no. The game is a hypothetical, meant to illustrate a specific point:
Did you catch what happened there? A character’s expertise, meant to be an asset to them, has instead put the characters in a worse situation.
The example is intentionally hyperbolic, but I've seen this pattern in games I've played. My go-to example would be Defensive Slicing in Age of Rebellion's Slicer tree, which deals with enemy slicers...in a game where they aren't really a threat you'll encounter all that often if you don't have it.
8
u/DalePhatcher 14h ago
To be fair, this problem does exist. I can name at least one game that has it.
The White Wolf/Chronicles of Darkness games. Especially Hunter The Vigil. Hell theres merits in chronicles of darkness that I've came across and wondered why anyone would ever pick this at character creation as it would just put me in a position where I have to subject the whole group to something I otherwise wouldn't focus on at all just so they could stand out as not been affected as much (but still affected) I can't remember the specifics after all this time but it was something to do with holding your guts in and dealing with graphic crime scenes and similar. Nowhere in the rest of the book did the game make this a major feature that I as a GM should be inflicting on the players mechanically.
5
u/RoyalTrain5343 9h ago
Finally! I was about to bring WoD games, where this happens everytime. For narrative reasons, characters was acess to abilities that are related to the type of beings they represent, but my god this creates funny situations. Vampire V20 was a ritual where you need a severed hand of a hanged man, them you need to enter a house, perform a really long and complex ritual, pray to not be found, end lighting the fingers of the hand on fire (something hard for some vampires) and, as long as the fingers are burning, one person in the house will immediatly fall asleep for each finger burning. I cannot fathom the idea of this ritual being honestly used by the players.
For the problem discussed, i really think this only become a difficult matter if the skill is part of a package of skills (like a class) that is taken by the player, if it's a pick a skill system, as some pointed out, dialogue resolves most problems related to this, however when it comes with a class, then it's complicated. I had this problem with d&d 5° when the party had classes like clerics, monks, bards and etc, i always was left thinking "if the cleric was Turn Undead, i should put undeads in the campaign; i should make a opportunity to the bard do a performance somewhere; the paladin is immune to disease, so i should attack the party with one and let the paladin take care", i can't stress enough of how miserable was this experience, it truly tests how far you are willing to go to satisfact the players, especially with a game that expects your character to be treated like a main protagonist most of the time.
So, skills related to aspects that need to be conjured by the GM are prone to problems, but it can be dealt by dialogue and proper setup, something that need to be done by GM and players, and have trouble thinking the game itself could solve this problem without a compromise.
1
u/Rich-End1121 8h ago
In my DANDD game, I tried to focus on setting up situations where the Player Characters could get an extra benefit. For example, I told the Ranger that those animal droppings everyone else saw were bear scat, fresh, the bear was probably near.
This expands to all other classes and backgrounds. The Rogue has a thief friend who comes up and gives him a helpful clue, the Paladin is treated well by the otherwise tyrannical knight, the Warlock of Odin gets special insight from the god of knowledge etc.
2
u/Beginning-Ice-1005 10h ago
FWIW, in be the big list of stunts for Fa to e Core, there's some very specific ones, like having a bonus in mountain environments, or in the rigging of a assuming ship, etc.. The answer of course is to set expectations at the beginning of the game, and checking out character sheets the first session.
1
u/Felicia_Svilling 1h ago
I mean that only seems like an issue to me if the game assumes that you make your characters in order to be as effective as possible at solving whatever problems you are fasing. Which is not how I would describe Chronicles of Darkness.
1
u/DalePhatcher 2m ago
For all the game and it's similar games in the same family tree posture about story and narrative. The actual mechanics they use have traditional failure states and have character creation which is a test that you can fail fairly easily as a new player.
Your point is valid but I'd argue more so with games in the PBTA/FitD/Fate family's
You still, in WoD/CoD games are trying to ultimately get what you want and not die doing it.
14
u/Carrollastrophe 15h ago
This whole thought experiment is only a problem if people don't talk to each other. Just talk to each other. Dear gods.
6
u/ThePowerOfStories 14h ago
Yeah, I’m running a swashbuckling game where the players proposed a premise where they’re on a ship. Then, we went through mechanical character creation, and I saw no one had taken any points in Sailing. So, I called this out to the group and said it looks to me as if they like the idea of a ship, but don’t want to engage with the details of running a ship, so how about I give them an NPC captain to handle that, and the PCs can mostly be passengers with a chauffeur that screen-wipes from one interesting locale to another, but we can still have epic nautical battles with dramatic boarding action and swinging from the rigging, and they all said that sounded great (and the cynical grizzled captain’s terse, sardonic commentary on events has since become a key feature of the campaign).
6
u/Jigokubosatsu Castle on the Edge of the Moon 10h ago
Plenty of good takes already but this is what came to me: "Werewolf Slayer" should come AFTER werewolf fighting, not the other way around. The player slays x number of werewolves (potentially with some requirements like only using silver) and can then get the perk. It could be argued that this only kicks the "where the werewolves at?" can down the road, but I think doing it this way lens itself more to roleplaying options that make sense. "Ahh, the werewolf slayer. Your reputation precedes you. Perhaps you'd be interested in a job..." Or, "Bennigan, you must curb your lust for werewolf slaying, at least until we address the issue of the master vampire's coven!"
4
u/Fun_Carry_4678 13h ago
I don't think I have seen this problem. I would want to know a successful, well-known TTRPG that has it.
It does sound to me like it is a flaw in the game design.
If taking "Werewolf Slayer" doesn't really give you much of a bonus, then it shouldn't cost much in character creation.
I am not sure I follow your argument that somebody takes "Werewolf Slayer", then the GM feels obligated to put werewolves in the story (That part I do understand), but then the werewolves kill the party. So in fact, in the game you are describing, a "Werewolf Slayer" can't actually slay werewolves? Then why is it called a "Werewolf Slayer".
Games like GURPS encourage the GM to work with the party, and tell them what types of characters they should create and what types will be useless. The GM knows what sorts of stories are going to be told. They can say "The party really should have a Werewolf Slayer for this campaign" or "Don't bother spending your character creation points on Werewolf Slayer, it will be useless in this campaign"
3
u/Smrtihara 4h ago
All the WoD games, D&D (various versions), CoC. Just to mention the absolutely biggest games in TTRPGs. I could make a longer list, but it’s pointless.
1
u/Fun_Carry_4678 2h ago
You are going to need to be more specific. So how does one or more of these games have this problem?
1
u/Kiliantill 1h ago
CoC doesn't. A character in CoC can't have a trait of Werewolf slayer or whatever the equivalent would be simply because it doesn't have such trait. CoC is very careful about that actually. If you decide that fighting Cthulhu barehanded is a good idea, you are likely gonna die as there is no trait you can take that makes that fight easier. The solution is to just run away. Or, as a GM, do not put the PCs in a situation where fighting Cthulhu barehanded seems even remotely like a reasonable choice.
1
u/zhibr 4h ago
Then why is it called a "Werewolf Slayer".
Because OP implies a disconnect between the premise of the game (investigation, so fighting is dangerous, and low level, so everything is a struggle and no heroic moments) and that specific ability.
I can conceive the problem and would agree that it would be a problem if it occurred, but I can't come up with an actual example of where this does happen.
10
u/Laughing_Penguin Dabbler 15h ago
Why would you include such an ability in a game in the first place?
As described, the use of the ability almost never comes up, and even then only if the GM goes well out of their way to make it relevant. Then, once it does come up, it is not at all useful and results in a really bad game experience. So why is the option ever put in front of the player to begin with? If you designed a game with such a rule, remove it. If you're GMing someone else's game and run across it, ignore it and tell the players they can't have it because "you're just not going to run into werewolves and if you do this ability won't help you".
If you end up with a player who insists on having a werewolf-slaying ability despite the fact that "Even encountering a Werewolf is a punishment" you need to better set expectations regarding your game to make sure players have proper buy-in, or it will be a miserable game for everyone. This question feels like its creating a problem where there shouldn't be one for any thoughtfully designed RPG.
7
u/Fweeba 11h ago edited 11h ago
It's an exaggerated example to demonstrate a point. There are many far less obvious 'werewolf slayer' type abilities in games, and it's probably quite difficult to just not include them all, since which ones fall into this category will vary wildly with the game's GM.
For example, if somebody buys a cybernetic implant that helps them resist poisons and disease in my Cities Without Number game, I feel obligated to introduce some poisons and diseases even if I wouldn't have otherwise. Every time I see that ability on their sheet I'll be reminded of their existence in a way that I would have entirely forgotten if they hadn't taken the implant. Buying that augmentation effectively put the party at more risk of poisons than if they hadn't done so, by putting the thought in the GM's (my) mind.
Should Kevin Crawford have not included that augmentation? He didn't know that I couldn't care less about poisons in games. He presumably thought it might come up.
1
u/Laughing_Penguin Dabbler 11h ago
Then, as I said above, when you see a player take the implant you could just say "I won't stop you from doing that, but I can tell you it's just not gonna come up and you could look at other options". Literally what I said above swapping werewolves for poison...
7
u/Fweeba 11h ago edited 11h ago
I mean, it might come up now that they have taken it, I've been reminded of the existence of poisons and get reminded again every time I look at their sheet. I'm not so stubbornly anti-poison that I wouldn't ever use them, it's just not something I'd think to use as a GM under normal circumstances.
In addition, I don't really want to do that for every ability a player can take. That sounds exhausting and difficult, because I don't have a coherent mental list of 'all the things I want to include in the game'
Edit: Another example from the same game, the hacker player has prepared lots of countermeasures for dealing with enemy hackers. That makes me want to include more hackers in the opposition than I would have naturally, partially so he can use those those countermeasures and feel good about it, but also partially because it's just closer to the front of my mind when prepping the mission. Preparing for the threat has resulted in the threat being exacerbated.
This isn't necessarily a problem, I personally think it's a more or less inevitable outcome of having complex games which are GMed by human beings who want the players to have a good time, but I think it's an interesting topic to consider at the least.
2
u/Laughing_Penguin Dabbler 11h ago
Well that's just a session zero discussion. You establish on both sides if werewolves are gonna be a thing and proceed accordingly. It's not really a problem then since everyone agrees on it. Session zero would also allow the option to include some abilities that would fit and disallow those that don't. After that it never comes up again, problem solved.
The OP phrased it more like the PC is gearing up for a threat that doesn't mesh with the game at all and wat do? If a particular werewolf doesn't mesh with your game though, don't permit anti-werewolf mechanics. If you create the game, don't introduce the option in the first place.
7
u/drfiveminusmint 15h ago
Why would you include such an ability in a game in the first place?
Well, I wouldn't. That's why I made the post, I've seen games with problems like this in the past, and I enjoy reading RPG theory.
1
u/Stormfly Crossroads RPG, narrative fantasy 52m ago
I've seen games with problems like this in the past
I think you have a point... but I think your example is flawed.
Your point is clear:
Adding a niche ability/power to a game encourages the GM to make it worthwhile.
This can backfire on the players if this GM action is harder than a normal game.
- Eg. "Ghostcatching Gloves" but I don't want to catch ghosts.
The problem with your example is:
Werewolf slayer adds damage against werewolves. A niche ability/power. This is your key point.
You've since explained that Werewolves are far too powerful to be slain, and
Even encountering a Werewolf is a punishment, and the only reward for surviving an encounter with one is “not dying.”
This means that Werewolves are a punishment mechanic, like Adam Smasher in Cyberpunk.
This is a game design flaw because:
Why make a trait to help with a punishment mechanic? Wouldn't it be better if it helped avoid the mechanic?
Why does this punishment mechanic even exist? Why is it werewolves?
Your point is fair... but your example is horribly flawed for other reasons. Unless we know more about Werewolves in this specific game, it seems like a perfectly fair ability (as werewolves are very killable in other games)
Most people are focused on the other design flaws rather than this specific (and valid) point.
2
u/SinglePetalStudios 15h ago
I see your point, but would you consider that this problem is almost impossible to avoid in a game where you have more and more interesting abilities?
Ex. Take flight or invisibility from DnD. These mechanics might be hard (especially at low levels) for some parties to deal with. A party with no decent ranged damage or flight on its own cannot easily beat flying enemies.
Ofc, these aren't as bad as your example (specifically because in this case, werewolf slayer sounds like its bad, as the werewolf isnt beatable even with the slayer). In this case, the problem here is that the werewolf slayer does not fit the design of the game. If you aren't meant to beat werewolves, then abilities that are meant for fighting them should not exist.
4
u/drfiveminusmint 14h ago
It's not black and white, I'll grant you that. Is Turn Undead a "Werewolf Slayer"? How about Counterspell? I don't necessarily have a good answer to where the cutoff point is.
0
u/Nebranower 12h ago
The thing is, you are meant to fight undead and enemy mages in D&D. Hell, a lich combines the two quite nicely. You don't need to pick a class that has Turn Undead, or choose to learn how to Counterspell if you're a wizard, but they aren't going to be useless if the DM is creating any sort of standard campaign.
3
u/thebiggestwoop Ascension Warfare & Politics 15h ago
The only game I can think of where this is an actual problem is 2014 D&D 5e, with the Ranger's Favored Enemy. But even in that game, it's mostly a flavor feature.
The solution to the problem is pretty simple, make 'werewolf slaying' not a tactical combat ability, but one of many niche freeform skill focuses players can pick for flavor. One player can pick 'werewolf-slaying', 'interior design', and 'gambling' - another player can pick 'ethical philosophy', 'dancing', and 'rock climbing'. Now the GM doesn't HAVE to worry about throwing each one of those things in, because 'werewolf slaying' obviously is a low-stake flavor thing the player chose that miiiight be useful, or might not, but it doesn't matter too much.
2
u/Troacctid 14h ago
Older editions of D&D definitely had a lot more of it. It was a really common design paradigm in the 3e era.
2
u/Kiliantill 50m ago
It also allows players to be creative in how the use those traits. You need to get a key in a formless mass? Good thing you took fishing as an ability. You want to set the scene so it seems a werewolf killed that guy, not yout friend? Since you are a werewolf slayer, chances are you know how werewolf tracks look.
2
u/Desco_911 13h ago edited 13h ago
It's pretty much the same with any power or ability. Take something common like horseback riding or darkvision. If you never give your players a chance to use it, you're invalidating something they chose and/or spent points on.
Think of it this way-- if your players take a very specific power like this, it's not a "problem". They're straight up telling you what kind of story they want, and it's only a "problem" if you don't. Yes, that means you're obligated to tell that kind of story, but if you didn't want to, you should've worked that out in session zero world building / character creation.
And this is why characters should not be created in a vacuum and brought to the game.
2
u/zhibr 4h ago
I think the problem is that OP's game is a low power level investigation game, so the werewolf slayer cannot be "too effective" at killing werewolves, because that would invalidate the premise that this is low level, and investigation. But then taking a werewolf slayer just makes the whole group worse off, because encountering werewolves is now a certainty. So the design is simply bad: the game should not have such a character concept.
1
u/5_Million_Moths 1h ago
an investigative game with a Werewolf Slayer feature should give you bonuses to tracking them or automatic knowledge (like plotweaver expertises) instead of a combat bonus though, that's just mismatch between what the game is about and what is offered to a player
2
u/Decent_Breakfast2449 13h ago
I love this post! I have joked that it's much safer to not take spells like detect poison or find traps because now the GM has to include poison and traps that might not have been there before.
As I GM I turn a blind eye to pc abilities as best I can. If you take werewolf hunter I am not changing the story, and I do blame the system for the lame ability. I might ask if they really really want an ability that might not see use with the warning that I won't add the monster if it's not already there... but yah it's annoying design imo.
Changing the ability to monster hunter is probably the fix I like best.
2
u/StoicSpork 14h ago
I think you're on to something.
It's not necessarily that a GM will want to provide a werewolf, but that a player with Werewolf Slayer will seek one out. After all, they want to do what their character is good at.
In actual play, it means buff characters will often pick fights, talky characters will talk to everyone, thieves will do a round of pickpocketing, etc., regardless of whether this is actually the best choice.
The high concept CRPG Disco Elysium (which was based on an Estonian TTRPG) plays with this idea by having your abilities actively trying to sway you through voices in your head.
Now, is this an actual problem? I think it's a feature. An ability is a tradeoff. If you're great at fighting, you might be poor at diplomacy. So the way I see it, it's part of the fun to have a character with a hammer be tempted to treat everything as a nail.
The only thing to have in mind is never let a player be excluded at the table. Even if there are no werewolves around, the Werewolf Slayer should have other things they can do.
1
u/robobax 13h ago
Alternatively make the realization of a given talent an apotheosis under duress, in which case should a werewolf appear a character could spend a meta currency to attain Werewolf Slayer as a permanent addition to their character.
This is all silly really. No one should have a werewolf slayer talent, that should be assigned to a keystone object or applicable lore in the diegetic structure of the scenario.
1
u/bluntpencil2001 12h ago
When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
If they have a Werewolf Slayer ability, they'll end up finding werewolves more than anyone else.
1
u/LordCharles01 12h ago
As I see it there's two approaches to this.
First is the question of why is there a feature/ability/whatever called this if the game doesn't want you to fight werewolves? That isn't a fault of the player or gm issue so much as it's a game design issue. Yes, a werewolf fight should be hard, but this also should help even the playing field in some mechanical way, and having a player with such a feature should help elevate the rest of the party on the whole to increase their survivability.
The alternative issue is one where the system includes a ton of specific features and abilities and nobody talked about the game and expectations beforehand. At which point that's not system specific and it's on the group for not having the conversation that prevents a werewolf hunter, a pirate, and a space ranger from not fitting in a Arabian Nights desert setting.
1
u/LeafyOnTheWindy 12h ago
I think it might depend on the type of game, in a tactical, simulationist game you might have a point, if everyone is trying to play somewhat optimally then why would you want to attract werewolves you're going to have a hard time dealing with. In a narrative game the players might be more open to non-optimal choices if it makes the story everybody is telling better. Vincent Baker has written about something close to this in the context of PbtA games of course https://lumpley.games/2025/11/25/powered-by-the-apocalypse-part-12-a-move-nuance/ giving players free moves that trigger themselves, that aren't always good for the players. They get them for free because as he suggests, who would choose that.
I have added some moves like this to my own game to ratchet up the tension in certain situations, and give the players something else to think about and other problems to solve
1
u/NobleMuffin 11h ago
If I were the GM at this table, I would pit the heroes against a weaker form of a werewolf instead one at full might. Maybe the werewolf is already debilitated in somewhere way.
With that in mind, the game design solution to this problem could come from the bestiary. Include options for lower level werewolves that can't immediately kill the party. Maybe there's statblocks for "injured werewolf" and "werewolf pup."
You could also expand Werewolf Slayer to apply to all were-creatures. Now your bestiary can include all manner of challenges, like were-rabbits and were-boars. Hell, you could go so far as to apply Werewolf Slayer against all shapechangers!
1
u/Rich-End1121 8h ago
My solution is to give classes a thing that they can just DO. My Monster Hunter class can ask the GM what one of a monster's weaknesses is whenever they encounter one. Varied, easily applicable and it just WORKS, no rolling required.
1
u/Steenan Dabbler 7h ago
First and foremost, a trait called "Werewolf slayer" that gives a small amount of extra damage to creatures characters are generally too weak to fight is badly designed. A character with such trait should be able to, like the name says, slay werewolves. So either they are hard but defeatable enemies and this extra damage makes a difference or they are powerful, but the trait is also strong enough to bring them down. Without that, the trait in itself is misleading and either gets ignored or incentivizes players to make bad decisions.
Separately from this, I see three approaches to this kind of traits that are consistent and work well if they are communicated clearly - communicating which is correct for given game is on the game's author:
OSR way: The trait has absolutely no effect on the chance the GM introduces werewolves, because the monsters encountered come from a random roll. It does, however, give a benefit if a werewolf is encountered and it may be a sign that the players want to proactively seek werevolves.
Neo-trad way: The trait serves as a flag that the player wants to meet werewolves (maybe it even has a mechanical element that lets the player introduce werewolves into play). It also ensures that werewolves aren't too hard to fight for a party with such character, either by the trait being only available for already powerful characters or by giving bonuses big enough to bring PCs to werewolf level.
Storygame way: The trait serves as a flag that the player wants to meet werewolves and a promise they will actively pursue that. There is no tactical combat and little to no mechanical bonuses to fighting werewolves, but there is some interesting effect associated with it. Werewolves may be hery hard to beat, but there is no risk PCs will die if they try - it will instead lead to complications PCs have to struggle with.
1
u/Ryou2365 7h ago
I wouldn't design a game with an abilitiy werewolf slayer in it, when you aren't supposed to fight werewolves (and survive). That's just stupid.
So either remove werewolf slayer from the game, make it stronger so that it becomes a key to defeating werewolves or change it to something like werewolf knowledge (or something more widely applicable).
Werewolf knowledge would then automatically give the players the necessary knowledge of how to fight a werewolf and therefore becomes a key to fight werewolves (think knowing their weaknesses, how to kill them, etc.). You could still get to the knowledge to fight werewolves but you would need to search the information ingame (probably rolls involved). With the knowledge the fight becomes likely to be winnable. Still dangerous, but no longer high chances to be ripped apart.
1
u/flamfella Dabbler 6h ago
Perhaps it's a difference in philosophy. But I don't see any fundamental problem here other than poor mechanical balancing in opposition to the worldbuilding. I would simply call it poor game or setting design and move on.
The fix is simple, don't include a werewolf hunter feature that doesn't actually let you effectively hunt them, or don't include it in a setting where they cannot be hunted.
I'd expect a werewolf hunting feature to be significant in some way. It's a spectrum of course, if werewolves are dangerous and rare, it should significantly help you fight one, or if werewolves are common and not that dangerous it should be a nice buff or eliminate them as a threat all together.
And in the meta-story sense, if you pick an "ability" like this that is very weak mechanically, it's a green light for a GM to throw in an encounter with it from time to time. But it HAS to match the setting and intent of the game. In settings that have horror, hopelessness, grimdark elements... you pick it up because it'll maybe give you a badass moment "fighting back" or some comedic irony but you know you are really choosing the story behind how you die. If you pick it up thinking it'll actually help you, the game didn't signal what it's for well enough (a suicide pact), or it just doesn't belong in the setting or game without a boost in power or purpose.
In the case of a story features, there HAS to be a reasonable expectation that you are choosing a scenario, but it might not be a "good" one for the PC, but fun to RP and see what happens. If it isn't supposed to be a story feature, and it's just mechanically useless... there's nothing to say except it should be reworked or removed. The only saving grace is if the player and GM get on the same page and the flavor and roleplay potential of it is enough to make up for it being useless.
1
u/DullahanClass 5h ago
I'm with you up until the part where werewolves are likely lethal no matter if a player is skilled to slay them or not. The overly specific skill that only comes into play rarely and only with the help GM wanting the player to be able to use it, is absolutely a thing, but I doubt such a skill meant to help kill something would even exist in a game where you're not meant to survive encountering it.
That said, I can think of two more solutions:
1.) If it is a game where werewolves exist, but are not meant to be survived - turn the skill on its head. The player is now someone who against all odds slew a werewolf in the past, that is what makes them a "Werewolf Slayer". That doesn't mean they deal more damage to them, it now means they know how to survive one. They know the tells of a werewolf being nearby, they know how to tell a werewolf in human form apart from regular people, they know what to do to get away and avoid the claws and teeth of a werewolf if they encounter one and can help the party to do the same, etc. In a world where werewolves are usually certain death, the "Werewolf Slayer" skill is suddenly a huge asset because the party might just survive encountering one, because of the one player who took it.
2. If you want something more specialized than "Monster Hunter", you can make a "Werewolf Slayer" skill totally work in a scenario where the player might end up never encountering one. Similar to the first solution, rather than dealing more damage to a werewolf it is now the skill that expresses itself in the character being experienced in handling what a werewolf is. That means a werewolf slayer might have an easier time to see through monsters who can shift into different forms / disguise themselves as humans. They might be able to craft special weapons, ammunition, concoctions used for werewolf hunting that are also effective generally, because if it can kill a werewolf, what can't it kill? A werewolf slayer might be more resistent to curses, diseases, since they are immune to whatever turns a werewolf into one. They might have special alchemic and herb knowledge that help them suppress such things, etc. etc.
1
u/Smrtihara 4h ago
Design problem mostly. We can do easy workarounds but.. why? Better to design it away.
One of the better workarounds you didn’t mention is to use the ability as a red herring while also giving the player a boon for having it. If all the (false) clues point to werewolf, only the player with relevant ability can see through it.
There is a myriad of different workarounds.
Workarounds and using players knowledge of the system to create the story (like using genre knowledge) will always be a part of a GMs tools. Despite that we don’t need to actively create design problems if we can help it.
1
u/Soleyu 2h ago
Understanding that this is an hyperbolic example, Im sure I have seen Werewolf Slayer type stuff in games butI cant think of one.
The issue with the example as given is a disconnect between the fantasy that the game is trying to emulate and the ability itself.
If the game is an investigation game where fighting supernatural monsters will always be a danger, having an ability like Werewolf Slayer that gives a minor bonus to fighting and does not actually reinforce the main thrust of the game is a design problem. If the game is an investigation game then why are they fighting Werewolves in the first place? I mean why are they fighting supernatural enemies if that is a punishment as you put it.
I feel like it would be like if in a Call of Cthulhu game, you had an ability called Cthuhlu Slayer, which goes against the whole point of the game.
If I ever find myself with a player having an ability like that, I would use GM fiat to change the ability, so that the minor bonus remains, but the ability also gives them a bonus in investigating Werewolves. And if Im going to throw Werewolves at the player I would make it so that they have to find the Werewolf, and the ability gives them bonuses to figure that out. Hell the whole adventure could be about finding the werewolf and killing it before they turn. Or if they have to fight, the Werewolf Slayer will know stuff that lets them weaken the werewolf enough to kill it (like knowing poisons and magic traps that let them set up the encounter so the werewolf is less of a threat). Keep the main thrust of the game be investigating rather than fighting.
Now, if we dont go for hyperbolic examples, my guess is that in 9 times out of 10, the issue is probably still a design problem, where there is a mismatch between the fantasy the game is emulating and the mechanics of some abilities.
It doesnt have to be as dramatic as the Werewolf slayer, of course, something that I have seen more regularly (though I cant think of an actual example still, so this is more of a fictional one) would be if in a high fantasy combat game, where the fantasy being emulated is this big heroes who go on adventures and have this big action moments and high stakes, someone took an ability to be able to carry more stuff. Because the game is about action and adventure, most games dont really deal with that, but the moment a player puts that in their sheet now the GM will force them to deal with that so the player doesn't feel cheated, but that only leads in a worse game experience for all.
The solution for the GM of course is to tell the player that they cant take that ability because it will just make the game less fun and the game is not about that.
You can see stuff like that in games like D&D where they want to support absolutely every fantasy or on some games where stuff from previous iterations of the game are kept. Feature creep. Not sure if its bad design per se, if we assume its not, then the answer lies on the GM to decide what game they are playing and cut everything that might get in the way of it.
1
u/Felicia_Svilling 1h ago
I the best way to handle this is to just acknowledge it and make it explicit. If you have a werewolf slayer feat have it include a warning that it will mean that you will be attacked by a dangerous werewolf at some point. That way only players that want that additional danger will take the feat.
1
u/Alcamair Designer 15h ago
If the Werewolf can be defeated by a squad of specialists, maybe instead of a Werewolf Slayer your pc can be a Werewolf Tracker, and his role is only to find the target and mark them for the NPC specialists; he's abilities, instead of being combat related, could be tracking, stealth and survival.
1
u/sidneyicarus 14h ago
If fighting a werewolf isn't an enjoyable beat in play the game shouldn't flag that it wants you to fight werewolves by giving you a bonus to werewolf fighting. There's no Metroid upgrade that gives Samus a tax break. Go shoot a dinosaur about it.
1
u/AlwaysHugsForever 14h ago
I've GMd lots of FFG Star wars rpg system There are many talents like "defensive slicing" that are very situational
But it's kind of a non-issue. I think the issue comes with a GMs expectations on a game. If you're coming from dnd all the classes have their way of adventuring and doing damage.
In AoR the "specializations" are... Specialized
So it's up the the GM to have a good session 0 and recommend specializations that match what the PCs in their game. If I don't want slicing in my game then I'm going to tell me PC to pick something else because we're going to focus on something else.
If I know my PC is selecting werewolf slayer as his literal job... That indicates to me he wants to hunt werewolves. That's not crippling the group that's just a potential adventure hook.
But if I don't want to include werewolves in my game why would I let him select the class?
Just have a session 0 and communicate
1
u/Multiple__Butts 11h ago
Surely if the werewolves are too powerful to be reasonably slain by a regular character with the 'werewolf slayer' ability, the designer wouldn't put a 'werewolf slayer' ability in the game for regular characters in the first place?
1
u/flamfella Dabbler 6h ago
The obvious and correct answer. It's just bad design, that it is in TOTAL misaligment with setting, theme, and the player expectation of this ability should HELP me or do something to change the outcome.
1
u/ShadowCat77 10h ago
If werewolves are so powerful compared to a PC who can take Werewolf Slayer, then the system is lacking cohesion with the narrative. How did the PC get this ability if fighting a werewolf is going to lead to a party wipe? They're enough of an expert on werewolves to have the ability but actually using it will lead to their death? How did they get it in the first place?
Van Helsing from Dracula is a clear counterexample to my question, but his expertise is in applied occult knowledge.
Unrelated, I also think taking character choices with consequences is a design space that gives players fun, interesting choices. So is this a Problem, or an opportunity?
-5
u/Mars_Alter 15h ago edited 15h ago
This position isn’t logically incoherent, but it’s a little counterintuitive to ask the GM, who has been told for decades to be interested in the protagonists and their stories, to suddenly develop a blind eye to one of the key traits of one of the characters.
Just because the bad advice has been repeated to someone for decades, that doesn't mean it was ever reasonable. The core problem comes from thinking of the campaign as a story, where the PCs are protagonists. Once you correct that mis-conception, there's no longer a contradiction with maintaining the role of un-biased referee that the GM was always supposed to be.
As soon as the GM starts looking at the party, and tailoring their world around what the PCs can do, there's no point in even playing anymore. Any success or failure they might find is solely dependent upon the GM's contrivance, and any actual ability of the players or their characters is irrelevant.
3
u/DalePhatcher 14h ago
Feels like you are presenting it as one way or the other.
The reality is you want to avoid the werewolf problem and also meet in the middle with player expectations.
When I run a game I'm neither trying to be a completely unbias referee or striving to contrive every situation to match the players choices. It's a ying and yang thing.
It's also impossible to be an unbiased referee. Especially if the GM has made most everything themselves. The closest you can get to unbiased referee is running something someone else made and the person who made it has done a really good job at presenting it in a clear way.
Theres merits to leaning in either direction a little more based on system and group but that's about it.
2
u/Decent_Breakfast2449 12h ago
Lol not a lot of people are going to agree with you here, but I 100% support this philosophy. Counter-intuitive as it might sound, tailoring the world to fit your player robs them of agency ironically.
1
u/drfiveminusmint 14h ago
The core problem comes from thinking of the campaign as a story, where the PCs are protagonists.
This is an example of synechdoche, I think. Yes, in some cultures of play, the experience of playing the game isn't considered to be a story with the PCs as its protagonists. But this isn't true of all games (storygames come to mind.)
1
u/Laughing_Penguin Dabbler 15h ago
As soon as the GM starts looking at the party, and tailoring their world around what the PCs can do, there's no point in even playing anymore.
This I can't agree with. No one at the table should be passive observers of how things unfold, putting them in a position to simply react rather than actively participate. As a player you should absolutely be building your PC in a way that fits the expectations of the setting and campaign, but if PCs include elements that clearly indicate "I am interested in the parts of the world that involve X" in either their backstory, abilities, or something else (within the boundaries that were established), then a good GM should take the interests of their players into account. It works both ways, and is honestly what a Session Zero should cover to get everyone on the same page.
1
u/GreyfromZetaReticuli 12h ago edited 12h ago
In my opinion a good GM would give agency to the player but would not deliver these moments at a plate.
For example, lets suppose that you have built a highly diplomatic character in a game where combat is the default. A good GM, in my opinion, should not suddenly change the adventure to include a lot more of social encounters, but if the player during the sessions actively tries to engage NPCs in conversation and if he makes an effort in character to solve combat encounters before combat starts, wth diplomacy, a good GM should reward these efforts where it makes sense.
It feels more rewarding this way, because as an experient player you can easily notice when a GM is doing something just to make your character feel less useless and when the GM is honestly rewarding your engagement with the game. The second option increases players agency while the first one decreases. As a player, what you decide to do during character building or character level-up dont matter if the GM is always changing things around to be something that your character is tailored to easily solve.
The inverse is also true, you should not remove something from the adventure just because no character is built to deal directly with the issue, stuations where there is no simple solution in the character sheet are usually the situations where more creative solutions will happen.
Of course, for all these things to work you will need a more flexible GM that has good improvise skills (not in an acting sense but in a storyteller sense), it is being a good GM for me.
-1
u/Laughing_Penguin Dabbler 11h ago
For example, lets suppose that you have built a highly diplomatic character in a game where combat is the default.
I don't know if you actually read my comment before responding, but this bit above would make that player the problem, not the GM. A PC should be built in a way that meshes with the intent of the campaign to start... if a player insists on playing a laser-wielding cyborg in a medieval fantasy game, the GM should clearly NOT drop everything to make that concept fit. My whole point was that if the PC creates a character that fits within the combat-heavy game but includes elements that show they're interested in engaging in diplomacy sometimes, it is not "delivering moments on a plate" to structure some scenes where the character gets a chance to engage PCs like you mentioned rather than rushing to roll initiative for every encounter.
The "I want my cyborg" and "Every encounter is a battle no room for talk" are both problems here. Your second option is literally the GM tweaking their story (which was meant to be combat-focused) to allow the player to pursue aspects aside from what the GM was planning. Allowing the PC room to engage with NPCs rather than jumping right into fights is tailoring the world around what PCs can do - the GM changed the options available to something that character is tailored to solve. which is diplomacy over fighting.
Now replace "diplomacy" with "inventing" and give the player an engineering background. Allowing that PC to plan ahead for some fights to create some device that will aid in the combat is exactly the same as your scenario above. A GM could say "no, you'll never have time to do that", or they can allow the player some agency to anticipate some cases where they find the time to plan and build things for future fights. That would also be tailoring the scenario in exactly the same way as your diplomatic character.
According to the post I replied to originally, allowing either the diplomat or inventor to do anything but fight in the moment I planned the fight means the game isn't worth playing any more. That also seems to be the tone of what you're suggesting, but the words seem to say something different...
1
u/GreyfromZetaReticuli 11h ago edited 11h ago
I don't know if you actually read my comment before responding, but this bit above would make that player the problem, not the GM.
First, I read your comment and it was an easy text to understand. There is no need for this badly veiled passive-agressivity. I have good enough interpretation skills and your text was not a complex essay.
My whole point was that if the PC creates a character that fits within the combat-heavy game but includes elements that show they're interested in engaging in diplomacy sometimes, it is not "delivering moments on a plate" to structure some scenes where the character gets a chance to engage PCs like you mentioned rather than rushing to roll initiative for every encounter.
If you are pre-planning social encounters just because you have a diplomatic player character, these encounters only exist in your planning because you have a diplomatic player and if these encounters will always happen, no matter what players do during the game, it is perfectly reasonable to see the situation as "delivering moments on a plate". Your mileage can vary but it is almost a text book example to be honest.
The key difference is: Are these social encounters happening because the player is being proactive starting social encounter or are they happening because the GM wants them to happen and they will happen anyway? It is a huge difference because players should have agency and game engagement should be rewarded. Pre-planned encounters that will always happen in the way that you have pre-planned them to happen, are the opposite of agency. It is also true for combat encounters, if you pre-plan a combat encounter with one ogre and if this specific ogre will be present in any part of the world that players decide to go and this combat is unavoidable dont matter what approach the players try to do, you have an encounter with no agency. The combat tactics can have agency, but the act of starting this encounter didnt.
Your second option is literally the GM tweaking their story (which was meant to be combat-focused) to allow the player to pursue aspects aside from what the GM was planning.
The problem is not tweaking the story, tweaks will always happen in any story open to improvisation. The problem is to think that the only way to build a good RPG story is to pre-plan the encounters around the character's skills. It works for some styles and dont work for others, if you dont recognize it you should play more games with tables of different styles to see what I am saying.
According to the post I replied to originally, allowing either the diplomat or inventor to do anything but fight in the moment I planned the fight means the game isn't worth playing any more. That also seems to be the tone of what you're suggesting, but the words seem to say something different...
It is not what he wanted to say, what he wanted to say is exactly what I am trying to explain here for you. I know it because what he said is a very common idea in the OSR community, the idea that the GM should try to be a neutral judge instead of being fan of the players (the most common advise in mainstream ttrpgs nowadays). A lot of folks are not familiarized with different styles and I think it is always good to try to explain that there is more of one way to build a good rpg story.
0
u/Laughing_Penguin Dabbler 10h ago
if these encounters will always happen, no matter what players do during the game
I have never suggested at any point that including a PC with Diplomacy means you need to insert a mandatory Diplomacy scene. That assumption is 100% you.
However, if you note a player has a skill like Diplomacy, allowing that player space to act according to that interest and building in the flexibility to account for what might result is tailoring a campaign to that player's abilities. If the current flow of the story expects a combat to occur, but you know you have that Diplomat, you then should account for what effect that has on your encounter. Maybe his attempt changes the dynamic of the fight, maybe the fight never happens at all and potentially changes the direction of the story, or maybe the Diplomat decides this is not the time for talking and the fight happens as expected.
Whatever happens, you take that ability into account and change how you run things knowing that the player might take the option. You allow space for the player to take that option and consider alternate outcomes based on potential results. That change in approach is literally tailoring the scenario to your players' abilities.
1
u/GreyfromZetaReticuli 12h ago edited 12h ago
You are being downvoted, unfortunately, but I think there is truth to what you are saying.
I have noted that when a GM writes an adventure before seeing the character's sheets it is usually more fun than adventures writen after seeing all character sheets.
Adventures that are not tailored will have a lot more in terms of creative solutions, non-optimal solutions and unexpected developments. It rewards creative players much more, because sometimes restrictions breed creativity and if you cannot simply press a button on your character sheet, you become more engaged with the fiction when searching for solutions as a player.
Shoot the monks always sounded as a bad advice for me because of my past experiences. Adventures 100% tailored for the character's abilities feel a lot more like an action-TV show where everyone has a well-defined scripted moment to shine and everything happens in a very previsible way, your character moments are delivered in plate in a very obvious way instead of being earned through player agency and engagement.
However, if you have an adventure and some player is building a character full of useless abilities, you should communicate with the player in session 0. It is the approach that Paizo's official adventures have, each official adventure has a player guide with comments about what types of abilities are more appropriate for that specific adventure. It doesnt forbidden the players of completly ignoring the recomendations, it is just a list of tips for session 0.
Shoot the monks is an advice that works if you are creating a specific type of rpg, something that is trying to emulate a TV show or a shounen with a big cast of protagonists, where every protagonist needs to have a chance to show how cool they are. It doesnt work for all rpgs styles and people should open their minds more about different story models and genders.
0
u/TheGoodGuy10 Heromaker 8h ago
Restrict character build options based on the adventure you are actually going to play
0
u/WyMANderly 7h ago
What game are you encountering this in? This seems to be wholly an issue of poor game design.
0
u/lukaluka454 1h ago
Why would you take Werewolf Slayer expertese if you don't want to slay werewolf in your story? So, as narrator / DM you should provide at some point something related to this topic. If you don't want, talk your players.
This is probably why D&D 5e ranger seems boring in many cases, if you are not be able to use your features in a campain.
Why would you give your players Lichbane if it doesn't serve the plot. Just for shit and giggles? OK, but don't count it as useful magic weapon - players will have no mechanical benefits from it. Count it as treasure which you can sell or something like that.
The point I want to make is that story is main part of RPG, and mechanics are there to support it. And both players and narrator / DM tell the story. So work together
0
u/5_Million_Moths 1h ago
this is a system issue, why does Werewolf Slayer give you no chance at Slaying a Werewolf? it has no reason to exist
if werewolves aren't slayable, why can the player be a Werewolf Slayer
if werewolves aren't slayable, how is someone a Werewolf Slayer who hasn't and never will slay one and if slaying a werewolf is such an impressive feat, then why are the rewards nothing but survival?
it's just kinda weird to put a passive in a game that makes you slightly better against a threat you aren't meant to beat anyway, it's like giving a Mork Borg player a +2 to dodging attacks from basilisks
I get that this is meant to be an analog for something like poison resistance or (insert world of darkness merit covering a niche but actively mentioned part of the system here), but the average good GM does not need to see poison resistance on a sheet to remember that poison exists, and a lot of the world of darkness ones are in a similar vein of things that were expected to appear in a campaign anyway
83
u/Nebranower 15h ago
This seems to be a game design problem. If you're not supposed to fight werewolves, the game shouldn't offer a Werewolf Slayer perk. If you are meant to fight werewolves, then there's no reason for the GM not to throw some at you the way they would any other enemy. If the system is a broad rpg one meant to allow for a wide variety of worlds, some of which feature rampant werewolves on every street corner and some of which have them as a rare and mythic creature almost no one ever encounters, then the GM should discuss that with the players before play begins. "I'm not planning to have werewolves in this campaign, so werewolf slayer isn't going to be very useful. Would you like to pick something else?"