|
tanglewood1420 posted:Lexicannon
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2020 18:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 01:33 |
|
|
tanglewood1420 posted:Lexicannon
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2020 18:58
|
|
|
They're right, it's clearly a lexicannon, but that might imply you can shoot nouns.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2020 19:31
|
|
Glory to Italia!
|
Lexicannon is great. Coming up with a reason to use it in my game. Barliman Sinkspider is going to be made leader of the Saviours tonight, after the party destroyed & reformed them. He’ll report into Captain Helen Handonheart, and Sergeant Mojo Baggott will report into him. What will Barliman’s rank be? I think if I just straight up copied from the army he’d be a lieutenant and that sounds rubbish.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2020 19:34
|
|
|
Do it, but make it pronounced the British way: "leff-tenant" for maximum pretentiousness.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2020 19:36
|
|
|
You can make it something like "lance corporal". "Colonel" always sounds cool for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2020 19:44
|
|
|
I let the players decide in the end. They went the 40k route and made him Brother-Captain. We finished what I am somewhat grandiosely calling Act 1 of our campaign last night. Fifteen months to leave the starting city that I though they would stay in for maybe three sessions at most. I'd set it up so that this would be an excellent conclusion and jumping off point for anyone that wanted, but they've all asked to carry on. I'm panicking a bit because I've got used to having my maps and well-established city to play in - I've got a make a new one up now! One thing that didn't sit right with me - our wizard clocked the spell card I had in my hand, and looked it up before deciding if he was going to counterspell or not. Then he asked what kind of monster it was so he could see what else was in its spell list (it was a goatman master shaman, good luck finding that in the MM). I said he could roll to see if his character would know what kind of spells these guys can cast but that's not what he wanted. Any advice on handling metagaming like this? I really didn't like it and it took the fun out of that encounter for me (although everyone else was fine).
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2020 10:00
|
|
|
Sanford posted:I let the players decide in the end. They went the 40k route and made him Brother-Captain. How you handled it was fine, I think. Next time tell him, "I'll tell you that stuff, but if you get to know all about them, then they get to know all about you - which means they'll know exactly how to attack you most effectively."
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2020 10:48
|
|
tanglewood1420 posted:Lexicannon Hahaha yes! I knew y'all would have the answer. Thanks Tanglewood!
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2020 14:57
|
|
|
Quote posted:Hahaha yes! I knew y'all would have the answer. Thanks Tanglewood! It was made by a lizardman wizard known only as “The Saurus”
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 00:15
|
|
|
Sanford posted:Then he asked what kind of monster it was so he could see what else was in its spell list (it was a goatman master shaman, good luck finding that in the MM). I said he could roll to see if his character would know what kind of spells these guys can cast but that's not what he wanted. quote:Any advice on handling metagaming like this? I really didn't like it and it took the fun out of that encounter for me (although everyone else was fine).
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 00:58
|
|
|
Sanford posted:One thing that didn't sit right with me - our wizard clocked the spell card I had in my hand, and looked it up before deciding if he was going to counterspell or not. Then he asked what kind of monster it was so he could see what else was in its spell list (it was a goatman master shaman, good luck finding that in the MM). I said he could roll to see if his character would know what kind of spells these guys can cast but that's not what he wanted. Any advice on handling metagaming like this? I really didn't like it and it took the fun out of that encounter for me (although everyone else was fine).
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 01:24
|
|
|
Yeah, abuse of player knowledge is a no-go. The player may be aware of any number of things that the character is not. Sometimes it's hard to avoid knowledge abuse (e.g. players knowing to watch out for a dragon's breath attack even if in-universe dragons are unheard-of), but you definitely should not be actively trying to metagame. There's also the issue that the player should not get a ton of time to decide whether to counterspell. Their character has maybe a second or two to decide whether to counterspell; players get more than that but not so much that they can go look at reference material.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 01:35
|
|
|
Yeah that's very much a case of "It's time to take the player aside and have a conversation with them about not being a shitbird." I'm not always deadset against a bit of metagaming; I'm a bit more forgiving of it than some people (I find it, for instance, to be a handy way to cover the 'supergenius character being played by a not-at-all-a-genius player' situation, for example). But naked metagaming like that is lovely, both because it's dishonest play and also because it slows the game down; the other players are stuck sitting there being bored while the metagamer flips pages. So tell the dude to knock it the gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 03:31
|
|
|
Some metagaming is inevitable and can't be helped. You can't expect someone to pretend to be ignorant of how dangerous a beholder is if they've played DnD before. But when it verges on harming everyone else's enjoyment of the game then it's time for disciplinary action. In other news, I gave the swashbuckler in my playgroup a fae-enchanted rapier. It's +1 and polymorphs its target on a critical hit. Should it just cast polymorph, or should I make a random table full of weird and wacky things that can happen?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 04:08
|
|
|
I played Hackmaster for years. Hackmaster, the comedically adversarial system where metagaming is not only the implied normal but encouraged to a point where it'd be considered cheating in most games. And my group was playing an actual meta-game alongside Hackmaster, where we'd freeform roleplay as awful grognard versions of ourselves playing a game called Hackmaster. And then there's like 2 people in the group who can't not play that anyway, so everyone's also playing a meta^2game level of OOC trying to manipulate other players to play their freeform game in a way that benefits your Hackmaster character, or avoid others' attempts to do that to them. And in that group pulling "Hold up, pause the game, I saw your spell card and now I gotta look this up in the monster manual before I decide what to do about it" would have the other players sincerely telling you to knock it off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 04:35
|
|
|
Panderfringe posted:Some metagaming is inevitable and can't be helped. You can't expect someone to pretend to be ignorant of how dangerous a beholder is if they've played DnD before. But when it verges on harming everyone else's enjoyment of the game then it's time for disciplinary action. It only casts polymorph, but the target is polymorphed into something different every time. Preferably into an animal form that is allegorical to their personality.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 04:45
|
|
|
Panderfringe posted:In other news, I gave the swashbuckler in my playgroup a fae-enchanted rapier. It's +1 and polymorphs its target on a critical hit. Should it just cast polymorph, or should I make a random table full of weird and wacky things that can happen? Depends on if the sword is sentient/cursed or not 
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 08:23
|
|
|
I feel like "fae-enchanted" and "cursed" should, at best, be an academic difference and the subject of ongoing debate, and for all intents and purposes synonymous.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 08:33
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:I feel like "fae-enchanted" and "cursed" should, at best, be an academic difference and the subject of ongoing debate, and for all intents and purposes synonymous. For sure. Also, for weapons, it's gonna situationally depend which end you're on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 09:11
|
|
|
Right, but also in 5e "cursed" specifically implies some sort of initially hidden tradeoff for a more powerful effect at the same rarity/power level. You only find out about it after attuning, but lore or the powers could hint at it. And sometimes the curse can't be removed and the item can't be unattuned unless you cast a specific 3rd circle spell. But you knew that. And that could also be what fae-enchanted means.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 10:36
|
|
|
Tell the meta-gamer entirely incorrect information. When he pitches a fit about it, state that you can either both cheat, or neither cheat, and its up to him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 14:42
|
|
|
But the GM should always be cheating to make a better play experience 
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 16:20
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:But the GM should always be cheating to make a better play experience Yes. He nearly caused a TPK, because if he'd not looked it up I was planning to have it only do half damage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 16:22
|
|
|
Also, don't try to fix poo poo with in game reprisals, just address the issue like an adult.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 16:36
|
|
|
"Metagaming" is such a weird concept. The only problem with a player stopping to look up what a spell does before deciding whether to counterspell it is that it takes up a lot of time; if someone did that at my table I would have given them a quick simple run-through of the likely consequences so they could decide faster. Peeking at someone's notes is kind of rude, but only in the general norm-violating sense; the norm itself is still bizarre. Of course I'm also generally of the opinion that enemy abilities should be loudly signposted to players in the first place, not hidden from them, because it's not interesting or challenging to strategize around abilities without at least partial information. Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 18:28 on Jan 16, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 18:26
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:Also, don't try to fix poo poo with in game reprisals, just address the issue like an adult. I don't know how many times we have to say this in this thread, but it keeps being true.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 18:31
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:"Metagaming" is such a weird concept. The only problem with a player stopping to look up what a spell does before deciding whether to counterspell it is that it takes up a lot of time quote:Of course I'm also generally of the opinion that enemy abilities should be loudly signposted to players in the first place, not hidden from them, because it's not interesting or challenging to strategize around abilities without at least partial information.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 19:17
|
|
|
Yawgmoth posted:I'm of the opinion that if you want to find out what your enemy does, you wait for them to do it. You can roll a knowledge skill to have partial information depending on the strength of the roll and rarity level of the enemy, but I'm pretty much never going to say "here's the stat block, plan accordingly" because (a) that's boring, and (b) ties my hands if I want to change things mid-fight because nobody can roll above a 4 tonight or whatever. It's not interesting or challenging to sit around deciding the absolute most optimal play every turn while cross-referencing a stat block. Neither (a), nor, (b), nor the final sentence of this paragraph are true, except insofar as time concerns are an issue, as I already noted. e: It stops you from changing things invisibly, but that's completely unnecessary anyways. Either present a game of (player) skill and play by the rules so the challenge is meaningful, or talk to your players about why you aren't and move forward on consensus. e2: none of which is to say that I'm against all hidden information ever; I usually hide exact HP totals, for one. but it's not for any of the reasons we've discussed so far Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Jan 16, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 19:50
|
|
|
Okay, my Stars without Number game is almost ready to go, but I want some advice on a concept I'm considering adding. Under certain circumstances, usually combat or social encounters, I'd like to add a little bit of tension to snap judgments and reacting to events where the PCs wouldn't really have 10 minutes to sit there and discuss what to do. I'd let the players know about the idea ahead of time, and when such a situation arises I would put a 5 second limit on their time to make a decision before I play out whatever happens. I don't want it to seem like a punishment, I want them to only have a moment to decide what to do when the Space Duchess turns out to be a disguised assassin and they just drew on the Admiral during a ball, and only on PC is in range to stop it. I want to captain to only have a moment to decide on what to do when the enemy frigate is bearing down on them and they are having to decide whether to make a dangerous drill (hyperdrive) or sit there and take the lumps that might end them. Now, this is not going to be applied to every encounter, I want it to make them sweat during important moments. Is this unreasonable for my players? Just want some other opinions before I propose it. Is 5 seconds too little?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 21:19
|
|
|
Maybe 15 seconds? I think you'll only find the right amount with some live testing, so be prepared to tweak the length as the campaign goes on. As an overall concept as long as you have player buy in it's a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 21:36
|
|
|
tanglewood1420 posted:Maybe 15 seconds? I think you'll only find the right amount with some live testing, so be prepared to tweak the length as the campaign goes on. A good roleplayer won't react like a chessmaster robot, they'll react as their character would at the important dramatic moment, even if that reaction isn't the objective best move. A stressful situation for the character is often exactly the time that the character's kneejerk response and the player's kneejerk response would be different, and maybe needs a moment to fully bake. But a less talented roleplayer might not make that distinction, or might not have a strong voice for their character, and plays more as a tactical player-insert... for people who aren't going "method", making them take snap judgments can be better since they end up with the "less than optimal result" drama. If you trust your players do make "good TV" decisions on their own, there's no need to pressure them. If you think they could use a helping hand in tense, dramatic moments, give them the helping hand.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 22:47
|
|
|
sleepy.eyes posted:Now, this is not going to be applied to every encounter, I want it to make them sweat during important moments. Call it 10 seconds to decide and describe whatever it is they want to do. Give them a bit of time, but they also shouldn't be able to set up multiple contingency trees or something similar.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2020 00:00
|
|
|
Normal D&D suggestions for this would say there needs to be a motive for the time crunch, so something should be happening or happen when the timer's up. You either pause for a reaction and say "you'd under pressure. X may happen if you don't respond quickly", or you imply the time crunch in the exposition and drop a surprise event/encounter on them if they deliberate for too long. That way they'll know there will be scenarios where rapid decision making is important. The down side to this is stressing your players out, potentially rushing scenes that could be more interesting with time to think, and players feeling rushed and interrupting all your exposition forever onwards. There's a balance to be struck. What I usually do, if I can, is just warn them that if they don't decide quickly there will be consequences. As soon as the table arguments get repetitive or boring, spring said consequences. No fixed hourglass, just use your divine judgement in each timed situation to punish for too much deliberation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2020 00:28
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:Neither (a), nor, (b), nor the final sentence of this paragraph are true, except insofar as time concerns are an issue, as I already noted. If you want to have perfect information of everything you face, go play a video game and open gamefaqs in a second monitor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2020 01:45
|
|
|
Yawgmoth posted:Oh I didn't realize you were the absolute arbiter of what is interesting and not, my sincerest apologies! I'll make sure to register all of my thoughts with you next time to make sure I'm allowed to think and feel something about a given concept. Maybe don't make absolute statements if you can't handle the same level of discourse in return. Yawgmoth posted:If you want to have perfect information of everything you face, go play a video game and open gamefaqs in a second monitor. If you don't ever want player skill to substitute for character skill, go play a storygame instead of making GBS threads up tactical combat-centric games with obsolete concepts from the 90s.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2020 01:51
|
|
|
That being said, do whatever you need to solve your table's problem. The tactical system isn't perfect either, not everyone plays it as a purely tactical game, and even the official rules suggest you consider concealing sheets and fudging things on the fly if you have to (you probably shouldn't have to). Just learn good ways to fudge things and never confess. Probably not worth arguing with them about whether their player knows stuff, especially if it doesn't cause a loud of delays.
ILL Machina fucked around with this message at 02:30 on Jan 17, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2020 02:26
|
|
|
Confess frequently and, moreover, ask your players if things are too easy / just right / too hard even when the game doesn't visibly break down. The idea that GMing is all about maintaining the mere illusion that player choices matter and that a challenge exists is bizarrely counter-productive, not to mention condescending to your players. I suppose it's possible that your players themselves might prefer to be led through a theme park and just never have to directly confront that that's what's going on, but frankly, even then I would be inclined to push back, because it takes some of the workload off the GM and shares the responsibility for making the game work more equitably. Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 02:35 on Jan 17, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2020 02:31
|
|
|
"I have mastered an incredibly complex and internally balanced system of rules so that I can then throw them out and wing it when those rules break down. I am however careful to keep all authority and mechanical task resolution to myself so that I can do this without anyone else ever noticing that there's a problem. On an unrelated note, GM burnout is real, my players don't see the point of playing any other system, and there's visible confusion and frustration at my table about what mode of play is appropriate. What am I doing wrong?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2020 02:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 01:33 |
|
|
GM cheating isn't about railroading the players. It's about playing to the audience and making sure the game is as well-suited to the players as it can be. Depending on what the players like this can mean many things, including playing it very straight RAW maximum openness.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2020 02:45
|
|