|
TorakFade posted:Will this end badly? Should I be looking at other systems? yes, and also yes It's easy to not care about balance until one of your PCs makes another one useless completely by accident. Look at Strike!, Dungeon World, or D&D Basic first.
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 15:39 |
|
|
Mecha Gojira posted:Can the rogue cast Invisibility? Because I know Bards can and easily. In fact it's one of the best spells of the limited selection at that level, so the chances your bard doesn't have Invisibility are low.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
To this day there remains no better system to use for introducing new players then D&D Basic. You know, the one from the 80's. Which probably says something about this goddamn game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
But those are the kinds of issues we have with the system, there's no concern for balance whatsoever. So if you follow the rules you will have absolutely no real way to gauge how difficult your particular adventure is for your players and might accidentally overpower them, which has deadly consequences in the early levels. Fortunately, the draw of 5e is to pay $100-$150 worth of rule books you're free to ignore.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
TorakFade posted:I don't care if fighters are worse than wizards or if the bard can destroy the whole universe by burping while doing backflips. This sort of thing doesn't matter when it's just a single person playing a game & controlling the whole party. It does matter when Ashley's assassin has been rendered completely irrelevant by Jeff's wizard to the point that the game would actually be easier if she wasn't around, so the encounter budget would be lower. And it's not even a matter of being a min/max munchkin sperglord, that kinda just happens if someone picks the wrong (or right) class and the game progresses to a high enough level (5-6). I'd look at Dungeon World if you're into extremely rules-light stuff and mostly just want to hang out & make up fantasy adventures. 13th Age is crunchier (made by the former lead devs of 3e & 4e D&D), so that may be more your thing if you want to look it up. Others have mentioned Basic/1e/BECMI, and yea it's pretty good at random running around/dungeon crawling.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:To this day there remains no better system to use for introducing new players then D&D Basic. You know, the one from the 80's. I disagree immensly. Dungeon World, Risus, FAE, and many other titles work as great introductions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
Thanks for the input. By basic d&d you mean the very first one? I 'm not unleashing THAC0 on poor unsuspecting people, that's just mean. We are pretty used to useless characters anyway, in CoC we had at least a couple of those at any given time. The lecherous old professor who hit on students all the time and went mad 10 minutes into the first adventure, at the very first sanity check and subsequently refused to even get near anything vaguely eldritch springs to mind - but we still had fun. I need something lite, but still more complex than say gumshoe. My friends aren't exactly rpg buffs and crunch heavy games are out, but some leveling, rules, skills, feats etc are needed to keep everyone sane, especially the DM (I am cursed with that role) Will check out this Dungeon World anyways and see what's it all about, thanks again!
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
I mean, if you don't actually care about whether it's got problems or not, D&D Next isn't really any worse of a choice than any other game you're equally unlikely to care about in that regard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
TorakFade posted:Will check out this Dungeon World anyways and see what's it all about, thanks again! Dungeon World is pretty cool. It uses sort of the bare bones of D&D - six stats, levels, hit points - and then matches that with a simple resolution system (roll 2d6+stat, on a 10+ you succeed, on a 7-9 you partially succeed) and a level-up system that's basically "add a couple numbers and pick a new ability from your class list every level". It also plays around with narrative abilities instead of trying to simulate the game world like a lot of D&D does - for example, instead of trying to lay out a whole system of "roll to persuade and look up results on this attitude table", there's stuff like the Bard ability Devious that lets you just straight-up ask the DM how a target is vulnerable to you. Take a look at the play kit for more examples and material. It includes a lot of the guts of the system, including stuff like combat and noncombat actions and the list of abilities for each class.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
If you want to play 5e and you aren't a min-max uber nerd, you shouldn't let anyone be monks, barbarians, fighters, rangers, or rogues.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
Covok posted:I disagree immensly. Dungeon World, Risus, FAE, and many other titles work as great introductions. I find those work great if you have someone else on hand to teach them. Basic's the only goddamn one that came out explicitly for new players, as in those who might not even have the "older brother" or w/e to act as their DM.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
It's worth noting that there's a BECMI retroclone called Darkest Dungeons (nothing to do with the recent PC game) that's completely free to download and one of the few tweaks it makes is ditching THAC0 for a roll-over approach.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:If you want to play 5e and you aren't a min-max uber nerd, you shouldn't let anyone be monks, barbarians, fighters, rangers, or rogues. Friends don't let friends play monks, that much I know. (Even though Ribsmasher was one of my favourite companions in NWN  )Roadie posted:Dungeon World is pretty cool. It uses sort of the bare bones of D&D - six stats, levels, hit points - and then matches that with a simple resolution system (roll 2d6+stat, on a 10+ you succeed, on a 7-9 you partially succeed) and a level-up system that's basically "add a couple numbers and pick a new ability from your class list every level". This looks positively great for a group of people that know what they're doing and want a purely narrative game with just a hint of rules. I must say I especially love the wacky character-unique "moves"! I like this and shall be taking a good look at it in the next few days ... Sadly, knowing my friends, I think that's a little too unstructured, and giving them any agency over how things are run will make this devolve into crazy nonsense faster than you can say "suspension of disbelief"... And to tell you the truth, I'm a novice DM and I kinda need a structured set of rules too - you can always kinda fudge existing rules when they inconvenience you, your players, common sense or fun too much (yeah we do that once in a while - goal n°1 is have fun and we don't care if it's bad form), it's comparatively tough to straight up have to invent rules that prevent your players from breaking everything over their knee besides yelling "NO! BAD PLAYER! STAY!" and whacking him with a rolled-up monster manual. (e.g. in Dw you just roll 2d6+stat bonus to see if you succeed if I understand correctly - What's to stop a barbarian player from punching down a wall if he can make the roll? I mean it's fun the first time but after a while defeats the whole point of walls, and common sense can't stop people in my experience) Basically I think I want that (probably inexistant) middle ground where I can have all the rules I need for describing and making stuff happen without having to just wing it everytime, but without having to whip out an excel spreadsheet and calculator just to determine a PC chance to hit something with a cudgel... TorakFade fucked around with this message at 22:39 on Mar 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
TorakFade posted:Basically I think I want that (probably inexistant) middle ground where I can have all the rules I need for describing and making stuff happen without having to just wing it everytime, but without having to whip out an excel spreadsheet and calculator just to determine a PC chance to hit something with a cudgel... That's the point of the whole "moves" system, though - you have a list of everything you can do in front of you at all times, even if some of it works on looser definitions than D&D stuff. For example, a 1st-level character in combat would have the list of Basic Movies, plus the Starting Moves from their character sheet. It's more wibbly-wobbly for monsters, admittedly (most of them have basically HP, Armor, damage, and a couple of ideas for abilities), but the player side is pretty solid, it just doesn't care much about numbers or grid layouts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
TorakFade posted:...giving them any agency over how things are run will make this devolve into crazy nonsense faster than you can say "suspension of disbelief"... And to tell you the truth, I'm a novice DM... It sounds like they enjoy crazy nonsense and want it in their game. You should think about why you want to stop them from having that. Like, they're telling you (without, you know, just saying it) that they want a game full of crazy poo poo, and your response looks like it's "how do I stop them from getting that", which is not the best way to go about it. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Mar 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
TorakFade posted:Friends don't let friends play monks, that much I know. (Even though Ribsmasher was one of my favourite companions in NWN Maybe try Strike? It's really good and really easy, not as crunchy as D&D and not as wishy-washy as Dungeon World. I'm the novicest of novice GMs and I'm running it weekly to (in my opinion) great success.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:It sounds like they enjoy crazy nonsense and want it in their game. You should think about why you want to stop them from having that. A slightly less confrontational point is that Dungeon World, like Apocalypse World, places a strong emphasis on the fiction taking place. Put another way, the default expectation is you and the players should be on the same page regarding the scene and the details thereof. If you've described a wall as a crumbling, lovely thing full of cracks then sure, the Barbarian has some pretty strong justification to flex his mighty thews and Kool Aid Man through it. If you've described a wall as five feet of solid adamantine and bonded mithril then you're establishing through the fiction that if the Barbarian wants to break a hole in it he's going to have to arrange something through the fiction to allow it, and the GM is well within his rights to veto doing so without sufficient justification.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:A slightly less confrontational point is that Dungeon World, like Apocalypse World, places a strong emphasis on the fiction taking place. Put another way, the default expectation is you and the players should be on the same page regarding the scene and the details thereof. If you've described a wall as a crumbling, lovely thing full of cracks then sure, the Barbarian has some pretty strong justification to flex his mighty these and Kool Aid Man through it. If you've described a wall as five feet of solid adamantine and bonded mithril then you're establishing through the fiction that if the Barbarian wants to break a hole in it he's going to have to arrange something through the fiction to allow it, and the GM is well within his rights to veto doing so without sufficient justification. Oh poo poo, I wasn't trying to be confrontational. I saw the "I'm a novice DM" part and I remember falling into the same trap of having the players want the one thing while I was trying to do something else and finding ways to stop them "wrecking the story" or "being stupid" by doing what they (in retrospect) obviously thought was going to be way more fun. Things improved a shitload when I started to see the GM's role as facilitating the players doing what they want rather than trying to carefully keep them doing what (according to my plan) they should want. I meant that this should apply to any system, not specifically DW or D&D, and I certainly didn't mean that the PC described as a 90 pound weakling should be able to lift a truck just because the player thinks that would be cool. I was trying to show that when things will devolve into crazy nonsense if I don't carefully stop them from doing so is something you're worried about, you should think about why that's what happens and why you want to stop it from happening. What's the worst result if you don't stop it? Players get to play the way they like, and why is that something you'd see as a bad result? Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Mar 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
Dungeon World has an awful manual and trying to teach anyone new how to play it, especially if you yourself have not played it, will be a nightmare. It's also not particularly interesting from a strategic standpoint and only really works for very short term games or one shots.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
alg posted:Dungeon World has an awful manual and trying to teach anyone new how to play it, especially if you yourself have not played it, will be a nightmare. Same for D&D though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
TorakFade posted:Thanks for the input. By basic d&d you mean the very first one? I 'm not unleashing THAC0 on poor unsuspecting people, that's just mean. Basic D&D is not the first. The first iteration was made in 1974 and now known as Original Dungeons & Dragons. Basic D&D was made to serve as an easy entry point for newcomers, split up into a Basic and Expert book both written by Tom Moldvay. There was an upgrade later by Holmes, and then a rewritten version by Frank Mentzer. Mentzer's take is known as BECMI and probably the most popular of the bunch. Basic D&D works quite well in comparison to the others. Its rules are less clunky than the Editions, and the core focus of its game is dungeon-delving with minimal bells and whistles. It's also the only system which has a megabook (Rules Compendium) compiling virtually everything the DM and players need to know about instead of splitting it up among 3 books. As an entry point into D&D, Basic is a great choice. But as an entry point into tabletop RPGs proper, there are better choices, like FAE and Dungeon World mentioned by others already. There's a good Beginner's Guide to Dungeon World on MediaFire. I realize that yes, it's a file-sharing website, but the Guide in question is intended to be freely distributed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Oh poo poo, I wasn't trying to be confrontational. I saw the "I'm a novice DM" part and I remember falling into the same trap of having the players want the one thing while I was trying to do something else and finding ways to stop them "wrecking the story" or "being stupid" by doing what they (in retrospect) obviously thought was going to be way more fun. Things improved a shitload when I started to see the GM's role as facilitating the players doing what they want rather than trying to carefully keep them doing what (according to my plan) they should want. I see your point, trouble is I am thinking of one specific guy that will happily abide by the rules if they are there (might try to circumvent them a bit but that's ok and can bring benefit) but will otherwise do as he pleases if he is left unchecked and just break everything just because he can, dragging everyone else along willing or not. You know the type, I'm sure. I am all for a little silliness especially if we all share it, Cthulhu knows that we had plenty of silly moments even in a much darker serious setting than "fantasy elves and dragons", but if one guy's crazy shenanigans dictate the whole flow of play for everyone then it's not that fun for other people (DM included, after all he usually spends a bunch of hours preparing something for everybody to enjoy, I think he too deserves to have fun yes? And not have to tell the barbarian 10 times that no, he can't breach the castle wall by headbutting it no matter how many times he tries... Or maybe have a guard drop a pot of piss over the wall straight in his face. Zing!) If everybody really wants to be crazy we can bust out CoC and we'll go crazy alright! TorakFade fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Mar 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
TorakFade posted:Thanks for the input. By basic d&d you mean the very first one? I 'm not unleashing THAC0 on poor unsuspecting people, that's just mean. The campaign against it was a WotC gimmick to start their Collectible Book Game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Same for D&D though. Yeah I wouldn't really suggest anything but DCC or Dark Dungeons to a new player but this is the D&D thread
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
2d6 with three possible outcomes that never shift around, in a game with no tactical movement or minis, is hard now? Frankly with how simple Dungeon World is I'm surprised the manual is as big as it is. I still see some people trying to min/max Dungeon World characters, which is hilarious, but some habits die hard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
TorakFade posted:I see your point, trouble is I am thinking of one specific guy that will happily abide by the rules if they are there (might try to circumvent them a bit but that's ok and can bring benefit) but will otherwise do as he pleases if he is left unchecked and just break everything just because he can, dragging everyone else along willing or not. You know the type, I'm sure. You can tell the barbarian that he can't headbutt a castle wall to pieces without having a chart that tells you that a wall of X width made of Y material resists Z damage, or whatever mechanic it is you're looking for to prevent the barbarian from headbutting walls down. Just because something isn't in the rule doesn't mean you have to allow it. "Don't demand nonsense" is the way Strike phrases it. "Headbutt the wall" is a valid action and "Destroy the wall" is a valid intent, but the action doesn't match the intent unless it's a seriously dilapidated wall. You don't have to let the barbarian jump to the moon just because the rules don't explicitly tell you how far away the moon is in relation to how far the barbarian can jump. Plus if you're so worried about the players derailing the plot, figure out what kind of plot the players want to play before you sit down and do a bunch of prep.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
TorakFade posted:I see your point, trouble is I am thinking of one specific guy that will happily abide by the rules if they are there (might try to circumvent them a bit but that's ok and can bring benefit) but will otherwise do as he pleases if he is left unchecked and just break everything just because he can, dragging everyone else along willing or not. You know the type, I'm sure. I'm not sure I understand, actually. The guy happily plays by the rules until... what, exactly? Like, what sets off the "break everything" behaviour? A lack of specific rules for the situation? Something else?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
Scyther posted:You can tell the barbarian that he can't headbutt a castle wall to pieces without having a chart that tells you that a wall of X width made of Y material resists Z damage, or whatever mechanic it is you're looking for to prevent the barbarian from headbutting walls down. Just because something isn't in the rule doesn't mean you have to allow it. "Don't demand nonsense" is the way Strike phrases it. "Headbutt the wall" is a valid action and "Destroy the wall" is a valid intent, but the action doesn't match the intent unless it's a seriously dilapidated wall. You don't have to let the barbarian jump to the moon just because the rules don't explicitly tell you how far away the moon is in relation to how far the barbarian can jump. Sorry I think I might have derailed the thread a bit, I get what you all say, and I assure you I don't give a flying drat about my carefully constructed plot (because most of the time it's not existent, unless I run a pre-made adventure I don't even have the details, just the start - end points and everything in the middle is kind of dynamic depending on what players do ... at least I try to make it so) I'm just saying I like to have rules so instead of saying to the barbarian "you have to give me a valid action for the intent" and explain how/where/why, I can just tell "the wall has 20 DR, you can't damage it with your head, it's in the rules". The end result is the same, they'll try to steal a catapult, or a magic battering ram, or find another way around, but believe me on this: for some people understanding a damage resistance rule - unless you can do 21 damage in a single hit, you're doing no damage at all! - is easier than "you can't do this because it's nonsense" where they'll just try to argue endlessly that Grognak the Mighty Headbutter could have a chance if he rolled a 20 because his forehead is lined with an adamantium plaque from a previous injury (that was never mentioned anywhere before and just happens to miraculously suit this particular situation and will never come up again) I know there are ways to counteract this - maybe give him a disadvantage with that plaque stuck in his head and so on, or just allow it if the situation call for an awesome thing - but sometimes it happens every ten minutes just to get away from a challenge or overcome an obstacle without working for it. AlphaDog posted:I'm not sure I understand, actually. The guy happily plays by the rules until... what, exactly? Like, what sets off the "break everything" behaviour? A lack of specific rules for the situation? Something else? Yes basically, if something is not covered by a rule he will try to do it no matter how implausible and try to justify it by grasping at straws, especially to get out of a challenge/obstacle. See example above. Doesn't always happen, but when it does oh boy is it grating. Now back to D&D: assuming I go through with a couple sessions of D&D Next with the basic free pdf (I like free) what's the golden rule these days on designing quests and monster encounters? How do I avoid a TPK at low levels? TorakFade fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Mar 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
TorakFade posted:The end result is the same, they'll try to steal a catapult, or a magic battering ram, or find another way around, but believe me on this: for some people understanding a damage resistance rule - unless you can do 21 damage in a single hit, you're doing no damage at all! - is easier than "you can't do this because it's nonsense" where they'll just try to argue endlessly that Grognak the Mighty Headbutter could have a chance if he rolled a 20 because his forehead is lined with an adamantium plaque from a previous injury (that was never mentioned anywhere before and just happens to miraculously suit this particular situation and will never come up again) I fail to understand how having to cite a rule is easier than just telling the guy "don't be a dumbass".
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
TorakFade posted:[...] If you are playing rules-as-written, then the only way is to avoid combat entirely or just start them at level 3. If you don't, a single monster crit can 1-hit kill a player from full health. If you want a tightly designed ruleset, 5E is still not what you want. There is lots of ambiguity due to how the rules are worded and this player sounds like he will try to rules-lawyer the hell out of things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
Roadie posted:I fail to understand how having to cite a rule is easier than just telling the guy "don't be a dumbass". I envy you. I mean, the guy is a nice guy, but can't take "you can't do it" for an answer unless there's a rule for it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
I know this isn't remotely helpful, but I'm going to say it anyway: that kind of player behavior would not fly at any table I've ever sat at. Like if he was just ribbing you, being silly for a quick laugh, and backing off when you let him know he'd need a battering ram or catapult to take down a wall, for no other reason than it makes sense, that would be fine, but it sounds like he literally (figuratively) digs in his heels and argues with you over it. The D&D rules don't specify anywhere that a 1st level fighter can't fly like a bird, but any reasonable sane person would assume a 1st level fighter can't fly like a bird unless he's playing a race that has wings that support his weight, because the ability to fly like a bird is not listed on his character sheet.TorakFade posted:Now back to D&D: assuming I go through with a couple sessions of D&D Next with the basic free pdf (I like free) what's the golden rule these days on designing quests and monster encounters? How do I avoid a TPK at low levels? "Cross your fingers and hope for the best." seems to be the advice I hear the most.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
As far as designing "fair" encounters, it's not going to be easy without a lot of experience in D&D 3.x or 5e. The encounter budget they use doesn't really have a formula, isn't balanced to player progression, and makes few allowances for the power of spells and spell-like abilities. Gradenko, a poster here, has created a nifty little chart to help build monsters that have normalized stats compared to a standard Fighter class. https://songoftheblade.wordpress.com/2015/09/09/improved-monster-stats-table-for-dd-5th-edition/
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
Scyther posted:I know this isn't remotely helpful, but I'm going to say it anyway: that kind of player behavior would not fly at any table I've ever sat at. Like if he was just ribbing you, being silly for a quick laugh, and backing off when you let him know he'd need a battering ram or catapult to take down a wall, for no other reason than it makes sense, that would be fine, but it sounds like he literally (figuratively) digs in his heels and argues with you over it. The D&D rules don't specify anywhere that a 1st level fighter can't fly like a bird, but any reasonable sane person would assume a 1st level fighter can't fly like a bird unless he's playing a race that has wings that support his weight, because the ability to fly like a bird is not listed on his character sheet. Kibner posted:If you want a tightly designed ruleset, 5E is still not what you want. There is lots of ambiguity due to how the rules are worded and this player sounds like he will try to rules-lawyer the hell out of things. Yeah but we're friends  I might be exagerating a bit, he's not bad as long as there is a ruleset to follow that's why I think something like DW wouln't be easy to play with him, that's all. He doesn't do it out of spite either, it's more that common sense "you just don't do this" rules don't fly well with him in a gaming context.In CoC he wanted to fire at a guy that stole a book with his elephant rifle, in broad daylight, in the middle of the city. It took a mighty effort to dissuade him from the other players that didn't want to get arrested for murder...
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
TorakFade posted:Sorry I think I might have derailed the thread a bit, I get what you all say, and I assure you I don't give a flying drat about my carefully constructed plot (because most of the time it's not existent, unless I run a pre-made adventure I don't even have the details, just the start - end points and everything in the middle is kind of dynamic depending on what players do ... at least I try to make it so) Sorry, but your friend sounds like an idiot and/or rear end in a top hat. The solution to this is to sit down and explain to him that he's being disruptive and that you'd appreciate it if he didn't fight you over stupid poo poo at every turn, and if he resolutely fails to grasp the point then maybe tell him "okay fine, I'm not running games for you." Consider the fact that this person is effectively restricting your choice of elfgames because you feel the need to placate his behavior in the only way he'll apparently accept. That is not the sign of a healthy, functional friendship.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:Consider the fact that this person is effectively restricting your choice of elfgames because you feel the need to placate his behavior in the only way he'll apparently accept. That is not the sign of a healthy, functional friendship. We are nerds that play tabletop rpgs, are we even allowed to have healthy, functional friendships? Anyways, as mentioned I might be exagerating, it's not as bad as it sounds and it doesn't happen all the time. We have plenty of fun together, sometimes his attitude pisses me off but it can be overcome, he's a nice guy and not the subject of the thread anyways, sorry for derailing so much, I am sure there's a thread for bad players shenanigans in this forum. I shall take the matter there 
TorakFade fucked around with this message at 00:44 on Mar 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
TorakFade posted:Yes basically, if something is not covered by a rule he will try to do it no matter how implausible and try to justify it by grasping at straws, especially to get out of a challenge/obstacle. See example above. Doesn't always happen, but when it does oh boy is it grating. TorakFade posted:I envy you. I mean, the guy is a nice guy, but can't take "you can't do it" for an answer unless there's a rule for it. OK, I get it, I've seen a few similar players. Someone who decides that since there's no actual rule about how headbutting a castle wall down (or jumping to the moon or renegotiating the treaty with the Evil Empire by helicoptering his dick at the Emperor) so they should be able to try it if they want, isn't going to stop doing that poo poo unless you explain to them that's it's annoying as gently caress and ask them to knock it off. If you've tried that already and don't want to stop playing RPGs with that person, that's cool too, but you're setting yourself up to be disapppointed in you think you'll find a system where it somehow won't happen. It isn't a problem that's caused by the game's rules, and it won't be solved by choosing the right system. I guess you could also try getting it out of his/everyone's system by running a one off ultralite game where such things things are exactly as possible as "I hit the goblin with my sword".
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
TorakFade posted:We are nerds that play tabletop rpgs, are we even allowed to have healthy, functional friendships? If you want to play RPGs without having to constantly consider "what's this guy going to do to disrupt things THIS time?" I'd say it's a prerequisite. You wanted advice on new games but then had to qualify your request to make sure it was something this guy, who I'm gonna call Bob, wouldn't take as an invitation to gently caress with you over. I'm sorry to tell you this but there is no magic RPG that'll fix that issue. Look at your CoC example to see why. There aren't any rules in CoC that prevent you from gunning a dude down in broad daylight, there's no Table of Police Response Times to keep you in check, but suddenly the whole game became the All About Bob Show as everyone has to talk him out of doing something potentially disruptive instead of either having the consequences play out or simply telling him to knock it off. If you're wondering whether D&D Next is going to keep Bob's behavior in check for you the answer is no, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
TorakFade posted:We are nerds that play tabletop rpgs, are we even allowed to have healthy, functional friendships? If you run into problems, here's three options, from least to most passive aggressive Option 1) Sit down with him and say "Steve, you know what kind of game we're trying to play here, please stop being contrary and just have fun. It's funny when you come up with the silly ideas, but not when you insist on going ahead with them when everyone else just wants to get on with the elf punching." Option 2) Point out that group consensus as to what is possible is an explicit part of the game (aka A Rule). If he disagrees with a call of "No you can't do that" then he gets 30 seconds to make his case, call a vote, and move on. If he starts abusing this by doing this every couple of minutes give him 3 of these votes per session and no more. Then consider the fact that treating one of your friends like a literal child is the only way you can get him to act like a normal human being for a few hours. Option 3) Point out that The Rules say the GM has final call on what move gets used in response to an action. Whenever he insists on doing something that would screw with the game, keep using the below rule: Not look foolish You have attempted a foolish or impossible action. 10+ You have avoided looking foolish, either due to you coming to your senses at the last moment or your actions going miraculously unnoticed. 7-9 You have avoided looking foolish but suffered one of the below effects. Effects: - An ally has prevented you from performing the foolish action, or assisted in concealing the action. Their opinion of you has lowered. - You have injured yourself. - An item of yours has been damaged or taken from you as a result of your actions. - You have become lost, ensnared, or otherwise incapacitated by your actions and will return unharmed at the end of the scene. Do not choose option 3, I just wanted to type it out for my own amusement and (  2,1 +1 = 4) look foolish
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 15:39 |
|
|
Splicer posted:Option 2) Point out that group consensus as to what is possible is an explicit part of the game (aka A Rule). If he disagrees with a call of "No you can't do that" then he gets 30 seconds to make his case, call a vote, and move on. If he starts abusing this by doing this every couple of minutes give him 3 of these votes per session and no more. Then consider the fact that treating one of your friends like a literal child is the only way you can get him to act like a normal human being for a few hours. I love how much DM advice mirrors behavior management advice given to teachers. If he needs a rule to cover this, I'd suggest the zero-th rule of RPGs: We're all here to have fun, so don't be an rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 02:02
|
|
