|
kidkissinger posted:Strongly disagree, those examples are all basically taking autonomy from the players which is lovely. Having NPCs come to incorrect conclusions about the players based on rumors seems completely fair game and a reasonable obstacle to offer the party imo. I mean the above as a joke, as in "these are things that PCs will violently and explosively react to", not as actual things that bad GMs will do.
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2019 21:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 12:14 |
|
|
Whybird posted:I mean the above as a joke, as in "these are things that PCs will violently and explosively react to", not as actual things that bad GMs will do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2019 22:51
|
|
|
Tricking the players is fine imo, you just need to be honest with it so they can discover the deception if they're clever. Killing the family is ehh, just sort of lame (though threatening them is reasonable, if something you might talk to the player about first idk)
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2019 23:27
|
|
|
Sanford posted:Trip report rather than question, but I just dropped a "newspaper" into our shared group chat and every article ends with an anonymous source slating the Desert Watch, my players chosen faction: Giant silver war robots? Plague victims being shipped to technologically advanced Dwarves? I wonder if you could power robots with plague victim souls? I mean it's not that evil cos they're gonna die anyway.....
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2019 09:37
|
|
|
AceClown posted:Giant silver war robots? Plague victims being shipped to technologically advanced Dwarves? The price for eternal salvation is one century servitude in the war machines.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2019 13:18
|
|
|
Last night drew my game to a standstill for 20 minutes when they were presented with the following options at the end of a scenario involving collecting a ton of ingredients: 1d20+5 - "go for it and use all of your materials" 1d20+2 with advantage - "go for it, but save yourself enough to try again if you gently caress it up the first time" 3d6+5 - "play it safe, don't try to win but make sure you have a solid showing" Phones and laptops were banned once the options were revealed to avoid anyone just putting it into anydice%.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2019 13:35
|
|
|
Nephzinho posted:Last night drew my game to a standstill for 20 minutes when they were presented with the following options at the end of a scenario involving collecting a ton of ingredients: I'd take the 3d6+5 over the other two options any day, but that's just because whenever I need to roll well I usually get like, a 2 or a 3. e: unless i'm running a game, then I usually crit everyone when they're on the verge of death.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2019 14:52
|
|
|
Nephzinho posted:Last night drew my game to a standstill for 20 minutes when they were presented with the following options at the end of a scenario involving collecting a ton of ingredients: D20+5 gently caress it, go in balls deep and leeroy jenkins that poo poo, no fun story starts with "play it safe"
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2019 14:58
|
|
|
Context was entering a chili competition, which they roughly knew was "fixed", but they knew being a finalist/finishing high would at least increase their fame even if they didn't win the grand prize that refitted their entire kitchen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2019 15:04
|
|
|
Nephzinho posted:Last night drew my game to a standstill for 20 minutes when they were presented with the following options at the end of a scenario involving collecting a ton of ingredients: As a person with actual problems regarding numbers is there any particular reason you banned putting it in anydice? My gut feeling is that if your descriptions are accurate then it shouldn't matter and if they aren't then you're just lying to them or you hosed up which option rolls what. I would be fine with you just saying "these are the options, what do you do" and not telling them the dice involved, but telling them and then going "no calculators" seems mean.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2019 15:55
|
|
|
EthanSteele posted:As a person with actual problems regarding numbers is there any particular reason you banned putting it in anydice? My gut feeling is that if your descriptions are accurate then it shouldn't matter and if they aren't then you're just lying to them or you hosed up which option rolls what. I would be fine with you just saying "these are the options, what do you do" and not telling them the dice involved, but telling them and then going "no calculators" seems mean. One of them is a mathematics professor and I told him the numbers explicitly to be mean. The rest of the table only paid attention to the Feelings.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2019 16:35
|
|
|
Dang you should lead with that next time!
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2019 16:41
|
|
|
Nephzinho posted:Last night drew my game to a standstill for 20 minutes when they were presented with the following options at the end of a scenario involving collecting a ton of ingredients: I'd just go for the RP options, the best of these averages is not even better than the others by more than one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2019 16:48
|
|
|
The first and last one have the same average result with higher/lower variance. I can't remember how to calculate the advantage one though
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2019 16:49
|
|
|
Ignite Memories posted:The first and last one have the same average result with higher/lower variance. I can't remember how to calculate the advantage one though
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2019 16:58
|
|
|
Yawgmoth posted:So they're basically all the same average with different distributions. This was the point. Once the mathematician realized this he got up and walked away from the table. It was one of the least productive but most entertaining digressions we've had at the table. Other background: this table rolls a TON of natural 1's. Like, regularly roll them 2-3 times in a row. So being able to dodge a single bad roll was pretty big bait for them. Replacing 1d20 with 3d6 is one of their favorite keywords that is found on items in this campaign. e; Other other background: the last time the head chef prepared a dish with a straight d20 roll he bombed it and this was presented as RP of "is he in his head and playing it safe, or is he just putting it behind him and going for it". Nephzinho fucked around with this message at 17:22 on Jul 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2019 17:19
|
|
|
The middle seems by far the best, it's 4 rolls +2 take the best.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2019 21:40
|
|
|
I think the advantage represents the taking another shot at it so its just the 2d20 drop lowest +2. Otherwise yeah that one is the best by far from what I can figure out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2019 21:49
|
|
|
Yes, the second attempt was the advantage part of the roll. e; It was a contest, they wanted to get as high as possible to win, or a "good showing" if they wanted to just get some publicity and not embarass themselves. No set DC. Nephzinho fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Jul 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2019 21:54
|
|
|
If you need a DC 19 or less check, the middle option is best, otherwise the top option is best. It's not even close for the 3d6 option unless the DC is below 15, where it's still not the best, but it's closer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2019 21:55
|
|
|
EthanSteele posted:I think the advantage represents the taking another shot at it so its just the 2d20 drop lowest +2. Otherwise yeah that one is the best by far from what I can figure out. Oh, I gotcha.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2019 03:04
|
|
|
New poster, newish GM, but advice is required. I'm not really sure how to run a "players arrive in a city and try to find specific information" type scene. In summary, the players are chasing an NPC kidnapper and his child captive into a city (It's Neverwinter, but that's neither here nor there). The backstory the characters don't know is that the kidnapper is a mercenary hired by an important lord. The players are arriving in the city some 12-24 (or 48+) hours after the mercenary. I expect them to "ask around" to try to find out where the kidnapper has gone, as they chase their target. I want this interaction to be more detailed than just "roll a DC20 insight check to see if you find out the information" and I'm happy for it to be complex in terms of street merchants, theives dens, brothels, underlord run-arounds as much as possible, but not really sure how to start (or signify) the complexity of the issue when the players first step foot into the city. I'd love some advice and hints on beginning these interactions. Maybe I'm just worrying too much and that once I describe the situation, the players will come up with their own ways, but if they don't, how do I hint?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2019 12:59
|
|
|
Is there anything the mercenary would have to get once in Neverwinter, like medicine for the child? Is there any kind of famous inn or something that caters mercenaries or adventurers? You could also have the city guard, or a benevolent society, that is looking after wayward children and orphans. I guess if I didn't have any other leads and I was your player, I'd start with all the ways in and out of the city, including smuggling points, and canvas those locations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2019 13:26
|
|
|
Forum Joe posted:New poster, newish GM, but advice is required. Don’t use any skill checks, or at least go heavy into Fail Forward stuff. You don’t want to have no adventure if they roll bad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2019 13:52
|
|
|
You could always just come up with the answers to the puzzles and then whatever they come up with for where to look, oh wouldn't you know it, that is where the clue was this whole time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2019 14:02
|
|
|
Agreed on the Fail Forward. For clarity, this means that when a character rolls a skill check, they're not rolling to see whether or not the plot moves forward but to see whether it moves forward in a way that advantages or disadvantages them For example, if they go to the Watch, tell them about their mission, and ask for leads, then a failure would not mean "The officer gives you no leads". It would mean "The officer is working for the kidnapper, so he gives you false leads that take you into an ambush (where you have the opportunity to pick up some real leads from the people you take alive).
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2019 14:34
|
|
|
This is unrelated, so I don't want to barge in, but I would be curious if anyone has had similar experiences. In fantasy role-playing games (D&D, et. al.), there always seem to be incidental phrases like "this spell effect ignites flammable items." A discussion was struck up among my playgroup about whether 'flammable' here means "capable of being burned" (clothes, carried wooden items) or "intended to be burned" (oil, tinder.) I generally prefer the latter. From a game balance standpoint, attaching an effect that forces a character to extinguish themselves feels bad. It's also sort of cartoonish. But at the same time, there's certainly some joy in a goblin being sent off ablaze with arms flailing over head.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2019 16:45
|
|
|
Whybird posted:Agreed on the Fail Forward. For clarity, this means that when a character rolls a skill check, they're not rolling to see whether or not the plot moves forward but to see whether it moves forward in a way that advantages or disadvantages them Does anyone ever have players that don't like the game world changing on a roll like this? I feel like my group would prefer a failure to be "he has the leads BUT..." rather than "since you failed he is in on it".
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2019 17:01
|
|
|
Jack B Nimble posted:Does anyone ever have players that don't like the game world changing on a roll like this? I feel like my group would prefer a failure to be "he has the leads BUT..." rather than "since you failed he is in on it". Yeah but you don't tell them that. My game world changes on a roll all the time; as far as my players know it's still the same world & plot I had in my head when I first said "hey, want to play D&D?".
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2019 17:28
|
|
|
But they say "I roll gather information...three  " and then you say "he totally tells you where to meet him later". I'm exaggerating and you could be a lot smarter about it but...won't they figure it out? Them buying into it as a mechanic I can see, but them falling for it for long, not so much.Edit: if the roll was a general canvass and not a direct questioning, which is more what would probably happen with gather information, than this makes a lot more sense: their clumsy investigations alert a co conspirator. Ok, I was just thinking about it wrong. Jack B Nimble fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Jul 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2019 17:34
|
|
|
Or say it is a direct questioning. He tells them exactly what he knows, but the error means that someone else in the police station overhears what he's saying and sets up an ambush. Or it means the police captain tells them what he knows, but he was wrong and did not have good information. They show up to the alley to find an ambush instead of a real lead, or they show up to find some thugs who want to bribe them to go elsewhere (the thugs were expecting to meet some corrupt guards they could buy off). The real issue is if your players meta-game and roll a 3 and then decide they cannot believe what they're told. (Roll 3, guard captain gives them a lead, they decide not to follow it because they rolled a 3.) That probably requires a conversation with the party about how you're running the game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2019 17:45
|
|
|
Don't tell them, "You failed", even if they didn't roll well. You can look at the 3 they rolled and say, "All he'll tell you is to meet him under the bridge after dark and he'll tell you more then" and then it sounds like they're still getting the info but they missed out on the bonus of getting it right away.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2019 18:47
|
|
|
Jack B Nimble posted:Does anyone ever have players that don't like the game world changing on a roll like this? I feel like my group would prefer a failure to be "he has the leads BUT..." rather than "since you failed he is in on it". "We try to persuade the informant to spill the beans" *rolls 3* "When he understands what you want from him he bolts (*chase sequence*) or perhaps he demands compensation or a favour first.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2019 19:52
|
|
|
Or for any roll where them seeing the result of the roll could tip them off, you just roll behind the GM screen so that they cannot see the result. Some people don't like to obscure rolls this way (because it also lets you just fudge the roll) but it is an option.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2019 20:00
|
|
|
I've been thinking of a little bottle adventure of sorts: The adventurers stumble upon (perhaps they seek shelter from bad weather, or is tasked with delivering mail since they're going in that direction etc.) a fancy halfling burrow. Like the equivalent of a mansion or a summer residence for a wealthy halfling lord. They find the place seemingly abandoned, and decide to investigate/seek shelter/burglarize it for supplies or silverware... Only to find the burrow inhabited by halfling ghouls and zombies! I basically started thinking about undead halflings and found the idea hilarious and creepy, but I am not sure how to make it compelling. Perhaps the lord tried to get something or someONE back via occult means and hosed up? Anyone have any fun ideas or twists?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2019 20:12
|
|
|
Ceros_X posted:Or for any roll where them seeing the result of the roll could tip them off, you just roll behind the GM screen so that they cannot see the result. Some people don't like to obscure rolls this way (because it also lets you just fudge the roll) but it is an option. You could also roll after their roll to "see if he'll talk" and act like you rolled poo poo and he got "persuaded".
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2019 20:12
|
|
|
ovenboy posted:I've been thinking of a little bottle adventure of sorts: The adventurers stumble upon (perhaps they seek shelter from bad weather, or is tasked with delivering mail since they're going in that direction etc.) a fancy halfling burrow. Like the equivalent of a mansion or a summer residence for a wealthy halfling lord. They find the place seemingly abandoned, and decide to investigate/seek shelter/burglarize it for supplies or silverware... Only to find the burrow inhabited by halfling ghouls and zombies! I basically started thinking about undead halflings and found the idea hilarious and creepy, but I am not sure how to make it compelling. Perhaps the lord tried to get something or someONE back via occult means and hosed up? Anyone have any fun ideas or twists? An idea I'm fond of that doesn't seem to get a lot of play in undead focused adventures is the idea of rather than intentionally raised, the undead are a result of some terrible sin that lead to them getting cursed, or just so disgusted that they can't rest any more. Maybe one of the youngest of the lord's children tried to kill all of the heirs ahead of him, and then hid the act by blaming his younger sister but this act was so heinous that it resulted in the murdered family returning as vengeful dead who killed everyone, and who can only be pacified by helping them come to terms with their awful fates. Alternatively, the house itself could be a genius loci that traps people inside it and raises them to serve it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2019 20:23
|
|
|
Jack B Nimble posted:Does anyone ever have players that don't like the game world changing on a roll like this? I feel like my group would prefer a failure to be "he has the leads BUT..." rather than "since you failed he is in on it". The scenario I was envisioning was that the person they speak to is always in on it, but their roll determines whether they're more motivated by their duty as a guard or the kidnapper's influence over them. Re your second question -- if a player is rolling for something, their character's ability to notice they're being played is included in that roll. Their character doesn't know they rolled a 3. If the player has a hard time with that, just take over the narration entirely and come back in at the point they walk into an ambush.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2019 20:28
|
|
|
A couple of problems: The answer to this is "talk to the player," but before doing that I'd like some other opinions. DnD 5e and the most tactically minded player just took a wizard level and got an owl familiar, which he basically uses as a drone to see what's over every hill and around every corner. I get it, that's smart-I think he has PTSD from a murderous Strahd campaign- do your cool new thing, but it kind of ruins my fun and makes my life hard. Not knowing what's on the other side of that hill is a big driver of suspense and tension that suddenly is gone. Once a hawk killed the familiar on one of it's flights, but it's just a ritual with basically no downside consequences, and 'oops another hungry hawk' starts feeling real contrived real fast. Looking back at 3.x and 2e, both had much more serious consequences for losing your familiar (can't resummon for a week in 3.x and save vs death and still lose 1 con if you save in 2e. Man 2e magic was alot more fun), and you couldn't see through the familiar's eyes. I've probably been to helpful with the telepathic link beyond 100,' but I'm thinking of houseruling in some of the 3.x/2e flavor to make them not so expendable. Is this reasonable? What other, more fun options haven't I thought about? The other is my players are probably about to be involved in a big battle between a fey army, a half orc army, and a human army. They are planning to convince the fey and humans to work together to beat the hobgoblins, and then the PCs will wipe up whoever is left-all the armies are trying to capture the little town that's adopted them. They stand a decent chance of convincing them to work together, but I don't think it will be a long lasting alliance. What are some cool and weird flavor things about a fey army? What, if anything, should I do about mass combat? Totally abstract it, maybe with a few little fights the PCs get into? Give them some mission to hunt down X or stop Y (Any ideas of those missions?) Party of 4 6th lvl PCs. They also, on scant evidence, have decided the ruling council of the city the human army is from is run completely by wererats, and they consequently trust nobody from there. There was a single wererat on the council, but it was never my intention that they were all wererats. Run with it? Just let them be wrong?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 00:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 12:14 |
|
|
Kaiser Schnitzel posted:A couple of problems: To the first, as you've said, obviously talk it out with the player no matter what you choose to do, but I do think having some kind of penalty for losing a familiar is reasonable. I think the weeklong cooldown on summoning is probably fine on it's own; it lets the loss of a familiar sting for the immediate adventure while still being ultimately recoverable. Another response you could have is to just have them learn that the local bandits/orcs/whatever else is in the territory have started spreading rumors about a "death owl" because so many of them die after seeing one in flight, so now they've taken to putting bounties out on owls to thin their numbers (which can have knock on effects on the local ecology, if the group enjoys that kind of thing.) I'm not as sure about how fey are handled in 5e, but if you wanted to go dark with them you could show them having mixed units of non-local monsters and sapients who wandered into the fey kingdoms and became enthralled. Make sure to describe them as having a glassy-eyed, but contented countenance. They're all wererats, but they're willing to work with the players to keep the human army from attacking their (the players') town because they want the army stationed somewhere else that will better serve their interests.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 00:50
|
|