|
Well if he wants to play a different game than you do then that's the issue isn't it.
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 12:04 |
|
|
sebmojo posted:Well if he wants to play a different game than you do then that's the issue isn't it. It is. We went so far as to go on his Google+ (I don't know why he uses it either) to discuss it; I was telling him that he wasn't really making a character that meshed with the group and his gun choices were going to have cons outweighing the pros, and his tabletop buddies chimed in as well to help recommend new options. We recommended unique lever-actions, elephant guns, etc. I think the crux of the problem is that he's interested in an entirely different kind of game, but is really really loving bad at listening to people. It wouldn't be a problem if he did listen, but he just kept going at it no matter how much he got told that he was making a mistake. And I didn't really want to put the whole kibosh on him playing, since he did technically build the character legally and didn't go far enough out of the setting to be anachronistic or too unrealistic (plus we didn't have many players anyway, so I could hardly afford to kick the guy out before the game began).
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
Do the other players have a problem with it either way? And have you talked to the whole group about it at the same time, or just had one on one conversations?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
Loki_XLII posted:Do the other players have a problem with it either way? And have you talked to the whole group about it at the same time, or just had one on one conversations? When I started the recruitment/OOC thread for the game, I listed the setting details and rules that would be in use in the very first post, complete with its own bolded header so nobody would miss it. Every other character has a typical inventory and character design and is defined by their characterization and background more than their outward quirkiness. The two brothers are the only odd ducks in the whole group. If they have a problem with the characters, they haven't told me about it. Though that doesn't necessarily mean that they approve of the brothers or their unusual and expensive gear; it just means that they haven't been outwardly disruptive yet. Considering their current tactics, though, I can't see the duo lasting long in combat. They tend to make somewhat boneheaded decisions and operate based on really bad assumptions; one of them is, in a way, directly responsible for the hotel they were staying in currently being on fire.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
Loki_XLII posted:Or do both. Roll20 is great, but I'm not a fan of their voice chat and always end up using Skype to supplement it. There's also a Roll20 plugin for Google Hangouts. My group all already had G+ accounts so it's worked really well for us.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 06:36
|
|
|
First time GM here and I will be GMing my group's first Pathfinder session. Our only previous experience in several months of Dungeon World, which we all enjoyed. We are now trying "graduate" to something crunchier in hopes of finding a more concrete combat system. There was something about it that was unsatisfying at times. After reading through this thread and using some online references, I feel confident in prepping enough content for a single interesting session. What I'm worried about is character creation. I want the players to feel like their characters are living up to their archetypes. If they play a rogue, they should feel agile, acrobatic, sneaky, and stabby. If they play a barbarian, they should feel like the blood-soaked avatar of fury. Wizards, they should go pewpew! Things like that. Will they get enough "toys" to play with at level one to get a feel for their class? I don't know what would be an appropriate level to start them at so that they get their beaks wet and have an idea of what they have to look forward to as they level up. At the same time I don't want them to start as the Ender of Eternity, armored by the leathered husk of a slain god and empowered by the Shards of Unmaking, only to begin their next session as a dirt-covered peasant by comparison. Are there any guides to character creation that are more...open-ended? Like a listing of viable/desirable feats for different classes, as opposed to "netdeck" class builds? Any and all input is greatly appreciated!
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I think he underestimated the problems it can cause in a grittier game like mine. The only advantage he's got is ammo capacity (and only by one or two shots if he goes against lever-action guys) and it has decent power and a good wound modifier from the .50+ bore size. But it's a cap and ball gun, so each chamber takes ages to load. It's also got a pretty low Malf number, and it'll go even lower if he's in a situation where the chain can get tangled up in stuff (like shooting while hiding in a bush or while prone).
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
vicidius posted:Will they get enough "toys" to play with at level one to get a feel for their class? I don't know what would be an appropriate level to start them at so that they get their beaks wet and have an idea of what they have to look forward to as they level up. At the same time I don't want them to start as the Ender of Eternity, armored by the leathered husk of a slain god and empowered by the Shards of Unmaking, only to begin their next session as a dirt-covered peasant by comparison. The game changes dramatically from level one to level five (and again from five to twelve or so) both in terms of how classes work and how combats proceed. Most of Pathfinder's core classes don't really come into their own until level four or five (except the Barbarian, Bard, and Rogue, sorta), and spellcasters grow dramatically in power when they get level two spells. Coming from DW, your characters will likely feel severely underpowered for the first three or four levels. That said, the mechanics have a whole lot more crunch so handing five levels to new players isn't going to have the desired effect, either. My advice would be to level them quickly at first, granting a level every two sessions, until level four or five. This has two positive effects: first, before they can get bored of their small number of powers they're getting more, and second, they'll be hand-picking powers over the course of a week or two for their next level which means their builds will likely end up more cohesive. As for feat selection, I find Treantmonk's guides relatively open-ended in terms of suggesting interesting/good combos and talking about how to approach classes as opposed to 'pick these seven things and win hard'. QuantumNinja fucked around with this message at 06:34 on Jun 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
vicidius posted:Will they get enough "toys" to play with at level one to get a feel for their class? I don't know what would be an appropriate level to start them at so that they get their beaks wet and have an idea of what they have to look forward to as they level up. At the same time I don't want them to start as the Ender of Eternity, armored by the leathered husk of a slain god and empowered by the Shards of Unmaking, only to begin their next session as a dirt-covered peasant by comparison. In my opinion no, they won't really get a good feel for their class at level one. However, I am in agreement that handing newbies a bunch of level five characters will be overloading them. Maybe start at level three? Odd choice I know, but I think that straddles the line between the boring drudgery of level one and the competence of level five.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
vicidius posted:Our only previous experience in several months of Dungeon World, which we all enjoyed. We are now trying "graduate" to something crunchier in hopes of finding a more concrete combat system. There was something about it that was unsatisfying at times. So, without trying to start an edition war here, speaking strictly in terms of having a crunchy and concrete combat system, have you guys considered D&D 4E?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 08:58
|
|
|
vicidius posted:First time GM here and I will be GMing my group's first Pathfinder session. Our only previous experience in several months of Dungeon World, which we all enjoyed. We are now trying "graduate" to something crunchier in hopes of finding a more concrete combat system. There was something about it that was unsatisfying at times. 13th... Age?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 09:00
|
|
|
Rexides posted:So, without trying to start an edition war here, speaking strictly in terms of having a crunchy and concrete combat system, have you guys considered D&D 4E? Seconding this, with the caveat that it's much slower than Dungeon World, and you might accidentally spark an edition argument. Personally I think you're mad to be going from DW to D&D, but personal taste, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 09:33
|
|
|
My group specifically went from D&D 4e to DW because we felt 4e to be way too crunchy and the combat took up big chunks of our session time. The upside is that e4 is pretty good at the combat part.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 09:41
|
|
|
Zereth posted:Have you explicitly explained these details to him? Every one of them, multiple times. Like I said before, myself and several of his other gaming buddies were trying to explain all of the flaws of the gun and recommending more sensible options. Plus, he had to write out all of the disadvantageous stuff like reload time and the Malf number and budget for bullet molds and such on his character sheet for approval, so it's not like he could have missed it. And it's not like he had no choices for unique weapons. Before any character building was done, I did up large lists detailing just about every firearm in use in 1875 that I could find. There's a ton of weapons that most people have never heard of, since they either didn't do well or they were good but lacked the enduring popularity of major names like Colt and Winchester and quietly disappeared as the years went on. Stuff like the Starr revolver, Burnside carbine, Remington Creedmoor, etc. All stuff that was different and unique enough that it wasn't in the books, but wouldn't have the slew of problems of the Treeby. But nope. He heard every single fault and decided that it was what he wanted, because he had the vision of a giant skinny guy one-handing what looked like an old west chaingun and wanted to stick with it. I know that he had this vision because he drew a picture of the character.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:My group specifically went from D&D 4e to DW because we felt 4e to be way too crunchy and the combat took up big chunks of our session time. The upside is that e4 is pretty good at the combat part. If 4e was too crunchy for your group, I really don't think 3.PF is going to be a positive change. The combat can drudge on at times, but you get better and faster with time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
I'm gonna chime in here to add that as much as 4e isn't everybody's cup of tea, crunchy, tactical combat was what it was designed to do, and it does it very well -- certainly much better than Pathfinder or 3.5. If you fancy another system with plenty of crunch, the only other recommendation I can think of is the latest edition of WFRP by Fantasy Flight.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:But nope. He heard every single fault and decided that it was what he wanted, because he had the vision of a giant skinny guy one-handing what looked like an old west chaingun and wanted to stick with it. I know that he had this vision because he drew a picture of the character. As far as I can tell, you are asking for advice on how to dissuade a player from a non-optimal character because he thinks it's cool. You have a player in your game that wants to do something non-standard that he finds interesting, instead of figuring out how to make numbers X, Y, and Z larger, and your response is to explain to him, in excruciating detail, why those numbers are way more important than playing a character he thinks is neat. Optimized characters are seldom the most fun to play, and a beanpole with an unreliable handcannon sounds like an awesome, campy wild west time. He's literally trying to hand you plot device gold, and you're trying to talk him out of it. If I were you, I'd just let it go. Let him play his goofy non-optimized character. Based on your claims, he will eventually get into a bad spot where his gun gets unreliable or he's trying to reload. And if it leads to his death (or serious wounding), he will, on his own, realize the disadvantages of his decision. And if he bought it as a signature weapon, just be a nice guy and let him trade it out (because at that point you get to know you were right all along, and what's better than that). And if that never happens, then he played a weird character and made it work. Either way, why do you care?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
Glukeose posted:If 4e was too crunchy for your group, I really don't think 3.PF is going to be a positive change. The combat can drudge on at times, but you get better and faster with time. I'm not him, dude. I'm not touching 3.PF with a ten-foot rusty halberd. I just thought to give him my 2 cents. 4e is a good crunchy combat system, just not what my group was looking for, and Vidicus should look into that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
QuantumNinja posted:As far as I can tell, you are asking for advice on how to dissuade a player from a non-optimal character because he thinks it's cool. You have a player in your game that wants to do something non-standard that he finds interesting, instead of figuring out how to make numbers X, Y, and Z larger, and your response is to explain to him, in excruciating detail, why those numbers are way more important than playing a character he thinks is neat. Optimized characters are seldom the most fun to play, and a beanpole with an unreliable handcannon sounds like an awesome, campy wild west time. He's literally trying to hand you plot device gold, and you're trying to talk him out of it. "How to dissuade" won't work, since the game started a while ago. But it's not about the numbers on MY side. Ironically, he's the one who was going for the numbers; he took a lot of disadvantage points so he could boost his skills to high levels for both characters he's playing. That's why his gunfighter has Marfan syndrome (which he built custom from several disadvantages) and his merchant explosives expert is obese and greedy, and both of them are generally unpleasant and selfish. The other characters are much more grounded and balanced. A big part of my attempts to dissuade him was that it also didn't really fit the game. The game was never meant to be a campy wild west setting, and setting characters apart was supposed to be done through finding ways to make their personalities and backgrounds unique in a way that would be sensible in real life. To put it in fiction terms, we're trying to play Open Range and he's trying to play Red Dead Revolver. I told him he didn't want to pick the gun because he wouldn't have fun. He's wanting to pull spaghetti western stunts in the wrong genre for that. I don't want to see my PCs die because of stupidity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
Christ, dude, just show him this thread and your posts here. Seriously, you're obviously aware he's trying to play a different game than the one you're running. Either you need to talk to him about it if he doesn't understand that (in really obvious "you seem to be in the wrong genre" terms), or you need to get him working with the group if he does understand and just insists on being a special snowflake. And honestly, if you've explained all that and he's still not willing to play the game, you need to start thinking in terms of 'hey, given what we've talked about, I don't think this is the game for you'.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
You're running realistic GURPS, the problem will sort itself out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I don't want to see my PCs die because of stupidity. You're running the game. Any death that happens is your decision.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 12:01
|
|
|
Somfin posted:You're running the game. Any death that happens is your decision. I almost emptyquoted this. Anything adversarial is your doing. If you want to wreck a player's character for choosing wild-west shenanigans, that's on you, chitoryu12. Arguing until you're blue in the face about 'dem disadvantages' is silly, but talking with your player about 'wild west nonsense' versus 'serious grit' is something you should really do before you start killing characters with random dice rolls due to poor character optimization.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 11:00
|
|
|
Somfin posted:You're running the game. Any death that happens is your decision. What if it's accidental?  I killed a PC by accident one time. He went toe to toe with a giant fuckoff zombie bear that I intended to be more of a "run away from this giant monster" encounter for like 10 straight rounds while they were both mired in the area of an Entangle spell. He poker-faced the whole time, so I didn't realize how hosed up he was getting. When he took the bear down, I was all "Wow, the bear goes down. Congratulations." and he was all "Excellent. At that moment, I promptly die." He was playing a 3.5 Tome of Battle Crusader with Diehard, and the bear's last attack put enough juice in his delayed damage pool to kill him straight-up at the end of the fight. I was fuckin mortified, but he seemed pretty pleased with himself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 13:25
|
|
|
deadly_pudding posted:What if it's accidental? It sounds like he was playing his character exactly the way it was built to be played. It sucks to kill a PC him but I feel like that's a very IC death.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 14:02
|
|
|
deadly_pudding posted:What if it's accidental? That's pretty much a perfect death from a PC's viewpoint. Go up against an indomitable challenge, win, and then die. Thus spiting your GM not once but twice in a session, with the added bonus of having a great story to tell later on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
QuantumNinja posted:I almost emptyquoted this. Anything adversarial is your doing. If you want to wreck a player's character for choosing wild-west shenanigans, that's on you, chitoryu12. Arguing until you're blue in the face about 'dem disadvantages' is silly, but talking with your player about 'wild west nonsense' versus 'serious grit' is something you should really do before you start killing characters with random dice rolls due to poor character optimization. I think he's going to end up dying from his own mistakes eventually, with his poor choices in character design exacerbating it. He's just plain not a smart player; choosing greedy and unpleasant characterization makes his interactions with the party and NPCs harder, but he's not very careful about much of anything and doesn't think things through. Like when confronted with someone preparing to prime a bomb as a threat to scare him off, he attempted to simply tug on the man's hand while it was holding onto the friction igniter...which, obviously, started the fuse on the bomb. He ended up in such a position because he ignored a ton of obvious hints about a man in the building being dangerous, to the point where he had the man's suspicious behavior and following one of the brothers into an empty room outright described to him and he chose to ignore everything until the guy outright drew and fired a gun. Currently, the brothers are standing in an ambush position in the opposite direction that the assassin took to escape because the player ignored the direction that he ran in. Neither of them are meant to be stupid characters, so I know that he's not just roleplaying dumb. I know that technically "no PC dies unless you will it so", but it's a fact that smarter players will be less likely to get hurt or killed or make mistakes unless you're in a game type where the GM maintains strict control of the story on par with your average Call of Duty campaign. Eventually, dumb decisions will catch up to a poor player unless you keep handwaving away consequences, while characters who are smart and savvy will avoid pitfalls unless the GM causes them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I think he's going to end up dying from his own mistakes eventually, with his poor choices in character design exacerbating it. He's just plain not a smart player; choosing greedy and unpleasant characterization makes his interactions with the party and NPCs harder, but he's not very careful about much of anything and doesn't think things through. Like when confronted with someone preparing to prime a bomb as a threat to scare him off, he attempted to simply tug on the man's hand while it was holding onto the friction igniter...which, obviously, started the fuse on the bomb. He ended up in such a position because he ignored a ton of obvious hints about a man in the building being dangerous, to the point where he had the man's suspicious behavior and following one of the brothers into an empty room outright described to him and he chose to ignore everything until the guy outright drew and fired a gun. Currently, the brothers are standing in an ambush position in the opposite direction that the assassin took to escape because the player ignored the direction that he ran in. Neither of them are meant to be stupid characters, so I know that he's not just roleplaying dumb. 1. He may be dumb and/or not paying attention and/or you may not be as awesome at dropping hints as you think you are. There's a lot of combinations possible for each of the scenarios. 2. The more you post, the more it sounds as though you're angry at this player, are looking forward to killing him off, and are attempting to convince somebody (us? yourself?) that you have just done everything you possibly could, your hands are tied, you done warned him good, and there are consequences, goldurnit! You should be angry at yourself for allowing the thing you knew all along wasn't in keeping with the game you wanted to run, and should grow up and tell him that it's not working out. He can make a new character (with an appropriately spectacular death for the current one, which might be good for both of you), or he can look for other gaming opportunities. Going all passive-aggressive on him and claiming it's "his mistakes that will kill him" is the middle school way to go, especially since it was actually YOUR mistake to allow the character you didn't want. Be nice, but be direct, and tell him in-person if possible, by voice if not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I think he's going to end up dying from his own mistakes eventually, with his poor choices in character design exacerbating it. He's just plain not a smart player; choosing greedy and unpleasant characterization makes his interactions with the party and NPCs harder, but he's not very careful about much of anything and doesn't think things through. Like when confronted with someone preparing to prime a bomb as a threat to scare him off, he attempted to simply tug on the man's hand while it was holding onto the friction igniter...which, obviously, started the fuse on the bomb. He ended up in such a position because he ignored a ton of obvious hints about a man in the building being dangerous, to the point where he had the man's suspicious behavior and following one of the brothers into an empty room outright described to him and he chose to ignore everything until the guy outright drew and fired a gun. Currently, the brothers are standing in an ambush position in the opposite direction that the assassin took to escape because the player ignored the direction that he ran in. Neither of them are meant to be stupid characters, so I know that he's not just roleplaying dumb. I know it's an issue of the player and GM not seeing eye to eye on things, but sometimes you just have to let the player try and have their fun, guy. My group is about 50% composed of people who will never suspend their disbelief beyond a roughly  level of "yeah, okay, now what happens". They just want to embark on their next shenanigan and see how I make the world react. They're gonna talk over my setting exposition, and they aren't going to really care about NPCs beyond "how can I exploit this". They have an idea of what kind of character they want to play, and don't necessarily care about the group dynamic or anything as long as they can have their gimmick.As a GM, you have to ask the question: Am I going to shoot down this guy's idea because they don't take the game as seriously as I do, or am I going to say "this will only work once" and let the whole thing play out? Does it really matter how they find the clue or get the information, as long as it happens? These are important behind the scenes issues to think about. The guy has a weird fuckin gun, so play to it. NPCs don't know what it is or what to expect from it. It's a major calling-card for the PC, to the point where he can probably disguise himself simply by not carrying it. That kinda thing. What to do about the assassin/ambush issue? Have you told the players they went the wrong way? If not, does it matter? What is a more compelling gameplay outcome: "They secretly went the right way by GM retcon, and they can play out their ambush", OR "their ambush gets double-ambushed by the assassin, who wound up tailing them and finding his own sniping position"? The third and fourth outcomes, "the party ambushes the wrong NPC", or "the party waits behind a rock for 8 hours and jack poo poo happens, sorry dumbasses", are narratively both just a "gently caress you", so don't do those ones.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
quote:It's a major calling-card for the PC, to the point where he can probably disguise himself simply by not carrying it. Well, probably not. The guy carrying it has Marfan syndrome, making him 8'4, 184 pounds, and with disproportionately long and slender arms and fingers. The only thing he could disguise himself as is a tree, or maybe a telegraph pole. quote:Have you told the players they went the wrong way? The brothers both saw which way the guy went. They just figured that he'd double-back and run right past them (after seeing the brothers run in that direction) for essentially no reason. They literally did the equivalent of seeing a guy run down a hallway to escape and waiting on the opposite end just in case he turns around and tries to run back past them. I don't like to use results that would cause players to ask "Why was the NPC so goddamn stupid?" I'm not having the assassin immediately come back and start shooting again because of a few things: 1. I was planning on a specific point later on where he would return if he escaped the ambush alive. He's going to take time to prepare the next attempt instead of just gunning ahead. 2. There's a ton of people around due to the fire his bomb caused, so trying to attack anyone there will almost definitely result in witnesses who may be able to identify him. So far only three of the PCs know his face, so a later attack gives him time to disguise himself. 3. It would be a little mean to have them get into a fight again. They just had a short hand-to-hand struggle after an attempted shooting in the lavatory, which ended in an incendiary bomb temporarily trapping one of them from the flames before he escaped and rescued the clerk from the fire. Since none of the PCs have their guns with them at the time and the assassin scooped up his Schofield before running, even ambushing the guy would be hella dangerous and drag the encounter out instead of letting us transition to the next one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:1. I was planning on a specific point later Whoops!
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Like when confronted with someone preparing to prime a bomb as a threat to scare him off, he attempted to simply tug on the man's hand while it was holding onto the friction igniter...which, obviously, started the fuse on the bomb. "While it was holding onto the friction igniter." Did you explicitly explain to the player that the guy's hand was on the friction igniter and that pulling on that hand would cause the bomb to go off? Because if you didn't, you're expecting quite a bit of intuition from the player. If his character isn't dumb, then you need to make sure that the player has as much information as the character would. chitoryu12 posted:I don't like to use results that would cause players to ask "Why was the NPC so goddamn stupid?" You're worried about how your players will perceive your NPCs' intelligence? No-one notices. Ever. NPCs are there so that the players can either shoot them or befriend them. No-one looks back over a campaign and thinks, man, that Lich was bloody clever. Setting up a series of teleportation glyphs to make sure he never quite got killed. I'm glad we had an opponent who could outsmart us. They think, gently caress that loving fucker and his loving teleportation, let me get a photo with the corpse before I set it on fire again, let's think of a funny name to call him for the rest of the campaign. There's a great bit in Apocalypse World's handbook where the author says, "look through crosshairs." Things in your world exist for players to destroy. If the players had picked the right location for their ambush, would you have played through the awesome ambush encounter? Would that have been fun?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
It feels like you're asking us to approve your 13 year old DMing style, and I don't think it's likely to happen. If one of your players is not playing the game the way you like, then either quit, change the game, or get rid of him.
sebmojo fucked around with this message at 23:48 on Jun 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
Hey all, I just wanted to show off these cards I recently designed and ordered for my friend, who's way into Pathfinder (he writes for Paizo):  The text could be a little bigger (I wasn't fully aware of how the card would look until I had them printed), but I'm super happy with them. They're critical hit/miss decks for a melee attack, a ranged attack, and for when you must roll to save vs. magic. If you roll a 1 or 20 while attempting these actions, you draw from the corresponding deck and do the results. My friend uses cut-up index cards that he's written on, so I figured I'd get him something fancy and borrowed his cards for a bit to turn them a little more pro-looking. Anyone ever use props like this, instead of just consulting a crit hit/miss table? I've found our table has enjoyed them, it adds a much more tactile feel to our successes (and failures) that can't be matched by a GM just looking through a table and rolling a dice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
Morpheus posted:Hey all, I just wanted to show off these cards I recently designed and ordered for my friend This looks like a rollicking good time. Really solid work.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
Morpheus posted:Hey all, I just wanted to show off these cards I recently designed and ordered for my friend, who's way into Pathfinder (he writes for Paizo): Those are neat, very Rolemaster (<=best system, right there)
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
I'm in quite a predicament with my Dungeon World campaign 1. At the end of the previous session, a player was arrested for bashing someone in the knee and generally causing an uproar in the middle of the city (standard Murderhobo stuff). Should I follow my player's expectations and give them a jailbreak for them to do or should I continue my plan where he arrested player and the party are sent out as guinea pigs to complete/solve a dungeon/trap? 2. I have two new players joining the party next session and one comes with their own ship (The Captain from Inverse World). I hadn't planned for there to be airships in the setting, nor did I plan on there being much naval interaction. I don't want to reject the Class pick purely because they have a large means of transportation that I'm not sure how to account for, but I've been sort of sidelined with this. So I'm not sure how to handle this as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
Morpheus posted:Hey all, I just wanted to show off these cards I recently designed and ordered for my friend, who's way into Pathfinder (he writes for Paizo): If I was your friend I'd be ecstatic. I think that's a very cool idea, and more games should do it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
Morpheus posted:Hey all, I just wanted to show off these cards I recently designed and ordered for my friend, who's way into Pathfinder (he writes for Paizo): I play in a Pathfinder group that uses a deck of cards quite similar to this. Some of them are pretty brutal including one that is just straight up decapitation. They certainly add some tension and excitement to the game, although it does seem like they end up being worse for us than our enemies since we have to live with the crippling after effects.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 12:04 |
|
|
Finnankainen posted:I play in a Pathfinder group that uses a deck of cards quite similar to this. Some of them are pretty brutal including one that is just straight up decapitation. They certainly add some tension and excitement to the game, although it does seem like they end up being worse for us than our enemies since we have to live with the crippling after effects. drat that's brutal. I think the harshest critical hit we have for melee is one that adds +4 to the critical multiplier, most cards add conditions, knock the target prone, or do temporary ability score damage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 04:34
|
|