|
Gharbad the Weak posted:Higher levels are poorly balanced, because of less focus by developers, because there are fewer games played in those levels, because there's a lack of interest in those levels, because higher levels are poorly balanced. Higher levels are played less because people want to start at low level and most people can't run a regular game for a couple years to get there.
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2019 21:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 00:06 |
|
|
Low-level play fits the feel of the game I want, even if the balance at any level is so poor it requires some work. Why not just use a system that's more balanced and more stable at lower power levels? Because D&D 5E is what I can find players for in my city :[
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2019 22:03
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:Low-level play fits the feel of the game I want, even if the balance at any level is so poor it requires some work. What about low level 5th ed D&D fits the feel of the game you want?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2019 22:20
|
|
|
I expect that once your players are so strong that you have to start digging deep in those monster compendiums for stuff they will regard as a serious threat to them that the only way of keeping a game interesting is to have a compelling story. Writing a compelling story and keeping 4-6 other people from derailing it is seriously hard.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2019 22:39
|
|
|
Elector_Nerdlingen posted:What about low level 5th ed D&D fits the feel of the game you want? I like lower-powered games and lower levels in D&D 5E is the part before the one rear end in a top hat in your party can fly or know everything or blow away all the opponents while the other party members sit around with their thumbs up their rear end. D&D 5E sucks, it just sucks more at high levels when it stops being even a little like what I want. I don't want to run or play in a game where players are superheroes and casters essentially become superheroes at high levels edit: Though it's kind of funny that you interpreted "I only play it because I can find players for it sadface" as me liking anything specific about it edit 2: My plan is to gain players' trust and then suggest an actual good system to them 
BattleMaster fucked around with this message at 23:02 on Feb 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2019 22:50
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:It's absolutely this. It's expected both that you'll start the game "from the beginning," and that leveling is supposed to not be very fast, and so you end up with the perception that every game is supposed to be this long drawn out epic, and that's...just not really doable in the modern hellworld we're all stuck in. And even if it WERE doable to maneuver the vanishingly few non-work hours you have left to coincide with that of your group, expecting the same game to just continue to be the same enjoyment, for years plural, every single time, is likewise a little silly. 5E DMG page 261: "A good rate of session-based advancement is to have characters reach 2nd level after the first session of play, 3rd level after another session, and 4th level after two more sessions. Then spend two or three sessions for each subsequent level. This rate mirrors the standard rate of advancement, assuming sessions are about four hours long." So as designed, here's the total "play time" to level: L2: 1 session (4 hours) L3: 2 sessions (8 hours) L4: 4 sessions (16 hours) L5: 6 sessions (24 hours) L11: 21 sessions (84 hours) L17: 36 sessions (144 hours) L20 [assuming 3 sessions/level]: 45 sessions (180 hours) At one session per week, that's about one year of campaign to get from L1 to L20, according to WoTC. Obviously, nobody actually expects play to work like that, and you'd probably have to eliminate most or all role-play, planning, and decision-making to achieve it. And there's no evidence that anyone writing their published adventures expects things to work like this. Using milestones is a way to speed advancement a bit and I recommend it. Nasgate posted:I feel like high level modules is kind of a waste of effort? Like, after a certain point, the players have such strong abilities and spells that you can't have much structure. You need a completely different approach to the thing: generate stats for the opposition, a general plot, and some likely locations that will be involved in what's happening, and let the PCs and GM go to town. It's impossible to pull off high-level play without allowing the GM to make lots of adjustments on the fly, so offer some support for that and save a lot of the time-consuming work without doing the standard dungeon-crawl layout or railroading that has appeared so often in high-level published materials. Alternately, do a flat sandbox situation that's fairly static (like the original Tomb of Horrors), with a combination of "high-level wizard used magic to nerf some of your abilities" and "this is so patently unfair that you have to use things like divination magic to have a decent chance to make it through unscathed". Given that any adventure at high level can set the PCs against a larger number of foes with equivalent magical resources and abilities, balancing has to come down in the end to GM judgment. The tricky balance point is to achieve something where defeating the enemies is satisfying but not impossible, neither trivial nor unfairly difficult. That in turn relies so much on GM and player ability that you're almost better getting a setting guide and coming up with your own high-level play, but that runs again into the "working adult doesn't have a lot of spare time" problem.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2019 23:07
|
|
|
Numlock posted:I expect that once your players are so strong that you have to start digging deep in those monster compendiums for stuff they will regard as a serious threat to them that the only way of keeping a game interesting is to have a compelling story. Writing a compelling story and keeping 4-6 other people from derailing it is seriously hard. the other issue is that it's 2019 and the high level monsters are still mostly "more HP, and more damage" you can't even find a "good" high level monster even if you were willing to dig into the monster manual anyway. The legendary actions thing is a good first step, but a lot of the time it just means they can absorb the first three spells you shoot and they attack more often. There's still not anyone who sat down and thought about what a monster might need if it were fighting something with the capabilities of a level 18 Wizard and Cleric and Bard and Druid
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2019 23:10
|
|
|
High-level D&D is really something else. The 20th-level encounters I have planned for tonight: 1) A kraken. 2) Depending on how the PCs deal with that, killing that might awaken a Death Titan (going to use the Orcus statblock). 3) A '20th level sorcerer' riding a great wyrm silver dragon. Spells on my round-by-round list include subtle empowered meteor swarm, and twin empowered disintegrates (shooting out of her eyeballs). They will probably burn through all that no problem.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2019 23:14
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:I like lower-powered games and lower levels in D&D 5E is the part before the one rear end in a top hat in your party can fly or know everything or blow away all the opponents while the other party members sit around with their thumbs up their rear end. I interpreted you saying "Low-level play fits the feel of the game I want" as meaning exactly that and wanted to know what you meant by it because I agree. In general, I like fantasy games on the general vibe of "four dumb shits get in way over their head when robbing a tomb" through "competent swordfighters and spellslingers save the villages". I was wondering what aspects of 5th ed's early levels you felt actually supported that style of play well, or what houserules you might have that facilitate it. e: Because I don't really like 5th ed's low level play (level 3 and under) at all and the usual fixes are some combination of "more hp" and "just kinda rush through", neither of which provides the "four dumb shits in over their head" gameplay. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 23:45 on Feb 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2019 23:38
|
|
|
All said I still like D&D but independently and prior to this subject coming up I had already decided to limit any games I DMed to 3-6 sessions covering play at levels 1-7ish. I think this is the sweet spot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2019 23:51
|
|
|
Elector_Nerdlingen posted:I interpreted you saying "Low-level play fits the feel of the game I want" as meaning exactly that and wanted to know what you meant by it because I agree. In general, I like fantasy games on the general vibe of "four dumb shits get in way over their head when robbing a tomb" through "competent swordfighters and spellslingers save the villages". I was wondering what aspects of 5th ed's early levels you felt actually supported that style of play well, or what houserules you might have that facilitate it. Sorry, I thought that I was being mocked a little (as in "how could you possibly enjoy it") and I overreacted in response. 18 years on this site in particular will do that I suppose! I do think the system is salvageable with work and the high player base is nice, but I guess I'm kind of embarrassed about playing it because of how rough it is. Having enemies do threatening things other than weapon attack helps at the lower levels. Maybe a zombie grapples instead of attacks. Maybe a hungry goblin goes for the rations in your backpack instead of an attack. The bandit is more interested in making off with your coin pouch or water skin than killing you. The barbarian tries to push you over or trip you or kick you down before he tries to finish you, and succeeds but his attention is drawn away when another party member charges him. One of the goblins is too cowardly to charge you so chucks a rock instead. Turning the enemy attacks into a trickle while still having them present and being creepy or threatening helps with characters not getting swarmed and pummeled to death in between turns. One zombie makes its entrance dropping down and landing face first like in Resident Evil, or one zombie rushes while the other one takes its time because it's less hungry or more crusty than the other, making their presence known but not all being an immediate threat at once. Not all of the blights attack at once, but only the ones that can't reach the fresh corpse that the others are sopping up the blood from. A bandit or goblin runs for help from a nearby group while the others engage you. Reducing damage and hit probabilities with worse weapons or playing around with the stats. Maybe the bandit scimitars are -1 or 1d4 because they're in poor condition. Or maybe the leader of the group accosting you is the only real Monster Manual "Bandit" and the others are armed "Commoners" (or just 8 HP, 10s across the board instead of bothering to look it up) It's drat tough, it's swingy, and the game doesn't give you any guidelines for it, but mainly anything that turns fights into something other than characters being surrounded and beaten up before they get a turn without directly reducing the enemy count can make it seem exciting without too much danger. edit: That said, obviously this isn't stuff supported by the rules specifically, you just sort of have to think as a GM about what could create drama without direct and immediate harm, and think about what kind of threatening things creatures can do other than swinging weapons edit 2: The threat of monsters as an obvious lose state forcing the players into tense non-combat challenges is also a thing. While exploring a tomb, the players are attacked by a pair of skeletons that rise from a pile of bones. The players easily win with a few nicks and scratches... but the sound of combat wakes up a huge loving nest of giant spiders! The swarm cuts off their escape route, forcing the players to flee in another direction. While fleeing, the characters manage to slam a crusty old door behind them and find themselves in a chamber with no obvious way out while the spiders try to beat down the door. How will the characters get out of this one? A little bit of theatrics and maybe a gentle reminder that their adventurer's intuition tells them that they don't think they'll make it out of a fight with the swarm can go a long way. But it won't happen on its own if you just rules as written have the players advance from one room to the next fighting discrete groups of enemies one at a time. BattleMaster fucked around with this message at 00:36 on Feb 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 00:07
|
|
|
Also for actual mechanical things, I think that rolling and using the Monster Manual average damage if the roll is higher can limit the deadliness early on. If you want, you can try to hide it from the players so the feeling of risk isn't lessened, but some people don't favor fudging rolls. It may also be fair to let players have the full HP die or the average value instead of rolling during a short rest since you only get one or two and it sucks to whiff the roll. Keep short rests to 5 minutes; even if you don't keep track of time, making it clear that they aren't just having a nap inside a dungeon, hideout, or fortress and that they're just catching your breath, taking a swig from a water skin, and bandaging minor wounds can help keep the feeling that they're not super safe and cozy while still getting the mechanical benefits. Also consider having the next fight starts when someone or something walks in on the players during the rest - they still get the benefits but shows that they weren't completely safe and can add an element of "oh poo poo" to it. I haven't tried it yet but if you want the players to face many enemies, or if they contrive themselves into such a situation, the DMG has guidelines for reducing things into an average number of hits which puts a but of a cap on the total per-turn damage. But it's still going to be a bunch of slight of hand and theatrics to keep the players feeling like they're in danger without being too harsh.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 01:18
|
|
|
Narsham posted:Using milestones is a way to speed advancement a bit and I recommend it.
It's a little looser than just leveling every up every few sessions, since sometimes things go awry, but it seems to scratch the itch of working towards measurable progress in multiple ways while still assuring forward momentum. It's also lead my players to seek more creative solutions to certain problems than just killing everything, since they're not rewarded with EXP no matter how many goblins they kill.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 01:22
|
|
|
My DM needed to make custom monsters to challenge us at level 17, because nothing in the MM could scratch us. He had us fight three extremely OP homebrewed demons, each of which had 600 HP and super loving strong legendary actions that they could do 3 times in a round. They took like 4 hours to kill because every turn was so goddamn long at that point but weren't especially challenging. The final boss was 3 level 20 characters because nothing else could pose a threat to us
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 01:34
|
|
|
Bad Seafood posted:As a recent convert to milestone leveling, I've worked out the following system that seems to work well for my players: I feel like this is a lot of work for system that's supposed to be the DM shrugging and going "I guess you level up now."
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 02:23
|
|
|
Not really, though you needn't bother either way if that's not how your table turns. I came up with the whole system one afternoon on my way home from work. You draft (or crib) your quests and dungeons as normal, then ask yourself "How many milestones is this worth? Is there anything extra they could do for more?" Then you run the game and the party comes together to do something spiffy and you say "Nice work; here's a milestone for that." Some people like the incremental process, some people don't. I've gamed with all sorts, sometimes in the same group, so I tend to try and devise halfway systems that satisfy both parties. There are always simpler solutions if that's what your group wants. Sometimes everyone wants to calculate ration consumption and weigh limits. My group doesn't so I mostly handwave that stuff unless they're traveling through a desert or trying to pocket a statue, but I've known groups who want the minutiae. EDIT: I also have some new players who are still learning the game and stick to the rails. I've found this system has been positive in coaxing them out of the plot to pursue their own goals, when they so desire. Sometimes just telling somebody "You can just do what you want," "You can develop your character in this way" takes a little extra incentivizing. Bad Seafood fucked around with this message at 02:57 on Feb 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 02:46
|
|
|
Tracking a number of milestones until leveling seems like defeating the whole point of using milestones instead of XP, but whatever floats your boat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 03:08
|
|
|
There are still people out there who prefer gaining XP so I could see something like that as a middle ground between XP and levelling up as appropriate that makes players who insist on it feel like they're earning something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 03:50
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:There are still people out there who prefer gaining XP so I could see something like that as a middle ground between XP and levelling up as appropriate that makes players who insist on it feel like they're earning something. Yep, you can have people who object to something like "2 story beats followed by subplot climax, level up" be perfectly fine with "3 milestones per level" (and people who object to the entire concept of milestone leveling who will never ever notice that you're handing them xp and it just so happens that they get handed two chunks of xp without leveling and then level the third time they get a chunk of xp). e: Also thank you for your effort post earlier and the reason I always ask the question is because there's still always a chance that I'll see a new-to-me idea. BattleMaster posted:I think that rolling and using the Monster Manual average damage if the roll is higher can limit the deadliness early on. And I'd never heard that one before. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 04:19 on Feb 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 04:14
|
|
|
Wrapped up my 1-20th level campaign tonight. For the first fight of the night I surprised my players. We use these tokens to track legendary saves for monsters. For 20 levels the players were used to bosses getting three of those things. Tonight for a kraken fight I put them out like normal, then took away the tokens from the monster and gave 1 to each player instead. "Now the monsters aren't legendary. They don't get those anymore. You do." That was a hit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 04:32
|
|
|
ritorix posted:Wrapped up my 1-20th level campaign tonight. Nice. How did you run the high level fights? Did you tweak things at all?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 04:39
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:Nice. 20th level is basically a victory lap. The kraken fight was pretty straightforward. It ate someone, grappled everyone else, still died. Krakens are neat with the tentacle/throw/swallow mechanics, shame they are such a high CR, I bet they never get used. After that I ran Orcus (reflavored as a major story NPC), with one change. I had each hit from him cross off a death save, if 3 are gone you're dead. Finally something that scared high-level PCs. One PC dropped that way. Might seem harsh but at 20th, death is a speed bump. Not-Orcus also tried a time stop that got counterspelled by a good roll. Last fight of the night and campaign was a big aerial battle. Some PCs were riding a dragon, others flying under various means. Some had summoned pets, one had a pit fiend ally (their warlock pact, now they controlled the fiend instead of the other way around). All that against an ancient silver, a solar angel and an NPC sorcerer. The silver dragon paralyze-breathed some of the PCs and their allies, including their dragon. It failed, fell and died, PCs flew on with their backup potions of flight. Then the sorc pulled off a meteor swarm to wipe out more minions and deal a ton of damage, but it didn't get a second turn - it was suddenly left alone as the silver dragon was Hurled Through Hell. Coolest ability in the game. Anyway, fun campaign. After the battles were done we wrapped things up with an epilogue of sorts. By the end, some of the (evil!) PCs had transformed from mortals to devils and ruled a new chunk of land in the hells. Another, our warlock, finally 'escaped' their pact with a devil by killing it and diving into the abyss, attempting to become a new demon lord. ritorix fucked around with this message at 06:08 on Feb 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 05:59
|
|
|
Tetracube posted:My DM needed to make custom monsters to challenge us at level 17, because nothing in the MM could scratch us. There's a bunch of ways to construct challenging high-level encounters, but really that should be entirely secondary in a well-built campaign. Legendary heroes should have bigger problems than a combat encounter. In one of my past campaigns, the heroes were high-level saviors of an ancient elven kingdom whose king had been recently assassinated. The rules of the constitutional monarchy triggered an election: the king's son was a candidate, but too young for the throne, and he had been either convinced or coerced by the high priest of War into putting him forward as regent. The high priest was human, and just happened to have a horde of barnarians under his command travelling through the kingdom "to assist with the ongoing conflict". The other candidate was the elven Great Druid, who several PCs suspected may have sold out some of his people to a lich and murdered others to cover it up. Because the PCs were legends, their endorsements would decide the election results. It took probably four hours of debate in-character to make the initial decision, and it was probably six months real time before everyone was convinced they'd made the right decision. Make the PCs responsible and you can drive secondary campaigns out of such decisions. The same group ended up beside the high priest of War facing a Beholder deity and many of her minions, the other side on a great war with the elven kingdom that had continued on and off for thousands of years. One of their allies promptly joined the other side (a betrayal some had been anticipating), only to declare that he wanted to broker a lasting peace on behalf of the Beholder god, who offered to take her loyal minions and beholder army into exile on an alternate Prime where she promised to mend her ways. Enough of the PCs were concerned about the consequences of the deal as eventually struck that they chose to send a secondary group of PCs to the alternate Prime after a few months to see how things were going. Combat effectiveness wasn't a factor in either of those situations, aside from putting the PCs in a position to reshape the world. And those decisions and their consequences could only be aided by magic or skills, not determined by them. These are the real challenges for epic PCs: not whether they can do something, but whether they should.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 06:09
|
|
|
Narsham posted:There's a bunch of ways to construct challenging high-level encounters, but really that should be entirely secondary in a well-built campaign. Legendary heroes should have bigger problems than a combat encounter. Right thats cool and all and sounds great but none of that interacts with the game mechanics in any way and could have occurred in almost any system. The vast bulk of D&D's mechanics are involved in combat so its why people are really looking for solutions to make high level use of the mechanics work and be entertaining, challenging and engaging. It feels like your suggestion for high level games is to just stop playing D&D and instead just freeform roleplay. kingcom fucked around with this message at 06:22 on Feb 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 06:19
|
|
|
The problem with all of this is that, I really do believe, high level play isn't popular because people just don't wanna be that high level. Generally people want semi-low-fantasy adventures of stopping fun baddies in medium stakes challenges and big fights against a single boss dragon, with wizards that throw fireballs and fighters that actually are mighty enough to stand against their foes with naught but good steel and skill. High level fantasy with all it's shapeshifting and flying about and just it's overall general gonzo qualities that high level D&D gets may as well be an entirely different game with different themes - and the fact that it isn't is one of the reasons it's always done so poorly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 06:49
|
|
|
What would be the best class for specializing in thrown weapons? I like the idea of a character that has a pack of javelins and/or tridents. Maybe a net or two for fun. So far I think phb Ranger sucks, UA Ranger seems kinda neat, and I feel like fighter focuses a bit too much on melee. I just have phb currently, so maybe there's a subclass that works better? Maybe something silly like a DM letting a blade pact warlock repeatedly throw and summon a weapon like Thor?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 07:11
|
|
|
Consider asking the DM for a Javelin of Lightning, a magic javelin that can turn into a 5 foot wide, 120 foot long lightning bolt that does 4d6 damage to its target if it hits and the same damage (half if they make a DC 13 dex save) to every target along the way. You only get to do it once per day, but it's only an uncommon-rarity weapon so it shouldn't be too much to ask for, considering what casters get to do just for existing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 08:53
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:The problem with all of this is that, I really do believe, high level play isn't popular because people just don't wanna be that high level. Generally people want semi-low-fantasy adventures of stopping fun baddies in medium stakes challenges and big fights against a single boss dragon, with wizards that throw fireballs and fighters that actually are mighty enough to stand against their foes with naught but good steel and skill. High level fantasy with all it's shapeshifting and flying about and just it's overall general gonzo qualities that high level D&D gets may as well be an entirely different game with different themes - and the fact that it isn't is one of the reasons it's always done so poorly. The most fun I can remember having in 3E is like 15-30 because you can just bend the game to your will. Like it's not a good game but for lol stories it's the best. Player 1: That's the final boss? I cast Hold Monster. Me: That's probably not going to work, but you do you  DM: Evilthraax rolls a 1. Me: Ah. I cast Earthquake, since he now can't make a Reflex save. Earthquake: the end of the spell, all fissures grind shut, killing any creatures still trapped within. Everyone:  And so on. I still remember that story 12+ years later. I remember relatively few of the "start in the tavern and get siderailed because no one really wants to Magic Missile kobolds" sets.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 09:04
|
|
|
Nasgate posted:What would be the best class for specializing in thrown weapons? I like the idea of a character that has a pack of javelins and/or tridents. Maybe a net or two for fun. Fighter, Ranger, or Kensei Monk, and beg your DM for a Dwarven Thrower.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 12:43
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Fighter, Ranger, or Kensei Monk, and beg your DM for a Dwarven Thrower. Also ask your DM if they care about the object interaction rules, because RAW throwing more than 1 thing a turn basically doesn't work (without something like the Dwarven Thrower). It's a stupid set of rules that lots of people gloss over though, for good reason.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 14:53
|
|
|
I'm about to run a new 5E campaign off of meetup.com, and I'm getting nervous about one of the dudes. Everyone else has a profile pic, 30+ professional looking types. This one dude has a Goku avatar, asks me questions in weird grammar, asks to create a samurai named Master Shedder [sic] for a Faerun campaign. His twitch user name is something like JewBot420. I don't know if he's 12, some sort of irony bro, or just touched in the head. My gut instinct is to tell him this isn't going to work, but I guess the more mature thing is to just let him show up and see how it goes. Problem is, I'm hosting at my house, so I don't want to start any drama with some stranger. Maybe I'm just overreacting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 15:43
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:There are still people out there who prefer gaining XP so I could see something like that as a middle ground between XP and levelling up as appropriate that makes players who insist on it feel like they're earning something. The solution to this is to let them track their exp normally then when you feel like leveling just tell them that they gain amount of exp equal to the difference of thief current exp total and the value they need to level. If they ask for how much exp they get after doing a thing just give them a number that seems reasonable for the encounter but on the low side.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 15:43
|
|
|
ElGroucho posted:I'm about to run a new 5E campaign off of meetup.com, and I'm getting nervous about one of the dudes. Listen to your gut before you invite him to your house.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 15:56
|
|
|
ElGroucho posted:I'm about to run a new 5E campaign off of meetup.com, and I'm getting nervous about one of the dudes. Yeah no, don't let this guy in, he is exactly what you think he is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 16:11
|
|
|
ElGroucho posted:I'm about to run a new 5E campaign off of meetup.com, and I'm getting nervous about one of the dudes. :nope: x1000
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 16:11
|
|
|
People being "ironic" are never actually ironic. They're just terrible in a slightly different way than they're trying to portray.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 16:27
|
|
|
ElGroucho posted:I'm about to run a new 5E campaign off of meetup.com, and I'm getting nervous about one of the dudes. So the pro tip for meeting people off the internet no matter how much you might like them, no matter what the reason might be, is to meet them in a public place for a first meeting. Ask him to go for coffee to talk over character creation or something. You don't need a safety call, presuming you're a dude, but it's still an exceptionally good idea to meet in public first and see if the person in question is good or bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 16:31
|
|
|
Arivia posted:So the pro tip for meeting people off the internet no matter how much you might like them, no matter what the reason might be, is to meet them in a public place for a first meeting. Ask him to go for coffee to talk over character creation or something. You don't need a safety call, presuming you're a dude, but it's still an exceptionally good idea to meet in public first and see if the person in question is good or bad. Lesson learned for next time. If I don't post next week, assume some deranged anime fan attacked me for not letting him play as Yufi or whatever the hell.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 16:43
|
|
|
ElGroucho posted:Lesson learned for next time. If I don't post next week, assume some deranged anime fan attacked me for not letting him play as Yufi or whatever the hell. No. You can still change this right now. If you're not comfortable, you don't owe him an opportunity to play. You ESPECIALLY don't owe him an invitation to your house. Either redirect to a public space to assess, or just make a clean break. Don't let yourself get caught up in social anxiety and fallacies; you deserve to be safe and comfortable in your own house, and in the game you're running. It's doing yourself and your other players a disservice - having this guy if he's bad is going to impact everything else negatively.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 16:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 00:06 |
|
|
I had a similar experience in an online game and made the mistake of not hitting the abort button soon enough. It's a red flag when someone has English as their first language and still seems to be slamming their keyboard instead of typing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 16:50
|
|