|
As much as you disagree with him all the time, I'm not getting your inability to believe what they're saying. Every group is different, and honestly it sounds like MonsterEnvy has a very chill and relaxed group that enjoys everything about the game rather than just being able to act in combat. TOTP Edit: Oh, well. So I'm kind of thinking of doing a West Marches styled game for my cities local events. It feels like an ideal thing to run given the drop-in and drop-out nature, and I'm curious if anyone has any tips for this kind of game or any other resources related to it. I've worked out a map, and may determine a starting location randomly. My intention is to have a slight spin on the usual concept of a West Marches game, in that one of the first goals is for the players to aid in creating the first encampment/settlement and all that involves. I'm thinking of also using some of the Stronghold rules from Strongholds & Followers once it begins to turn from a simple camp into something resembling an actual town. Arthil fucked around with this message at 12:03 on Jan 3, 2019 |
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 11:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 16:32 |
|
|
For what it's worth, I've been on the receiving end of being locked out of combat for 15-30 minutes at a time from my character getting hit by debilitating effects, and you do what you can to mitigate it - make sure your saves are up to snuff, spend action points on bad saves, pull out whatever abilities can deflect that kind of thing, and if it happens, you take it on the chin, and while it was never enough to turn me off from playing entirely, that still doesn't mean that it's a non-issue, and I've since tried to avoid doing that kind of thing when it's my turn to run games.Arthil posted:Oh, well. So I'm kind of thinking of doing a West Marches styled game for my cities local events. It feels like an ideal thing to run given the drop-in and drop-out nature, and I'm curious if anyone has any tips for this kind of game or any other resources related to it. I've worked out a map, and may determine a starting location randomly. Be forthcoming with what's inside certain hexes, because part of the allure of West Marches is for the players to know that there's A Particular Bit Of Loot Over There which is going to drive this party on this day to go there. Some of the information, of course, will only be discovered as the players explore the unknown, and maybe some jaunts are unsuccessful and will have to be tackled a second time, but you do want to dangle a few carrots. gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 12:14 on Jan 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 12:11
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Sitting for an hour watching everyone else play is so great that literally nobody in your group would have a single problem with it? They wouldn't get on their phone, go to smoke, order pizzas, etc, they'd sit there engrossed in the game just the same as if they were playing it? I am not trying to change your minds about it, I already said you guys won't agree with me. LIke it's a fundamental difference in a opinions and playstyle, most of you guys seem to be very cautious and risk averse in games. The idea of characters being disabled or killed seems to be a negative mark for a lot of you. MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 12:22 on Jan 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 12:18
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:...most of you guys seem to be very cautious and risk averse in games. The idea of characters being disabled or killed seems to be a negative mark for a lot of you. Nah, here's what you're still not getting. I'm not cautious or risk-averse as a player, I just hate not getting to play the game I showed up for. It's not hard to understand. I can't sit for an hour, watching everyone else plays D&D, and still be able to think of that hour as being just as much fun as playing D&D. Most people can't. If someone told you this thing about anything other than a TTRPG you'd laugh at them. "Oh yeah I play rugby and I was sidelined for half the last game which was just as much fun as being on the field". "I went rock climbing last weekend, booked two hours but it was crowded enough that I only got to watch for the last 45 minutes, which was loving ace". "Went skydiving, sat in the plane for a bit, looked at the parachutes, didn't do any skydiving but instead sat and watched three other people skydive, this was exactly what I wanted". Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 12:58 on Jan 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 12:44
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Nah, here's what you're still not getting. I'm not cautious or risk-averse as a player, I just hate not getting to play the game I showed up for. This. I hate not playing when everyone else is playing. It is a bad experience. It's not about being risk averse. In games where death is routine and a new character is always around the next corner, I'm happy to die. In games where Stunned doesn't mean 'roll a die on each of your turns, if you succeeded you can play the game again next turn', I'll be stunned just fine. Stunned in and of itself is a bad mechanic to use against PCs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 13:00
|
|
|
Play improves when in-game consequences are only for characters. See: all of D&D and AD&D's pixelbitching bullshit and how it immediately evaporates as soon as you're allowed to grab the next pregen off the pile and be playing again in a couple of minutes. Even if you're competing to see who gets the least deaths. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 13:41 on Jan 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 13:33
|
|
|
I just had my intellect dropped to zero two sessions ago by intellect devourers. I had to roll a new character to kill some dudes to get a greater restoration. It was awesome and I'm not a big whiny baby because I chose intelligence as a dump stat
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 13:38
|
|
|
R A N T M O D E Tomes are dumb as poo poo and nobody should be able to benefit from multiple times per stat and tomes should self-destruct after reading, Mission Impossible-style.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 14:17
|
|
|
Lmao @ a 25% chance to succeed on being able to interact with the game being "fine" in MonsterEnvy's book. Benching half the table for an hour sure makes for an exciting game of Dungeons & Dragons!
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 14:17
|
|
|
Toshimo posted:R A N T M O D E so 5e caps all stats at 20 so that you can have stat increases even when starting from 18, but without wanting (or needing!) the kind of inflation and maximization that 3e and 4e had ... and then they have tomes anyway because tomes were an AD&D thing and you need to keep tradition yeah, it's dumb as poo poo. Just don't have tomes at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 14:27
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:so 5e caps all stats at 20 so that you can have stat increases even when starting from 18, but without wanting (or needing!) the kind of inflation and maximization that 3e and 4e had Also, the only stat to significantly override the cap without Tomes is Strength with magic belts because 
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 14:30
|
|
|
koreban posted:Is it though? Without the expository and reasoning: To handle a single attack? Yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 15:38
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:I am not trying to change your minds about it, I already said you guys won't agree with me. LIke it's a fundamental difference in a opinions and playstyle, most of you guys seem to be very cautious and risk averse in games. The idea of characters being disabled or killed seems to be a negative mark for a lot of you. Risk averse? Nah. Grown rear end adults with limited free time who don't need to spend it bored because our buddy the GM picked a monster that specifically has 'go get pizza' effect durations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 15:39
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I've since tried to avoid doing that kind of thing when it's my turn to run games. What are the alternatives for these sort of abilities?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 15:54
|
|
|
The argument "Player sits out X turns at y%" is a little weird. I just had a player this week sit out of the only combat we had because when it comes to chance, he rolled single digits every turn on his attack rolls. Whether a player sits out of combat because of mind blast, or unconscious, or just plain bad rolls, it happens sometimes. Doesn't seem like a big deal that every so often, a monster will take someone out of combat. I started running Hoard of the Dragon Queen. So far, I've modified about 50% of the entire module and introduced a completely separate part of the game when they arrived in Baldur's Gate, because otherwise the game says "Welcome to this huge city and/or quest hub! now gently caress off immediately for some heavy handed rail roading."
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 16:12
|
|
|
I don't mean to be dismissive, but do you honestly not see the difference between failing at what is attempted and being unable to act at all?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 16:14
|
|
|
To jump in on the Mindflayer debate, as I too hate the idea of locking players out for an hour, the way I’d handle it, is by having stunned people save with disadvantage vs. their domination, to bring the PC back to the table on the side of the bad guys. I pretty much always handle mind-control by telling the player, “OK, you are mind-controlled by the baddies, go nuts”, which my players always handle with aplomb—both in terms of being awful to their friends and in terms of doing the dramatic “must...resist...mindcontrol” stuff when things look actually grim for the survival of the party. In general, my view is people should always be playing, even when they are suddenly playing for the other team for a while. RAW, a mindflayer encounter can just end an entire game of DnD in one turn, where everyone fails the save, and the DM is put in a position where all they can do is either say “Well, I guess they eat all of your brains” or scramble to improvise the party’s escape from slavery, a la that one Drizzt book. thegoatgod_pan fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Jan 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 16:26
|
|
|
Is it that time of the thread where everyone forgets that different people enjoy different things?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 16:27
|
|
|
Xae posted:Is it that time of the thread where everyone forgets that different people enjoy different things? Is it really D&D if someone doesn't get angry that other people have fun in the Wrong way?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 16:36
|
|
|
"Your fun is wrong," is basically the mantra of every tabletop game discussion ever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 16:48
|
|
|
thegoatgod_pan posted:To jump in on the Mindflayer debate, as I too hate the idea of locking players out for an hour, the way I’d handle it, is by having stunned people save with disadvantage vs. their domination, to bring the PC back to the table on the side of the bad guys. A good rule of thumb is that actions taken by the GM in general should serve to increase the game's drama. Save or do nothing spells tend to do the opposite of that, whereas at least save or be dominated effects still add to the drama for exactly the reasons given (unless you have the kind of garbage GM that just immediately takes control away from you when charmed).
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 16:52
|
|
|
thegoatgod_pan posted:RAW, a mindflayer encounter can just end an entire game of DnD in one turn, where everyone fails the save, and the DM is put in a position where all they can do is either say “Well, I guess they eat all of your brains” or scramble to improvise the party’s escape from slavery, a la that one Drizzt book. If everyone fails you're required to instantly switch your campaign to Out of the Abyss.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 16:57
|
|
|
"_____ or do nothing" is trash tier game design in this decade and it's one of the main reasons I'm not stoked about running D&D after doing a few different PbtA games with my regular group.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 16:59
|
|
|
I follow a friend's advice when it comes to DM'ing, "the worst thing you can do as a DM is having players being unable to do anything on their turns." That said, the same friend DM'ed not too long ago and killed my Barb with a Mind Flayer after Mind Blasting me and eating my character's brain behind a Wall of Force. Also the DM only realised afterwards that the other players had nothing to actually get through the spell 
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:03
|
|
|
Gharbad the Weak posted:To handle a single attack? Yeah. Probably best that you not use them then. Might want to stay away from most overly-intelligent NPCs, especially of the spellcasting type, because they’re even worse than Mind Flayers at being overly complicated, dynamic, with crowd control spells.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:10
|
|
|
koreban posted:Probably best that you not use them then. Might want to stay away from most overly-intelligent NPCs, especially of the spellcasting type, because they’re even worse than Mind Flayers at being overly complicated, dynamic, with crowd control spells. When my group fought Acererak I ended up locked in a cage of force with a sphere of annihilation for the entire fight while he spammed at-will counterspells which was... Not so fun
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:12
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:What are the alternatives for these sort of abilities? 1. Inflict penalties 2. Force the player into certain behaviors without completely taking away control. Even something like "you must attack your party mates" keeps interactivity on the side of the player 3. If you absolutely must hit them with a debilitating effect, announce it ahead of time and give them an opportunity to prevent it avoid it. You can hit the players with anything as long as you warn them beforehand gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Jan 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:18
|
|
|
How does playing a game that allows and is built upon the concept of player characters potentially dying ever going to line up with "modern concepts" of always having something to do on your turn ? From the getgo D&D always has the risk of someone getting ambushed and killed and being out of the fight if not an entire session. How do you reconcile this if you find it so distasteful?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:21
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:How does playing a game that allows and is built upon the concept of player characters potentially dying ever going to line up with "modern concepts" of always having something to do on your turn ? You can still have a risk of dying without dying of boredom between your turns. mastershakeman posted:From the getgo D&D always has the risk of someone getting ambushed and killed and being out of the fight if not an entire session. How do you reconcile this if you find it so distasteful? I generally don't let my players get instagibbed while surprised?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:29
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:I don't mean to be dismissive, but do you honestly not see the difference between failing at what is attempted and being unable to act at all? I know you meant this as a no-brainer dunk but as far as "game feel" these two things aren't that far apart, because in the end neither thing is actually doing something A failed melee attack roll in D&D doesn't have any effect on the gameplay, same as a turn in which you're unable to do anything at all RAW D&D combat doesn't "allow" for failing forwards; it's binary edit: except for spells! some of which just do less damage on a successful save. Why fighters/barbs/etc don't force CON/DEX/Whatever checks for more damage is beyond me--or maybe at least guaranteed damage equal to STR/DEX bonus, but I digress gradenko_2000 posted:3. If you absolutely must hit them with a debilitating effect, announce it ahead of time and give them an opportunity to prevent it avoid it. You can hit the players with anything as long as you warn them beforehand I think this is the best route to go with for something as potent as a Mindflayer; you have to have it "wind up" in some narrative way Waffles Inc. fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Jan 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:30
|
|
|
if the argument is that rolling to attack and missing also sucks because you got to accomplish nothing, then yes, it does, and ideally attack rolls wouldn't be like that
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:32
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:I don't mean to be dismissive, but do you honestly not see the difference between failing at what is attempted and being unable to act at all? You've never been at a table and had someone say, "Well I accomplished absolutely nothing that fight." or some variation of "I was useless" purely due to bad rolls? For the final fight in ToA, the GM had the witches curse my character before the long rest, so I had no spells or abilities for the final fight with acerak. I literally did nothing for that fight, as necrotic cantrips can't hurt anything in that room. Do you think that's any different than if acerak had just PW: Killed me, or I was mind blasted? The effect was the same: I did not contribute. The right answer is to let players burn resources for these things. Action points or last ditch efforts to shake off stun, minimal damage but automatic hits for rolls (or just be a better class like a Bard and make your own rolls better). But as far as table game feels, I don't see much difference. Feeling useless is feeling useless.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 18:04
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:edit: except for spells! some of which just do less damage on a successful save. Why fighters/barbs/etc don't force CON/DEX/Whatever checks for more damage is beyond me--or maybe at least guaranteed damage equal to STR/DEX bonus, but I digress Martials can't have nice things. Thanks 5e. I still want to try out Pathfinder 2. They seem to have some interesting changes going on under the hood, and the combat system feels a little more interesting for martials. You can literally intimidate weak creatures to death, as an example.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 18:07
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:1. Inflict penalties One-round charge-ups work great to give them a ticking bomb to deal with too
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 18:09
|
|
|
Adversarial or careless DMs can make any game un-fun for players that aren't looking to play 'versus' the DM/world - so yes, sure, things like mind flayers can ruin a game if applied poorly, as can a bunch of very in-D&D common stuff like flying snakes (1/8th CR, but flying, 14 AC, +6 to hit, 1 piercing + 3d4 poison on hit!) or shadows (1/2 CR, strength drain attack to 0 = dead PC). If there's the potential to employ something as universally reviled in D&D as a mind flayer to build suspense, dread, and players have opportunities to draw closer, or move further away from a point of conflict, that's good storytelling and world-building in my opinion. If you're just trying to drop scary creatures on the group to see if you can kill them - or your DM is - then you probably should find a different group. Incidentally my game's low-level group has faced both shadows and an intellect devourer (and they stumbled into both encounters unawares, no less, although they knew they were in dangerous environs) - and they survived without me modifying creatures, pulling punches, or fudging dice rolls. No one sat out turns, everyone got to make critical decisions, and there was real peril for their characters, and that got their blood pumping. I hadn't put the creatures there to kill them - but they knew there was the potential for death, and that made their choices all that much more important. I have a good group, but I'm also not trying to kill them even though the world's a dangerous place. PS: Now that group is thinking, why the gently caress was there a mind flayer there, and what does this mean for us? Have the stakes been raised? What powerful entities will seek retribution? Who should we be looking over our shoulder for? ... Which as a DM, I think is way better than yay we won what's my loot ok onto the next slashem! because they got a lay-up encounter. Tremek fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Jan 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 18:23
|
|
|
I'm sure it's been done to death but I don't know the numbers. How much would the math break down if everything did half damage on a miss? Certainly it doesn't solve the issue of "I swing my sword/shoot my bow" but it at least lets you contribute on a miss. I do mean everything, including cantrips and enemy attacks. I also second the "one round of charging" design. This gives players actual agency in avoiding the effect, beyond a random chance of a saving throw. The big bad hulking brute goes into a three point stance and you have one round to get out of the way or everything in a 3 square wide line is getting charged into a wall for massive damage or a stun. If you want to complicate it, add in some minions that attempt to grapple you a couple turns in advance, or just OA you if you try to leave. It goes back to video game design again. A lot of modern MMOs will put a graphic on the ground to represent a coming attack. This attack will absolutely ruin your day and potentially cause a wipe. Your only option is to Not Be There (or just outgear it and stand there anyway but that's another issue) when it goes off. If the PCs come up with an idea to disable the charge effect and thus the follow-up action, then they can feel real good about themselves for coming up with a clever solution.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 18:39
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:From the getgo D&D always has the risk of someone getting ambushed and killed and being out of the fight if not an entire session. From the getgo D&D was about emergent experience. Character death became a design flaw when players started looking for coherent narratives from D&D.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 19:32
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:From the getgo D&D was about emergent experience. Character death became a design flaw when players started looking for coherent narratives from D&D. A group I played with had a meta-rule they called "Genre Protection" in games where random death would be a flaw. Basically, you wouldn't ever die on accident. You'd have to be knocked out/mortally injured and then intentionally finished off or left to die. Always with the player's permission. So characters only die if it serves the plot. And you have to trust the players to roleplay deadly danger even though they know they won't be the result of failure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 20:50
|
|
|
The difference between missing your attack and being stunned is this: When you miss your attack, you were still playing. You planned what to do, selected a target, moved to that target, attacked, and missed. When you're stunned you weren't playing, you were just waiting to be un-stunned. Reducing this to "they're the same they had the same effect" is arguing that missing a shot on goal and sitting on the bench is the same experience for the player. It's not. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Jan 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 20:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 16:32 |
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:It's not hard to make that flaw go away. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 21:22
|
|