|
Yeah honestly humor is like the only way to keep hell from being super grimdark. If that's what you like that's cool but there's already like a half dozen better systems and settings that do that.
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 02:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 06:16 |
|
|
Also silly as Lulu is, she is very useful.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 07:16
|
|
|
Is there any decent workaround to how she parcels out the story bit by bit to make it feel more natural? edit: Like less "oh and I just remembered a new thing" and more X naturally flowing into Y Nehru the Damaja fucked around with this message at 11:14 on Nov 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 10:21
|
|
|
Hey, I wondered if there is any way to make the players go along with something without having them do really meta stuff to completely avoid it. Such as refusing to sleep without armor and such. I ask this because at some point I was thinking of having my PCs join for a feast. They will slowly but surely realize that something is wrong. The problem is I think they will meta that stuff pretty hard I think and I don't entirely blame them. "You are asked to give in your armor and weapons and to adorn fine clothing." -Rognar never goes anywhere without his axe and considers his chest hair sufficient -I try to persuade him to let me keep my walking stick -Vilnar hides a knife in his new clothes "At the table, you see turkey, roast beef, glazed ribs, exotic fruits, and fine bread." -Vilnar is not hungry -Rodrik tries everything before anyone else (Paladin) -Rognar only eats animals he has hunted himself I want to set a creepy tone while having the players go along with it. Making them paranoid until a ghoul attack happens later in the night while having a private conversation with someone about certain incidents.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 23:57
|
|
|
Midig posted:Hey, I wondered if there is any way to make the players go along with something without having them do really meta stuff to completely avoid it. Such as refusing to sleep without armor and such. I ask this because at some point I was thinking of having my PCs join for a feast. They will slowly but surely realize that something is wrong. The problem is I think they will meta that stuff pretty hard I think and I don't entirely blame them. If the players are picking up the hints that you've put down, then you've done your job correctly and well, and if they're rewarded later for their caution now, then that's a satisfying success on their end. Personally, I think they've done a good and reasonable job meeting the challenge while playing along with the intent of the story, instead of hardballing and completely refusing to disrobe or disarm. I mean, they've complied enough to satisfy the venue security, they've sat down at the table, and they're making an effort to at least appear reasonable to the other diners and avoid making a scene, so I'd say they're already "going along" with your story, and to a generous degree. Not going along with the story, I think, would be making a hard refusal to walking into the obvious trap. If your goal is to set a creepy tone and induce paranoia, then you've done a good job of it as a DM, and you should consider their cautious compliance as proof of your successful storytelling.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 00:12
|
|
|
Midig posted:Hey, I wondered if there is any way to make the players go along with something without having them do really meta stuff to completely avoid it. Such as refusing to sleep without armor and such. I ask this because at some point I was thinking of having my PCs join for a feast. They will slowly but surely realize that something is wrong. The problem is I think they will meta that stuff pretty hard I think and I don't entirely blame them. Well there's a few ways of doing it. One is just to start out the adventure session with the assumption that the characters have joined the festival without treating it like a battlefield, and therefore don't have their equipment from the outset. It would probably be simplest, whether or not you also bring in other elements. Another option would be to have the players make appropriate rolls to guide their character's actions - some people can do this kind of roleplaying, and others really resist, so your mileage may vary. One last alternative would be having NPC characters react appropriately to the hostile actions of the party: If a group of strangers came to a dinner wearing full battle rattle and refused to share food or be friendly, I think it's fair to assume that everyone else would just assume that they're hostile and about to attack. This sort of thing probably works best if the players have some sort of motivation for why they want to have the dinner go well in the first place. Like say they're at the feast because it's part of a diplomatic summit they're taking part of in order to get something they want. It's three nights. The first night they're invited and presumably pull all their "I stuff my Battleaxe in my sock and dare anyone to say anything" hijinks, which result in the leadership calling them out and saying that they have no desire to treat with barbarians. The second night they can talk their way back in if they want and play along, or else approach the session in some other way if they're just refusing to comply - either way, the summit appears to be trending in the appropriate direction. The third night is when the Ghouls come out. As far as sleeping in armor goes, I'd also point out that Xanathar's Guide offers some optional rules to cover that eventuality, in the form of reducing the number of Hit Dice that are recovered during a Long Rest conducted in Medium or Heavy armor, and such uncomfortable rest not remedying Exhaustion. Forgoing sleep entirely similarly risks increasing your Exhaustion. Kaal fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Nov 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 00:14
|
|
|
Why are they there anyway? There are times adventurers will knowingly walk into a trap as part of a bigger plan. Like they know it’s not good but they have to play along to achieve a goal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 00:22
|
|
|
Kaal posted:One last alternative would be having NPC characters react appropriately to the hostile actions of the party: If a group of strangers came to a dinner wearing full battle rattle and refused to share food or be friendly, I think it's fair to assume that everyone else would just assume that they're hostile and about to attack. This sort of thing probably works best if the players have some sort of motivation for why they want to have the dinner go well in the first place. This was my first thought too. The Barbarian may be able to intimidate the doorman into letting him keep his weapon, but when a bare chested brute carrying a battle axe walks into the banquet hall you'd bet there'd be people scurrying to the edge of the room and surely at least one person would call the guards. If the rogue can hide his dagger in his clothing then more power to him, but if anyone notices it on him he'd be in real trouble. If the party is refusing to eat the food and by chance it does happen to be poisoned, then who is the suspicion going to fall on first? Maybe the strange people who came in and refused to eat any of the food? If they are attending the feast in order to curry favour with the host or some noble who is attending then breaking custom isn't going to make a good first impression. I agree with Lightrook that it's positive they are engaging with the world and trying to circumvent it in game, but the flip side of that is they have to live with the consequences.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 00:32
|
|
|
Figure out what you're trying to do. Figure out what your players want to do. If there's a mismatch, have a discussion about why there's a mismatch and what you're going to do about it. But for the scenarios you've given, you could really just let them have all of that and treat it as a listen to your players exercise. The sneaky guy wants to conceal a knife. That sounds... totally in character? Can you let him have it? If a fight starts and he snatches up a carving knife from the feast table is that going to be a problem? No? Then he had a concealed knife, so what? He doesn't need to roll, just let him feel cool, it's only a knife and it's not gonna be the only one in the room. It's probably not even the only concealed one in the room. Oh, and he's not gonna eat because he's paranoid about poisoned food? He's telling you about his past, make sure you follow up on that! Maybe nobody notices? Or if they do you might get a fun roleplay where he says he's fasting for religious reasons and then has to maintain the lie. The barbarian is not putting on a shirt for dinner? He's being uncivilised and not putting down his weapon? You don't say! Although I'm sure the duchess will not approve and might even sniff about it, can you let him have it? Some people might shrink away or get scared, others might be fascinated by this custom of going half-naked and heavily-armed to dinner (especially if he's ripped!), still others might know someone else from his tribe, or want to talk about steppe horses, or something. Barbarian has food taboos and won't eat anything he or his friends didn't hunt or gather? Cool, that's a character moment! He's telling you about the world, make sure you follow up on it! The wizard (or monk) asks if the guards will be so cruel as to separate an old man from his walking stick? Hahaha gently caress yeah I know what's gonna happen! So do you! So does he! Come the gently caress on, it's a genre staple! It's cheesy and fun and extremely dungeons and dragons! Paladin's gonna taste all the food first? In case... it's... cursed? That's gonna be a fun roleplay as they try to do it without looking like a weird nutjob.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 02:54
|
|
|
Is the paladin taste-testing stuff really that meta? I feel like if I had that power irl and was a diplomat in dangerous places i'd use the hell out of it
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 03:17
|
|
|
I mean that all sounds great, but there is definitely such a thing as players being overly genre-aware. Gandalf tricking his way into keeping his magic staff is fun. Him treating every moment with Saruman as a prelude to inevitable betrayal would be less so. Imagine if Gandalf's party with Bilbo just consisted of him sitting safely at a table in the corner, refusing to try any of the Hobbit's smokeleaf. Why'd he even bother attending? At a certain point, insisting that "my character refuses to take any risks and is always prepared for battle" stops actually being roleplaying. Kaal fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Nov 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 03:19
|
|
|
At the end of the day, though, DND is still a game about battle, any way you cut it. It's not an accident that combat is by far the most developed of the three pillars of gameplay, and people expect adventures to end in a direct and physical confrontation with the adventure's antagonist. If you insist on having your players disrobe and disarm before a social occasion, then you're implying that it will matter that they're unarmed and unarmored, i.e. a battle. If there's not going to be a mechanical consequence for having your players unprepared for battle, then what's the point of insisting your players are disarmed? Personally, I try to trim as many fiddly bits as possible from the game, and just assume everyone is good at being a greasy murderer hobo that's ready for battle at all time. I'm not looking to catch my players in any "gotcha" moments by having them leave their inn rooms in the nude because they didn't mention they stopped to don their armor, for example. Ultimately, though, players will focus on whatever you focus on, and if you bring to focus a certain mechanical consequence, then that's what the players will focus on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 03:38
|
|
|
Midig posted:Hey, I wondered if there is any way to make the players go along with something without having them do really meta stuff to completely avoid it. Such as refusing to sleep without armor and such. I ask this because at some point I was thinking of having my PCs join for a feast. They will slowly but surely realize that something is wrong. The problem is I think they will meta that stuff pretty hard I think and I don't entirely blame them. I'd suggest talking to them and letting them know that getting attacked while being disarmed isn't something that will happen often. It's possible they've had lovely DMs who used the fact that they were sleeping without armor or trying to attend social functions normally and punished them for it. Have you had stuff like feasts or social events occur in the past, and how have things gone? If it hasn't happened and the first time they do go they have a hard time because they disarmed themselves...they might start thinking "Okay, so we should always be prepared for enemies to attack us."
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 03:41
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I mean that all sounds great, but there is definitely such a thing as players being overly genre-aware. Being extremely genre aware is awesome, but it has to come from both sides of the table. If your players are being overcautious about genre stuff it's because they don't trust you to uphold your end. The GM and I both understand that Yueh "The Betrayer" Iscariox is definitely going to betray me. I'm waiting to see how the trick is done, and I'm confident that I'm not going be killed or even have a random chance of being killed (like with a save-or-die) without a chance to react and respond, because that's not how the genre works. The villain grandstands first, and probably even offers to let me join them. Or else I'll get fade-to-blacked (no save) and will wake up in a cell with a guard that is careless about the keys when they go for a smoke break (or thrown in the trash compactor that has an escape hatch and also a monster, or left for dead on a desert island with mysterious symbols on the palm trees, or something) and it'll be fun and cool. This is why communicating expectations is important and it's why I opened with that. I'm 100% happy to naively walk into the betrayal in character, but two things have to apply. 1) That has to be in character. 2) I have to know that the GM isn't going to instagib me with with their "clever" "hidden" "twist". Or in other words, if your players refuse to never be unprepared for battle, ask yourself what you've given them so far to make them behave like that. It's entirely possible that it wasn't even you, it was their last GM (or their first GM). It's on you to communicate that you're not that guy, and it's really easy to do. You just say so, and then follow through on it. Seriously. Just say "getting caught unprepared for a fight isn't a bad thing, I'm always going to be fair about it, there's the same chance of making it through as any other fight" and then make that true. And if you're reading that and going "that's not right, that's not how it works, of course they'll be at a disadvantage, muh realismilititude" then no loving poo poo they're never ever going to want to get caught unprepared and this shouldn't surprise you because you're the one that set the game up like that. Edit: Point 2, added "I have to know that" to the start, because that's the important part. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 04:10 on Nov 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 03:47
|
|
|
Heliotrope posted:I'd suggest talking to them and letting them know that getting attacked while being disarmed isn't something that will happen often. It's possible they've had lovely DMs who used the fact that they were sleeping without armor or trying to attend social functions normally and punished them for it. The GM is literally planning on attacking them while they're disarmed. quote:Making them paranoid until a ghoul attack happens later in the night while having a private conversation with someone about certain incidents.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 03:49
|
|
|
"Why do my players think I'm going to stab them?" I ask as I prepare to stab them
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 04:32
|
|
|
"My character might be a country bumpkin, but he always makes sure to check every square inch for traps, and readys an action to attack every person he sees, and also keeps an eye out for surprise attacks, and never eats suspicious food, and always sleeps with one eye open ready to spring into action. That's why they call me Commando Bilbo". "Your character is too suspicious to eat dinner with normal people and sits out the session so he can twitch at shadows".
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 04:53
|
|
|
Kaal posted:"My character might be a country bumpkin, but he always makes sure to check every square inch for traps, and readys an action to attack every person he sees, and also keeps an eye out for surprise attacks, and never eats suspicious food, and always sleeps with one eye open ready to spring into action. That's why they call me Commando Bilbo". Your players are acting like that because someone has continuously railroaded them into scenarios that they saw coming a mile away and didn't want to be in, but weren't allowed to avoid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 05:05
|
|
|
Piell posted:The GM is literally planning on attacking them while they're disarmed. Yeah, my question is "How have social functions turned out before?" Having an attack happen when you're disarmed isn't bad if it's something that happens very very rarely, but if you have things turn violent during social events all the time then of course the PCs are going to be suspicious. So I'm asking to to see if the PCs have ever been in a situation like this before.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 05:09
|
|
|
The issue is that the players dont really act like people in general so they dont expect to conform to the same norms as everyone else. Ive set up in the campaign im running a different rest system that limits short rests to a single hit die, long rests to using any hit die, that still regen, but not regaining HP automatically and a "true rest" that heals HP, recovers hitdie and also gives a temp HP bonus according to their character level. True resting requires no armour being worn and an actual comfortable resting area with cooked food. It somewhat forces the players into a more "normal" style of play but also giving them a reward for going for it. Has worked well so far.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 05:09
|
|
|
Kaal posted:"My character might be a country bumpkin, but he always makes sure to check every square inch for traps, and readys an action to attack every person he sees, and also keeps an eye out for surprise attacks, and never eats suspicious food, and always sleeps with one eye open ready to spring into action. That's why they call me Commando Bilbo". You joke, but I played in a campaign where a potentially evil noble was hosting a party that the PCs were all invited to. One player declared that his PC didn't like parties and spent the whole session hiding under the hay in a stall in the stables. Granted, the session was almost entirely a social conflict and neither the player nor the character were well suited for such things. Every so often the DM would move back out to the stable to see if he wanted to play that night or not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 05:18
|
|
|
Midig posted:Hey, I wondered if there is any way to make the players go along with something without having them do really meta stuff to completely avoid it. Such as refusing to sleep without armor and such. I ask this because at some point I was thinking of having my PCs join for a feast. They will slowly but surely realize that something is wrong. The problem is I think they will meta that stuff pretty hard I think and I don't entirely blame them. To be blunt, in addition to everything everyone else has said you'd get better results by not playing D&D. Fate for example would just let you throw fate points at them to accept disadvantages and, more importantly has ways of defeating the PCs where they won't die - so PCs do surrender in that situation. But to be honest the question at the feast isn't realising that something is wrong, but working out what is wrong. If there weren't something wrong at the feast you wouldn't be spending so much time on it. My suggestion is to e.g. hire the PCs to prevent an assassination on the guest of honour by an assassin. The PCs are keyed up, with e.g. the Paladin making sure to taste all the food first. The time they let their guard down is when the assassin's body lies at their feet, at which point the ghouls are let in to red wedding the entire banquet as a backup plan.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 05:24
|
|
|
Nutsngum posted:The issue is that the players dont really act like people in general so they dont expect to conform to the same norms as everyone else. Your players need rests to top themselves off???
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 05:32
|
|
|
There are ways to set that up, so that you can surprise them later while their defenses are down. But, like, you have to put some work into it. You have to train them nice and good to think "I won't be attacked in this situation" or "If I do get attacked, I'm not completely screwed, because guards can actually handle the situation" or something. If you're going out of nowhere "Just so you guys know, you are completely unarmed and, for cultural reasons, we have to tie you up and throw you into this pit of lava", then yeah, expect massive precautions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 06:20
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:To be blunt, in addition to everything everyone else has said you'd get better results by not playing D&D. Nah, D&D's fine for OP's scenario as long as they remember that "a fight starts at some point" is the single least surprising thing that can possibly happen in D&D. So don't pretend that they don't know there's gonna be a fight. Of course they know. They also know why you're insisting they leave their weapons at home. They're not loving stupid. So get their buy-in for "fancy formalwear social encounter which will probably turn violent", let them tell you how they prepare for that, and have fun surprising them with what the threat is, who's behind it, when it arrives, how it shows up, and why it's happening instead of pretending that they'll be shocked and amazed when their D&D dungeon master suddenly and unexpectedly demands that they sword fight some monsters. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 07:51 on Nov 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 07:47
|
|
|
Could always have a couple guards get murdered as stuff starts popping off, and have the fighter classes scramble to arm themselves. Maybe the carving knife is actually a magic weapon that can carve through ghouls just as easily as a warm roast. Be generous on grapple checks for anyone that might decide to body slam a ghoul through a table. Have some big windows for the PCs to boot their enemies through. Have fun, and treat it like a deadly tavern brawl. The players will be trying to one up each other for ghoul kill of the session. Winner will probably be the guy who decapitates one, the head landing on a serving tray, and he stuffs an apple in its mouth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 08:40
|
|
|
I like the feast scenario, sounds like a fun group and hopefully the DM doesn't railroad them into a disadvantaged fight that they are clearly anticipating but accepting in good faith. Elector has the right approach to it, at least the way that I'd like to experience things as a player. Everyone is obviously always expecting to do battle, and they are making an effort to roleplay and develop their characters. Maybe there are some decorative axes or weapons hanging on the walls in the feast hall. Have a servant offer to oil the buff-rear end barbarian's chest hair. Let the sneaky guy pilfer a series of carving knives from the table as the night progresses. Who cares, something's gonna die and it's D&D so enjoy the foreplay before the inevitable fight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 09:25
|
|
|
The paladin is, I assume, tasting the food first because he's immune to disease, right? So how does that help exactly? He doesn't catch a disease from the food. I'm immunised against a bunch of things but I don't get mental alarm bells going off when I eat a trace of the rubella virus. The next person is still going to get sick. Or is he casting purify food and drink on everything?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 10:20
|
|
|
Elector_Nerdlingen posted:Nah, D&D's fine for OP's scenario as long as they remember that "a fight starts at some point" is the single least surprising thing that can possibly happen in D&D. So don't pretend that they don't know there's gonna be a fight. Of course they know. They also know why you're insisting they leave their weapons at home. They're not loving stupid. So get their buy-in for "fancy formalwear social encounter which will probably turn violent", let them tell you how they prepare for that, and have fun surprising them with what the threat is, who's behind it, when it arrives, how it shows up, and why it's happening instead of pretending that they'll be shocked and amazed when their D&D dungeon master suddenly and unexpectedly demands that they sword fight some monsters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 10:34
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Your players need rests to top themselves off??? Im not sure what question youre actually asking here. My point is the game as it stands doesnt really force "realistic roleplay" in a most ways, at least as far as the rules are concerned, and that its not always a bad thing to enact restrictions if you also give them a bit of a benefit in doing said action.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 14:05
|
|
|
Nutsngum posted:Im not sure what question youre actually asking here. Particularly in the UK, to "top yourself" can mean to commit suicide.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 14:17
|
|
|
Lobsterpillar posted:The paladin is, I assume, tasting the food first because he's immune to disease, right? Presumably, because he'll have the best saving throws due to his aura of protection. So he tastes everything first, and if he's required to make a saving throw at any point, he has the best chance to pass it and it tips off the rest of the party to not touch anything on their plates.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 17:01
|
|
|
Turns out the paladin is just super hungry
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 19:41
|
|
|
Nutsngum posted:Im not sure what question youre actually asking here. I'm surprised that with 'natural' rest rules so restrictive, your players aren't simply relying on magic/items to recover HP. Already hit die are merely something you use because you have them so might as well, so putting further limits on how you can apply them sounds like it'd only result in sidelining them into complete irrelevance. Conspiratiorist fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Nov 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 20:44
|
|
|
i know it might ruin some peoples immersion but, set the scene, if they're genre aware enough to know what's going on then you aren't uprising them either way. just tell them the kind of scene you're looking to run and play to find out what happens.
Elfgames fucked around with this message at 01:02 on Nov 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2019 00:52
|
|
|
Elector_Nerdlingen posted:Figure out what you're trying to do. To certain definitions of "players" this is just excellent life advice, tbh. Beyond merely being also correct about dragondungeon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2019 08:26
|
|
|
I have a real itch to play a heavily armoured dwarf historian/lorekeeper type dude. I’m DM’ing currently but will be swapping roles with one of my players when the current party hit about level 5. I’m thinking Forge cleric 1/Lore bard 4- aside from needing a slightly higher WIS, I’m not seeing any big mechanical drawback and the character idea appeals because it couldn’t be done when I played 2e/3e. What does the hive mind think, worth a try? Obviously I get magical secrets a level later, but he wouldn’t be the only arcane caster...
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2019 09:18
|
|
|
The drawbacks are that even if your AC is high, as a Bard and without Resilient Constitution or War Caster you'll have no business being up front and taking hits (if this is your plan), and that dwarfs aren't a CHA-bonused race so you start with a +2 mod tops.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2019 17:47
|
|
|
Hey I have a super dumb question: My paladin is wearing splint mail right now, which lists it’s AC as 17 in the PHB. So is my total AC 17? I’m not using a shield and can’t seem to find any other bonuses to it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2019 17:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 06:16 |
|
|
Bust Rodd posted:Hey I have a super dumb question: Heavy armor just gives you a certain AC, no dex bonuses apply. So in the case of splint mail, 17 is correct. If you equip a shield your AC would be 19. https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Armor#content
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2019 17:51
|
|
