|
A blouseydodecahedron or whatever, in my world, is just another word for a gazebo, one of the most fearsome and dangerous monsters out there, as we all know.
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 22:30 |
|
|
Turtlicious posted:If your players are checking for traps every 5 seconds in other games, to the point other GMs are asking them to tone it down, or commenting on it, you are loving up. Yeah I guess rather than continue to drill you on this issue because other posters have already: Aside from the difference in vocabulary that you see as a problem, how else do your relative education levels intersect at the table? Also on the issue of difficulty. Expecting players to constantly screech they are checking for traps or secret doors on every individual thing in a room isn't hard, it's tedium with a dose of memory testing on the side. If you want to make a campaign truly difficult, present your players with seemingly impossible odds and then expect them to come up with a solution using only the tools at their disposal, in true old school fashion. Anybody can Roll to Detect Traps on every square inch of door. Finding a way to kill or evade a fey lord with nothing but a mop and a compass is a different kind of feat. Mendrian fucked around with this message at 08:12 on Jul 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 07:31
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:A blouseydodecahedron or whatever, in my world, is just another word for a gazebo, one of the most fearsome and dangerous monsters out there, as we all know. http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/98/Jul/gazebo.html Sadly, I'm reminded that Ed passed away just last year...
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 08:00
|
|
|
rumble in the bunghole posted:Kinda on subject (not that I'm gonna stop a goon roast, I'm not trying to be a thread cop) how do you guys handle traps? The traditional Argue About Poles CYOA has an appeal but it's not practical, and it's even more of an oddity and resource eater outside of that. While it's a touch more work for the GM, what I do is simply assume that my PCs are looking for traps, because they are not dumb and I'm not an rear end in a top hat. So if they get to the point where a trap might be found I roll the detection roll for them. Making your players say "oh I search for traps" constantly is stupid. Don't do it. Assume that they are smart enough to be looking without having to remind you every three seconds.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 08:23
|
|
|
rumble in the bunghole posted:Kinda on subject (not that I'm gonna stop a goon roast, I'm not trying to be a thread cop) how do you guys handle traps? The traditional Argue About Poles CYOA has an appeal but it's not practical, and it's even more of an oddity and resource eater outside of that. In addition to the above advice on semi-passive detection, which is very good, I'd say that I see too many traps that are just there for traps' sake. They should be placed in conjunction with setpieces- treasure troves, entrances to important rooms, that sort of thing. It might be more clever to stick your deathtrap somewhere unexpected, but breaking your way through to an immediate reward is far more satisfying. On the matter of reward, it's also good to suggest that the traps are still there, either disabled or bypassed. Placing it near a combat encounter could allow players an easier time against a foe, should they position themselves to reuse the trap to their advantage. Alternatively, busting open that flamethrower tube could get them an improvised firebomb to use later.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 08:36
|
|
|
do not be afraid to say out of character "there are no traps. you've checked, you're certain." if trap obsession is bogging things down
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 13:03
|
|
|
Zomborgon posted:In addition to the above advice on semi-passive detection, which is very good, I'd say that I see too many traps that are just there for traps' sake. They should be placed in conjunction with setpieces- treasure troves, entrances to important rooms, that sort of thing. It might be more clever to stick your deathtrap somewhere unexpected, but breaking your way through to an immediate reward is far more satisfying. This is excellent advice. Too many traps are used to justify the existence of the party rogue or system-equivalent. "You roll to see the trap. You roll to disable the trap. It is now meaningless." That's bad trap design because the threat was just gated behind an RNG with no meaningful interaction whatsoever. Being able to use the trap to your advantage is a much better use for that character archetype. Thankfully modern systems are moving away from "roll to disable trap" but it's pretty ingrained in our DNA.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 13:54
|
|
|
DOWN JACKET FETISH posted:do not be afraid to say out of character "there are no traps. you've checked, you're certain." if trap obsession is bogging things down 'it's obvious to you that the door is clear'
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 14:43
|
|
|
"You don't find the traps"
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 14:58
|
|
|
I like making traps that are obviously there and have the option of just going through them or trying to disable them. Like a hallway filled with brass dragon heads is clearly a fire trap, you can charge through and get charred or you can try to jam something in the mouths, bend them shut, etc. to disable. But I really only put traps in if I have both a player who really likes using Disable Device and a bad guy/girl who would spend their resources on trapmaking.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
Yawgmoth posted:I like making traps that are obviously there and have the option of just going through them or trying to disable them. Like a hallway filled with brass dragon heads is clearly a fire trap, you can charge through and get charred or you can try to jam something in the mouths, bend them shut, etc. to disable. But I really only put traps in if I have both a player who really likes using Disable Device and a bad guy/girl who would spend their resources on trapmaking. Yeah, this is how I like to handle traps. They're setpieces, rather than "gotcha" resource-wasters. I don't really have too much interest in having hidden traps except when it's a situation where one would be really appropriate narratively (like a treasure trove, some sort of Indiana Jones situation), but big trap hallways where you can either have an awesome action sequence or clever disable-the-traps sequence are cool.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
sebmojo posted:'it's obvious to you that the door is clear' no this is the precise opposite of what i'm saying to do. that is in fact saying in-character that there aren't any traps
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
DOWN JACKET FETISH posted:no this is the precise opposite of what i'm saying to do. that is in fact saying in-character that there aren't any traps It's technically in character, but if you say "It's obvious there aren't any traps" and then hit someone with a trap you'll be seen as a complete rear end in a top hat, so as long as you're not a complete rear end in a top hat your players will probably trust that phrase.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
Any advice on dealing with characters who want these super-elaborate backstories? Like deposed noble from overseas is a triple agent for etc etc etc etc. I'd like to pay off character back stories as we go along but some folks want to make back stories that make big drat narrative demands. edit: Jesus Christ I swear to god I'm going to make prospective players sign an actual goddamn contract that they agree to the opening situation in which they find themselves. I thought having people start as heavily indebted members of a less-than-reputable mercenary guild would give a quick reason to bring the group together instead of wasting 2 hours in a tavern and give them a reason not to walk away from something dangerous or that doesn't personally engage their backstory in the first 5 minutes. Nehru the Damaja fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Jul 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
what did your player say when you asked them to tone down the backstory a little, to keep it more in line with the other players'?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
They started to rebel against the starting conditions of the game as detailed in that ranting edit above. I'm basically being accused of railroading a game that hasn't started yet and from that point I don't know how I can possibly make them happy.
Nehru the Damaja fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Jul 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
Nehru the Damaja posted:They started to rebel against the starting conditions of the game as detailed in that ranting edit above. I'm basically being accused of railroading a game that hasn't started yet and from that point I don't know how I can possibly make them happy. Were they aware of the starting conditions prior to the game's start? If not, consider doing that. I find it much easier to get the players on the same page if they know even before character creation "okay you guys are going to be an established group of adventurers based out of this city working for this noble, so keep that in mind when you're building your character" or what have you. EDIT: also, if they say "but I don't want to start in that situation," feel free to tell them "then find a different game," because there's always That One Guy who wants to upend the entire plot in order to service the awesome story they have in their head where their character is the star, and you are under no obligation to run for that guy. But if they didn't know what the deal was before they sat down, you can't really blame them for not liking the situation that they walked into blind.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
Did you just tell them why you did that? Also, they can't make a former noble indebted to someone? What? Anyhow, here's what I do with backstory novelist: Get the sparknotes. You have a player who is engaged in creating stuff in and for the setting, maybe just ask them to leave a little open for midgame and prompt them for that stuff early and often.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
Nehru the Damaja posted:They started to rebel against the starting conditions of the game as detailed in that ranting edit above. I'm basically being accused of railroading a game that hasn't started yet and from that point I don't know how I can possibly make them happy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
DivineCoffeeBinge posted:Were they aware of the starting conditions prior to the game's start? If not, consider doing that. I find it much easier to get the players on the same page if they know even before character creation "okay you guys are going to be an established group of adventurers based out of this city working for this noble, so keep that in mind when you're building your character" or what have you. I told them about the group they're working for and that this is a pretty lovely position to be in -- a last ditch effort that people typically consider to be for poor folks only. Like Adventurers' DeVry.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
Nehru the Damaja posted:They started to rebel against the starting conditions of the game as detailed in that ranting edit above. I'm basically being accused of railroading a game that hasn't started yet and from that point I don't know how I can possibly make them happy. A simple fix "Hey, I'm running [whatever] create a character that works well for that." if they don't want to play that then they can bow out until the next game. Also, it helps to get buy-in from your players before starting the game. Whenever I start planning I either work with my group to come up with a game everyone wants or I provide a campaign prospectus of ideas I want to run. If they don't like any of them then someone else runs and I work on a different idea.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
Yawgmoth posted:Sounds like the kind of spotlight hog that I would tell to beat feet before session 1 starts. They'll never be happy because they aren't looking for a game, they're looking for you to write a story about how awesome their mary sue is. I disagree, mostly because I've been the character with way too much backstory. Mostly because I was left far too much time to think of a character before the campaign started. Provided the GM and the player are on the same page for how much of the back story has an opportunity to express itself during the campaign. It sounds like there was a miscommunication of expectations for how player characters meet, apart from that it sounds like well-meaning roleplaying.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
8one6 posted:A simple fix "Hey, I'm running [whatever] create a character that works well for that." if they don't want to play that then they can bow out until the next game. I thought I did that first part but maybe I could have been clearer and more direct about it. I like the campaign prospectus idea. We're gonna have session 0/0.5-ish on Monday so I'll bring something like that to the table.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
Tesla was right posted:I disagree, mostly because I've been the character with way too much backstory. Mostly because I was left far too much time to think of a character before the campaign started. Provided the GM and the player are on the same page for how much of the back story has an opportunity to express itself during the campaign.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
Incidentally since this is going to be my first large campaign I might as well run a general gist of how I see things unfolding and get input on whether that's too railroady or has other problems. Players start with this mercenary guild, get a mission in the first session. Quest giver is like, you can handle this how you want but I'd at least check locations A and B to see what's up with these. It's possible to follow either through to resolution or to visit both and make a choice from there. Location B ties more into some immediate threats underground and a quest thread that can be taken immediately or picked up later. Whenever they complete this stuff there's some threads in a few directions and intermittently the guild will chime in with a job of their own that's effectively mandatory until they can figure out how to escape their contracts and debts. There's a system to just keep working things on an episodic basis and eventually pay it off or more likely a catastrophe that'll happen when they've leveled up enough that creates an opening to take control of their destiny. I don't have a linear path but I do have lots of little story beats that we can leap to if they're running low on things to pursue. I assume this is a sensible way to run it, yeah?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
Nehru the Damaja posted:I assume this is a sensible way to run it, yeah? Sounds pretty good. It's the way I'd set up a sandbox-ish kind of game. Might be something you already know (maybe not if it's your first "large" campaign), but you can make an episodic game world feel bigger and more "alive" by showing the players the results of their choices, actions, and inactions. So when they choose between Mission A and Mission B, later on you should show them the results of ignoring the one they didn't do. It doesn't have to be big stuff, and it doesn't have to be foreground/spotlight stuff either, but try to work it in somewhere. For example, if they ignore the bandits on the north road, next time they go up the north road have burned/looted carts etc in your decription, even to the point of hitting them over the head with it "looks like bandits did this, probably the ones mentioned by the guild master". It sounds like a cheap trick, but it can be really effective in making it feel like they're in a world that has stuff happening even if they're not looking at it. e: Yeah, and you can't railroad a game that hasn't started. That's the "setting the expectations and theme" stage. If a theme was generally agreed on and now one person has decided to be special, then they can I mean, I hate saying "no" after a game has started, so I want the players to have pre-game input up to and including creating parts of the world. But I also have an idea about what I want the game to be about, and while that's open for discussion early on, at some point before character creation it needs to be decided on. After that, you don't get to be all "turns out I didn't want to be a lowlife pirate so I made a knight in shining armour instead. What do you mean no? Stop railroading me!" Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 00:47 on Jul 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
Nehru the Damaja posted:They started to rebel against the starting conditions of the game as detailed in that ranting edit above. I'm basically being accused of railroading a game that hasn't started yet and from that point I don't know how I can possibly make them happy. imo you should repeatedly snap your fingers in front of their face before pointing to the door and saying "OUT" in a firm, clear voice
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
Trip report: paranoia went well, everyone died and they figured out that screwing each other over is the point of the game. We plowed through all of Mr. Bubbles so I need to obtain or write something new now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
On traps: * if you're going to have them, assume people are always searching for them * when the time is right, either roll to detect the trap (again, without having to ask the players to specifically do it) or use "passive perception" to check if they detect it * one approach: the 3e/d20 model where the trap-detector can "Take 20" and disarm the trap with enough time, but as the DM, you should introduce a complication in exchange for the time spent safely disarming the trap, even if it's as basic as rolling a random encounter check * alternate approach: "one and done". The trap-detector has one attempt to disarm it. If it fails, it fails, and the trap is there, and either the party moves around it, or sucks up the bad effect, or tries to do something to mitigate the bad effect during/after sucking it up. Other people have brought up some really great points about "where traps should be placed" and "how traps should be used" in the first place, but the above is how I try to run traps assuming they're already there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 03:43
|
|
|
Zandar posted:It's technically in character, but if you say "It's obvious there aren't any traps" and then hit someone with a trap you'll be seen as a complete rear end in a top hat, so as long as you're not a complete rear end in a top hat your players will probably trust that phrase. yeah it's meant to be effectively OOC. as opposed to 'as far as you can tell there aren't any traps'.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 05:38
|
|
|
sebmojo posted:yeah it's meant to be effectively OOC. as opposed to 'as far as you can tell there aren't any traps'. In-character: "You are certain that the door is clear of traps." The phrasing directly invokes the awareness of the character "you." Out-of-character: "The door is clear of traps." Perhaps emphasize "is" to help players who have heard too many tales of rear end in a top hat GMs. Both would still be fine, but the distinction can be important in less trusting players (like mine, though they're slowly loosening up).
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 05:51
|
|
|
Yeah, having gamed in the past with more than a few grognards and adversarial GMs, the phrase "you are certain that there are no traps" immediately translates in my head to "you are certain that there are no traps because you don't have the requisite rolls or skills or magics to detect the trap that I am preparing to spring upon you, whereupon I will cackle gleefully as your character dies a slow and agonizing death and there's nothing that you can do about it." If you want to tell your players that an area is trap-free and they should quit wasting time searching, be simple and declarative. "There are no traps." Not "there are no traps that you can find" or any of that poo poo. Just say "there are no traps" and leave it at that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 09:43
|
|
|
DivineCoffeeBinge posted:If you want to tell your players that an area is trap-free and they should quit wasting time searching, be simple and declarative. "There are no traps." Not "there are no traps that you can find" or any of that poo poo. Just say "there are no traps" and leave it at that. Heck, say 'Out of character: there are no traps'. There are times to break the fourth wall, and this is that time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 09:47
|
|
|
"I want you to stop wasting time, because there are no traps in this <area>"
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 09:48
|
|
|
I've never found traps that exciting or justified in a setting other than the typical "this is an inexplicable set of tunnels that a wizard dug and lined with traps because it's the 1970s" dungeon. But I feel like you have to have them pop up enough that if someone gets popped by one you can justify it by saying they should have looked. I don't get the appeal. Unless someone's put character resources into traps I feel like I'd rather just remove them from a game entirely. Make an exception for traps that serve as a narrative device like setting up the conditions of a challenging fight, sure, but is the game really improved by bolting on an extra system so that one PC has a chance of taking a random 1d8 poison damage along the way?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 10:47
|
|
|
Any GM who says "there are no traps here" without making it clear that they're not speaking in absolute terms and then turns right around and fucks up the players for assuming that there actually weren't any traps is a Bad GM (TM).
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 10:51
|
|
|
I used to ask "Is this one of those always be checking everything for traps games?" before I played D&D with a new group.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 10:57
|
|
|
Zomborgon posted:In-character: "You are certain that the door is clear of traps." The phrasing directly invokes the awareness of the character "you." I like the 'obvious' formulation: its what they suggest in the (very good) 13th age group play modules, sort of splits the diff between those two approaches. And yes the players should be able to take it as a promise from the DM.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 11:20
|
|
|
Nehru the Damaja posted:"this is an inexplicable set of tunnels that a wizard dug and lined with traps because it's the 1970s" Oh, is that why there's shag carpeting all over these cavern floors? For a second there I was worried we'd gotten ourselves stuck into some sex-weirdo gently caress dungeon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 12:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 22:30 |
|
|
As you step on it, the shag carpeting rises up to engulf you, acid dripping from its fibers. Give me a Fortitude save, and everyone roll initiative.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 12:33
|
|
