|
Joe Slowboat posted:I'm quoted! I definitely can understand this approach and I don't think that you "have" to have elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes, orcs, goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears, gnolls, lizard men, aaracokra and thri-kreen in order to have a fun and enjoyable campaign setting. However, D&D looms large and D&D packages itself a lot so that your character's "race" is a lot of what defines that character in terms of visual and, at low levels, ability methods. Yet of course none of these differences actually amount to a hill of beans by third or fourth level, E X C E P T M A Y B E for that lifespan, which is not going to be that important for a D&D campaign. I tend to take guidance from the forms of sci-fi where "biological determinism" boils down to different trends in patterns of behavior and, of course, possibly very different intrinsic abilities, not necessarily "play balanced."
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 22:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 03:17 |
|
|
i don't have an issue with violence being the default method of conflict resolution so long as other methods exist. most games have extensive combat rules because that's the part of the game people expect to have in most cases, and fictional violence can be entertaining, no different from a movie or a video game. i don't like the idea that there are sapient species who exist only to be punching bags for the players. the world should be populated by a diverse and varied assortment of people, and some of them are assholes. they weren't born that way, they are either victims of circumstance or have made choices that put them into a position where they're going to be working at cross purposes with the player characters. i don't think that violence against them should be seen as uncomplicated or guilt-free, but they have a good reason to employ violence against the characters and therefore to some degree self-defense is going to come into play. and if you have them talk first, i've found that players are more than willing to at least entertain negotiation, even if it is usually just a stalling method. and sometimes if you let the characters talk they find a way around a problem that you didn't anticipate, a third route that lets them get what they want without resorting to violence. but the thing to me is that these assholes you put in the players' path should have a real motivation. it doesn't have to be incredibly deep or complicated, and history has shown that people will resort to violence for irrational or just plain stupid reasons. as an example, in my current shadow of the demon lord campaign the players have decided to focus their efforts on taking down a continent-spanning corporation that is trying to turn apply necromancy to industry by creating an eternal undead workforce. they're not waiting for corpses and they are more than happy to use their skeleborgs to put swathes of workers out of a job. the liches that run the company aren't doing it because they're evil, they're doing it because it generates profits. they don't see themselve as evil; i've had a lot of fun annoying the player characters by playing their management as chipper, candy-coated buzzword-spewing ladder-climbers. their motivation isn't complicated, but it exists and it makes sense. on the opposite end of things, early on in the campaign the player characters were riding a subterranean train that was attacked by shotgun-wielding spiders who dismantled the engine and ran off with the parts. they attempted to negotiate with the player characters but eventually things turned violent. the pcs tracked them down and because they were willing to talk and not immediately fight they learned that the spiders stole the parts to repair the ancient machine that defended their egg chamber. so the player characters were able to work out a deal with a fae merchant they met earlier and trade the parts he provided with the stolen train parts. this got them back on the tracks and earned them some allies in the spiderados. also, on a mechanical note, one thing i've come to love is a morale system. generally speaking sapient beings don't want to die, and unless their back is against the wall they'll choose to run and live over fighting and dying. so when my players are fighting intelligent foes i like to make morale rolls to see if they're willing to fight or will break and run. or hell, some just surrender and that makes for great drama and storytelling. especially if the players are inclined to try and turn them into allies afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 22:17
|
|
|
I think it also plays into the whole "fantasy" element of violence. I have not been on the dishing out or receiving end of physical violence at any point in my life (other than getting punched to the ground once in school) but the fantasy of violence itself seems to be an important thing to consider. How much can we divorce our own understanding of fantasy, how much does that inform who we are as people? And how far before it goes from being a magic experience to a "Magical Realm".
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 22:21
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Yeah that's reasonable and I'm not gonna attack you for that position. The cognitive structure for me, is a little old fashioned but it is I suppose how I got raised on a diet of old pulp novels. It is that there is a nuance between violence and murder, especially when you are considering literary representations (which I suppose covers D&D). If Vargnr pursues the orcs after he decapitates the fell sorcerer or does the Gygax crap with wiping out orc-infants or whatever, he has gone from violence to murder.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 22:22
|
|
|
Serf posted:that hasn't been my experience at all. some people definitely like to get in character in the theatrical way and do the voice and roleplay out the big conversations and that's fine and good imo. but other people are less inclined to do that and it works fine too. i gm for people at different ends of this thing in the same group and we all pretty much do our own thing. as a gm i rarely do a voice for characters. i might try an affect or inflection, but i usually return to what i know: savannah gentleman and redneck working man. no one has complained about it. i think it just takes some trust and understanding from everyone involved to find the right balance, like what conversations should be drilled down on and happen in character and what can sort of be communicated with a few ooc comments. i love it when my players get into in-character conversations and come up with ideas because it gives me a time to rest and also steal their ideas for myself, but sometimes that happens naturally and other times it doesn't hyphz, if you get a chance to play in one of Serf's games, I highly recommend the experience. It's not because Serf draws great maps or does voice acting or constructs a complex story in advance, but because Serf listens pretty closely to what players want their characters to be, and runs with that, and makes the whole game about that. I would pay to play in a Serf game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 22:44
|
|
|
On one hand, if you're aiming for any kind of non-gritty fantasy and you have fights against intelligent beings, you need to be able to say that if you have a fight against some bandits, it's just a fun little fight with no long-term consequences and not a team of wandering adventurers beating up some strangers that turned to crime to feed their families. The entire gameplay conceit of your game falls apart if that isn't true. On the other hand, you better make sure you're saying "this specific group are assholes worth fighting" and not "this entire people are assholes worth fighting". Also, your system better have a way to knock people out without making it a pain in the rear end or otherwise establish that fights end well before death, because they don't need to make this harder than it already is. I'm looking at you, most editions of D&D.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 23:21
|
|
|
I've probably played in fewer games than many people here, but I've never actually had a group where the assumption was that you just murdered everyone you brought to 0 hit points. It seems weird to assume that honestly, given this forum's constant refrain of "hit points are an abstraction". And it doesn't really matter where the bandits flee to once they've been defeated unless your table decides it does matter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 23:38
|
|
|
hyphz posted:... That's exactly what I don't feel is the case. If I just make up based on what the players do, then is it "more time consuming".. than what? How can I say what the tradeoffs involved are if I don't know what the other routes would have been, and how can I work out what all the other routes would have been (assuming their number to be huge) without having simulation detail on everything invoved? Again, doubly hard in the case of something like this where I don't have common sense to fall back on. Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from poor judgement. Make your best estimate, give yourself permission to be wrong, and learn from any actual mistakes. You'll get better at reacting to what the players will do. By now you know your players pretty well, throw out on option that should appeal to each of them and let them decide what to do. If they demand every possible option to choose from, say that's it, nothing else will work; or at least you can't think of anything else, then ask them for their ideas. Because you're the loving GM. If they want the options ranked by effort or chance of success, ask them how their characters plan to evaluate those. If they complain, tell them their characters wouldn't know, outcomes are going to depend on execution. How long it takes is... however many sessions dealing with the task at hand will be fun for you, possibly averaged with how long you think the players will stay engaged with it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 23:41
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:I've probably played in fewer games than many people here, but I've never actually had a group where the assumption was that you just murdered everyone you brought to 0 hit points. It seems weird to assume that honestly, given this forum's constant refrain of "hit points are an abstraction". And it doesn't really matter where the bandits flee to once they've been defeated unless your table decides it does matter. But I also don't find much value in a lot of random bandit attacks either.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 23:51
|
|
|
Serf posted:i don't have an issue with violence being the default method of conflict resolution so long as other methods exist. most games have extensive combat rules because that's the part of the game people expect to have in most cases, and fictional violence can be entertaining, no different from a movie or a video game. i pretty much agree with all of this and i'll add if you want to create a group of more or less always antagonistic creatures you don't need to put them down as "always evil" that's just lazy. make them biologically incompatible with other life. Mindflayers NEED to eat sapient brains they don't have to be evil beyond that. The simple fact that they have needs that require them to kill other sapient creatures means that you'll have to kill or drive them out of places
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 23:54
|
|
|
homullus posted:hyphz, if you get a chance to play in one of Serf's games, I highly recommend the experience. It's not because Serf draws great maps or does voice acting or constructs a complex story in advance, but because Serf listens pretty closely to what players want their characters to be, and runs with that, and makes the whole game about that. I would pay to play in a Serf game. this means a lot to me. thanks so much! Countblanc posted:I've probably played in fewer games than many people here, but I've never actually had a group where the assumption was that you just murdered everyone you brought to 0 hit points. It seems weird to assume that honestly, given this forum's constant refrain of "hit points are an abstraction". And it doesn't really matter where the bandits flee to once they've been defeated unless your table decides it does matter. yeah, i usually ask players "how do you want to take this enemy out?" and leave the door open to a nonlethal takedown. hp being an abstraction is useful for this, and in fiction you always see characters, even mooks, surviving to escape at the end of a fight. Elfgames posted:i pretty much agree with all of this and i'll add if you want to create a group of more or less always antagonistic creatures you don't need to put them down as "always evil" that's just lazy. make them biologically incompatible with other life. Mindflayers NEED to eat sapient brains they don't have to be evil beyond that. The simple fact that they have needs that require them to kill other sapient creatures means that you'll have to kill or drive them out of places mind flayers are a good example. the one thing i'll add is that mind flayers, being devious assholes, should sometimes be presented as possible allies of convenience or at least a foe that you can turn against your other enemies. and the fun part is that since they want to eat your brain there is always a sudden but inevitable betrayal to work into the story. on a side note: could a species like the warforged coexist with the mind flayers? or shardminds? how about undead like vampires or ghosts? they don't have brains in the traditional sense, so mind flayers have nothing to gain from them. i don't think mind flayers would enjoy having them around, but there is some potential there if those brain-free species decided to try and ally with the mind flayers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 00:08
|
|
|
Elfgames posted:i pretty much agree with all of this and i'll add if you want to create a group of more or less always antagonistic creatures you don't need to put them down as "always evil" that's just lazy. make them biologically incompatible with other life. Mindflayers NEED to eat sapient brains they don't have to be evil beyond that. The simple fact that they have needs that require them to kill other sapient creatures means that you'll have to kill or drive them out of places But you can get around it and if you're not having a giant swarm of mind flayers constantly it's not really relevant to the story. Having a slimy cthulhu dude with a taste for brains be the mastermind behind a plot arc doesn't necessarily reify these gygaxian nonsenses. Note in your campaign materials that mind flayers are demons from the psionic planes or something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 00:11
|
|
|
On violence and killing: a lot of it is setting expectations. We're 5 sessions into scum and villainy right now and there's been exactly one dead body. It was in the second scene, and he was dead before we arrived. What? We're smugglers. If we end up having to kill someone we seriously hosed up. I'm sure our space wizard is going to get in a space wizard duel sooner or later. Or if the guild keep trying to wipe my urbot buddy I might lose my poo poo and hit someone too hard. But I'm pretty sure at that point it's gonna turn into shitshitshit what do we dooooo. hyphz posted:The move is Spout Lore, and they want to know how to redeem a lich? That means I have to tell them something interesting and useful about it, which would likely be the answer. I mean, ok, I can say it's in an ancient book somewhere but that's just putting it off. The move might be spout lore, sure. If it is, you only need to reveal something interesting and useful on a success. On a partial, you only have to reveal something interesting. If they fail you get to make a move, I would suggest Reveal An Unwelcome Truth might work well, or the lich could just laugh and do damage. You won't know until they roll the dice, but also you don't have to think about what might happen until they roll the dice. Because until that point they're not doing it. hyphz posted:
They can argue that if they want, but in Dungeon World you don't have to just tell them. When they try that it activates a move. If you do it, then you do it. Roll Spout Lore. Are you sure you read the book?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 00:25
|
|
|
hyphz posted:I've mentioned this before and I don't want to sound more like a stuck record than I already do - I'm very nervous about players who are "better", because I'm not a "better" GM to match them. Sorry if I missed any indication that you have, but if you haven't taken any of the people who offered to run a game for you here to show you the ropes a bit and give you more context for what that's "supposed" to look like so you have more practical experience to compare your game and group to, you really should.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 00:25
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Sorry if I missed any indication that you have, but if you haven't taken any of the people who offered to run a game for you here to show you the ropes a bit and give you more context for what that's "supposed" to look like so you have more practical experience to compare your game and group to, you really should. I'm on Xiahou's discord now, the title just makes me blush a bit. :p Elector_Nerdlingen posted:The move might be spout lore, sure. If it is, you only need to reveal something interesting and useful on a success. On a partial, you only have to reveal something interesting. If they fail you get to make a move, I would suggest Reveal An Unwelcome Truth might work well, or the lich could just laugh and do damage. You won't know until they roll the dice, but also you don't have to think about what might happen until they roll the dice. Because until that point they're not doing it. Well, yes, and the fact that they're a wizard and know a bunch of stuff is why it's not nonsense. But if they roll the success, I have to make up what would be interesting and useful within a framework I haven't defined. And yes, I did read Dungeon World, although it was a long while ago and the GMing guide wasn't out at that time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 00:34
|
|
|
hyphz posted:Well, yes, and the fact that they're a wizard and know a bunch of stuff is why it's not nonsense. But if they roll the success, I have to make up what would be interesting and useful within a framework I haven't defined. And yes, I did read Dungeon World, although it was a long while ago and the GMing guide wasn't out at that time. So if in one game the wizard spouts lore about mind flayers and says "they're horrible monsters who eat brains and are born that way and can never change! YAAAGH!" then that is true, yes... but it may not be true in a second game. I also assume you can modify this assumption. Four sessions ago the wizard said mind flayers are obligate brainovores. Yes, but perhaps this guy you're meeting now eats livestock brains -- and perhaps they are perfectly nourishing! Think of this as crowdsourcing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 00:40
|
|
|
[Whoops, posted this in the Industry thread before seeing the topic move, so moving the post to here:]Plutonis posted:And then you have the Drow. Several other "high civilized" races have their own dark mirrors. Humans have the Vashar. Dwarves have the Duergar. Gnomes have the Svirfneblin and even the Halflings have the Jerren. Yet of course, exception is taken only for the Drow for being a civilization of spider loving freaks who love to backstab each other and be born with quite a way of camouflaging themselves in the dark. I think the Vashar and the Jerren are bad examples because outside of 3.X completionists hardly anyone has even heard of the Vashar or the Jerren. They appeared in one (widely criticized) 3.5E book and then were pretty much never mentioned again. Moreover, they were created explicitly in response to the fact that there was a race of evil elves, a race of evil dwarves, and a race of evil gnomes (not the svirfneblin, who were neutral, but the spriggans), but no race of evil humans or evil halflings. Mind you, I think it was a response in exactly the wrong direction—instead of querying why or even whether some races should be always-evil subraces, our old buddy Monte Cook just leaned into it and completed the set—but the point is that the Vashar and the Jerren are a symptom of this issue; they came after and directly because of the other evil subraces. Josef bugman posted:I think it was a big thing before 5e came out that there were a lot of gnoll arguments. 5e made them specifically demon-esque creatures that erupt spontaneously from various places. I am unsure as to whether that is a good thing or not. Yeah, I've always liked gnolls, and am definitely not happy about the 5E "oh, they're all directly created by Yeenoghu so they're irredeemable fiendish horrors" thing. That certainly wasn't the case in earlier editions—some 2E materials even detailed their previous god, Gorellik, who had been the gnolls' primary deity before Yeenoghu moved in and convinced the majority of gnolls to worship him instead.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 02:23
|
|
|
Chris Avellone or somebody posted:Perhaps there are no evil humans... because it is we who are the evil humans.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 02:29
|
|
|
hyphz posted:Well, yes, and the fact that they're a wizard and know a bunch of stuff is why it's not nonsense. But if they roll the success, I have to make up what would be interesting and useful within a framework I haven't defined. And yes, I did read Dungeon World, although it was a long while ago and the GMing guide wasn't out at that time. I'm not particularly a fan of the way Spout Lore works either. I find the way that it's worded runs counter to my natural way to play to find out what happens and also to the principle ask questions and use the answers. Everything else about the game makes me want Spout Lore to work by the player telling me things and then rolling to see if they're right. That said, the framework for interesting and useful is defined for you. What would the character Spouting Lore find interesting and useful at this time, in this situation? They're spouting lore about lich redemption right there in front of the lich? If they get a useful answer it has to be useful in terms of "I am confronting a lich, like right now, it's right in front of me at this moment", not in terms of poo poo they should have started prepping 6 months ago in a far away land. You're gonna have to come up with something in that context, such as "liches generally regret the transformation after a while, and often seek to find a way to undo it if they can find someone brave or stupid enough to help" and now that's a true fact about the world, and you have fulfilled your obligation so you can ask the characters what they're doing. * If they get an interesting answer it could easily be that there's a repository of lich lore in the distant Library of Xan, and if they run away right now they'll probably make it out and be able to go see that. Or it could be that liches have all the good stripped out of them and become creatures of pure evil and hate, and that you can't redeem them. Both are interesting and pertinent, but not terribly useful, and you have fulfilled your obligation and now there's going to be a fight so ask the characters what they're doing. If they get a fail then do what's obvious, which to me is try to eat their soul because they were silly enough to stand there in front of an attacking lich going "uh...." about it. Should they survive, you can ask them what they're doing now. **e: They don't have to get information that they like, remember, so you could use this to segue back into a fight scene by telling them that liches are irredeemable creatures of darkness that always have a weak point that you can spot, or something like that. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 03:25 on Apr 29, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 03:22
|
|
|
Elector_Nerdlingen posted:On violence and killing: a lot of it is setting expectations. We're 5 sessions into scum and villainy right now and there's been exactly one dead body. It was in the second scene, and he was dead before we arrived. Yup, expectations are the name of the game. In the games I'm in at the moment (Shadowrun, Exalted, L5R, Lancer) killing people is messed up and if it happens then somebody hosed up somewhere. There's still fights cos y'know, wuxia/sword duels at high noon/heist-gone-wrong, but if anybody gets seriously hurt then that's always seen as a failure by the characters, either because one of them hosed up the planning and prep or lacked the skill/ability to not break someone's leg or chop off their hand or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 03:31
|
|
|
Coolness Averted posted:Oh and moving away from hyphz's issue, but just talking more about pbta and other games where stuff is improv, how do y'all like to handle the stakes and results of partial successes/complication results? Also, I think it's important to remember that a partial success is still a success. As such, whatever complication you come up with shouldn't negate the success. This is most common in the context of doing something under fire because it's the basic move that gives the MC the most narrative latitude in the 7-9 range (worse outcome, hard bargain, ugly choice). To me, a worse outcome is you getting some (or even most) of what you want, but not all of it. A hard bargain is you getting what you want but it costing you something in the process. And an ugly choice is exactly what it sounds like. I will occasionally offer up failure as one half of an ugly choice (i.e. you get what you want but suffer some complication, or you don't get what you want but avoid the complication), but that is explicitly a player choice. This is good for those times when everyone at the table wants to see "how much is it worth to you to accomplish this?" kind of moral quandary stuff. Like, yeah, you can totally shove the girl out of the way of the oncoming Taco Truck, but that means you'll be the one getting hit. Or you can pull up at the last second, in which case she's gonna get greased, but you're in the clear. What do you do? Also, this aspect of not negating success also carries through to the Harm move. Even if you roll a 10+, I'm unlikely to knock you out if whatever it was you just did or whatever gain you just made requires you stay up. So yeah, if you're holding the bridge against all comers and there are still enemies left to fight, I'll give you some other consequence. But if you're in single combat and you just killed the guy you're fighting? Yeah, sure, you take him down, but on his way out he rings your bell and you see nothing but black. Infinity Gaia posted:Since there seems to be a lot of PbtA vets in here, I might as well toss out a question to the crowd. I've recently started GMing mine and my groups more-or-less-first (we played a one-shot of dungeon world in the past) PbtA campaign. It's Masks, for what that's worth. It's overall going well, but recently I had a villain activate a move to teleport out of combat when the going started getting rough for them, and one of my player was sort of upset since he "couldn't do anything about it". This same player also seems constantly so wary of taking the "wrong move" that he'll consistently stall out when I try to ask him what his character does. Are there any tricks or tips to helping him come to terms with the fact that failing is part and parcel of PbtA, and in fact makes things more entertaining? I think he's having a hard time coming out of the D&D ultra tactical mindset. Infinity Gaia posted:Oh, and on a tangential but connected note, I'm still pretty uncertain about when it is appropriate to use a hard move. I feel like I'm using them way too sparingly and it's making my threats too non-threatening as a result, but the conversation never seems to give me a clear opening for a villain to do a big fancy thing. An example I often use is this: "You're in a firefight, bullets flying. Someone is laying down suppressive fire on the jersey-barrier you're kissing for cover." Here, I have put someone in a spot. It's still a relatively "soft" way of doing so, as I'm not laying out any heavy consequences. The PC's not taking damage (yet), and so long as they stay behind cover they're safe(ish). But their freedom of movement is curtailed. Now I'm going to go a little harder by announcing future badness: "Suddenly, you see Rolfball pop up with an RPG and level it at the fuel tanks." Still not a particularly hard or direct move because the consequences still lie in the (albeit very near) future. But I am absolutely setting up my next move. And of course, "What do you do?" If the PC doesn't do anything about Rolfball, then I have done my due diligence in setting up my next move, which you had better believe is going to be hard and direct. "You hear the distinctive 'pop-WHOOOOSH' of the RPG going off, then you don't hear anything because the massive fuel tank explosion ruptures your eardrums. Take 4 Harm (ap) and make the Harm move for me." And if the PC does try to do something, well, their position is being suppressed (my earlier set-up for this very situation). "So, what, you wanna duck out to get a clean shot at Rolfball? OK, but you're absolutely gonna take bullets in the process. You still wanna?" This is me spinning back to tell them the possible consequences and ask. I have one player who is notorious for trying to talk her way out of violence without actually having any leverage or a weapon in hand, like NPCs are under some obligation to let her finish a sentence or she can trigger manipulate by just stringing words together. Like, a guy is pointing a gun at her, it has been made abundantly clear he's Not loving Around (tm), and he's saying something like, "Get the gently caress off my lawn, or so help me god I will kill you where you stand." When she tries to pull the "Well, listen, no, we can talk this out, I'm sure there's a..." act I'm totally cool with just going "BANG" and dishing out Harm. I have done my due diligence as the MC in making the situation clear and setting up a follow-up move, and she has given me a golden opportunity. Hilariously, this same player is also notorious for rapidly and unexpectedly escalating social situations to violence with no warning. She is a goddamn treasure to have in a game because I literally have no idea what the hell she's going to do next. It is the very essence of "play to find out." Ilor fucked around with this message at 04:31 on Apr 29, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 04:25
|
|
|
Nessus posted:And it is fair to say that on some level you're running into the same "you're COMPELLED to make this HARD CHOICE because there is no third option! KILL OR BE KILLED!" i completely disagree
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 05:14
|
|
|
Jerik posted:[Whoops, posted this in the Industry thread before seeing the topic move, so moving the post to here:] This led me to the bizarre tale of Gorellik, the lovely God of Gnolls Who Sucks. https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Gorellik
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 05:55
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:This led me to the bizarre tale of Gorellik, the lovely God of Gnolls Who Sucks. Extreme "divorced father whose children call him Craig instead of dad" energy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 06:08
|
|
|
Saguaro PI posted:Extreme "divorced father whose children call him Craig instead of dad" energy. Deeply. 100-yard sphere of influence. That said, I really like 5e gnolls if you play up the horror angle. I’m 2e-vintage but always found gnolls a bit bland in the past. I think the orcs-as-analogue-for-real-racism thing is a bit artificial and silly, especially in the context of 5e where alignment is descriptive and de-emphasized. That said, it’s also fun to play them as a hyper-aggressive society run on toxic masculinity and fueled ultimately by Gruumsh’s (legitimate) resentment of Corellon. The balancing influence of Luthic’s priestesses is all that keeps them stable. I’m temporarily playing a Realms orc PC at the minute, and his decisions are justified on the grounds that he’s contributing to the survival of all races by killing things that are weak. He’s likely going to die tonight, because he’s been hiding wounds from the rest of the party and there isn’t a Luthic priestess around to scare him into accepting healing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 10:07
|
|
|
Elector_Nerdlingen posted:I'm not particularly a fan of the way Spout Lore works either. I find the way that it's worded runs counter to my natural way to play to find out what happens and also to the principle ask questions and use the answers. Everything else about the game makes me want Spout Lore to work by the player telling me things and then rolling to see if they're right. I wonder about a similar problem in AW itself with Read the Sitch, where one of the options is to ask "what's the best way to escape....". The problem is that this implies that whatever the GM answers, no other way can be better (because they have to truthfully state the "best"), and this is then problematic because any obstacles the PCs have on the way out, it must be the case that there was nothing the PCs could have done to avoid them. quote:You're gonna have to come up with something in that context, such as "liches generally regret the transformation after a while, and often seek to find a way to undo it if they can find someone brave or stupid enough to help" and now that's a true fact about the world, and you have fulfilled your obligation so you can ask the characters what they're doing. But would that count as something useful? That's just "maybe the lich can be redeemed" but not anything about what to actually do. And can the player just Spout Lore again?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 11:06
|
|
|
Nessus posted:But I also don't find much value in a lot of random bandit attacks either. One weird sideways use of random bandits is to reduce the idea of always evil races. If your guys get jumped by an orc, a halfling, a human, and a wood elf it helps cement that the "baddies" they encounter are "baddies" for reasons other than biology.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 11:11
|
|
|
hyphz posted:But would that count as something useful? That's just "maybe the lich can be redeemed" but not anything about what to actually do. And can the player just Spout Lore again? I suspect there is some operator in effect in Dungeon World to prevent someone from just standing there and spouting lore forever, including perhaps that other players get to take a turn and by the time they take a turn maybe it's not time to keep trying to pull the gacha lever to produce the SSSSR-rank easy-ideal operational pathway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 11:34
|
|
|
hyphz posted:I wonder about a similar problem in AW itself with Read the Sitch, where one of the options is to ask "what's the best way to escape....". The problem is that this implies that whatever the GM answers, no other way can be better (because they have to truthfully state the "best"), and this is then problematic because any obstacles the PCs have on the way out, it must be the case that there was nothing the PCs could have done to avoid them. It's a lot more limited, because they're limited to the questions on the list. "What's the best way out/in/through" is a pretty narrow question, and it should be somewhat obvious from the established ficiton - you don't have to make up anything fancy, just say "the front gate," and let it flow from there. You described the front gate as heavily guarded? Oh well, that doesn't mean there's a better way out. And no, you're not writing the concrete future history of the world here. They're reading a charged situation, not "the future". Your answer has to be true for the character who made the move in the current charged situation, not true for everyone in all situations forever. The best way to escape's through the gate. Then someone knocks down the east wall with a tank. The situation has changed. There's a new best way out. hyphz posted:But would that count as something useful? That's just "maybe the lich can be redeemed" but not anything about what to actually do. And can the player just Spout Lore again? Yes, it does. They wanted to know if the lich can be redeemed. The answer is yes, and they even have some breadcrumbs to follow. Sure they can spout more lore (Unlike AW, where you can only read the same sitch once - another thing I don't like about Spout Lore). Remember it's your job to share the spotlight around, so after the first player makes their move, you move the spotlight to someone else. First dude doesn't just get to sit there being a prick about it. Everyone else gets a turn too. Turn to them and say "You're being menaced by a redeemable lich, what do you do?" They can spout more lore if they want. Every time they roll, they have a chance of failing. But... what was the lich doing? Was it just sitting there? Why did you set this scene up without a threat? Shouldn't it be attacking, or at least menacing them? Or summoning minions? Or something? Because every time they ignore that by spouting lore instead of doing something about it, it should either escalate or resolve. You've got an agenda here to inform you: Fill the characters' lives with adventure. You've got principles here to inform you: Think dangerous. Begin and end with the fiction. Give every monster life. Think offscreen too. In other words, while they're standing there going "well ACKSHULLY I learned about liches in WIZZARD SCHOOL", the lich should be doing lich stuff, like rending fragile flesh, or eating souls, or summoning skeleton warriors, or whatever it is that big bad evil liches do. e: I looked in the book! It should be doing one or more of - Cast a perfected spell of death and destruction - Set a ritual or great working into motion - Reveal a preparation or plan already completed which is gonna happen unless they deal with it. Every time they go "Uh I check my brain for the answer", it should be loving them up. "Fascinating, do tell me more about whizzard school, meanwhile here's some skeleton archers I prepared earlier". Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 11:55 on Apr 29, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 11:36
|
|
|
Elector_Nerdlingen posted:It's a lot more limited, because they're limited to the questions on the list. "What's the best way out/in/through" is a pretty narrow question, and it should be somewhat obvious from the established ficiton - you don't have to make up anything fancy, just say "the front gate," and let it flow from there. You described the front gate as heavily guarded? Oh well, that doesn't mean there's a better way out. See, that's where I get stuck - and where I think people think I haven't read the content. It says "what's the best way out?", but it doesn't say how much detail this would be in. It also doesn't say that "best" doesn't include allowing for unknowns, so that it would have to include allowance for a tank driving through the wall (if the PC could reasonably know that was something that was likely to happen, of course) quote:Sure they can spout more lore (Unlike AW, where you can only read the same sitch once - another thing I don't like about Spout Lore). Remember it's your job to share the spotlight around, so after the first player makes their move, you move the spotlight to someone else. First dude doesn't just get to sit there being a prick about it. Everyone else gets a turn too. Turn to them and say "You're being menaced by a redeemable lich, what do you do?" Well, not really, they're just thinking about it (it seems a bit unreasonable to say that a PC can't know any of this stuff unless they read it out loud as Spout Lore applies if taken literally) and that doesn't really take time. (If I recall correctly - it was years ago now - the PCs had actually already fought the lich but were debating if they needed to hunt down and destroy the phylactery) quote:e: I looked in the book! It should be doing one or more of Yea, at the time I was very confused about how to deal with turn-taking. The players get to roll Hack and Slash and potentially take an attack from the monster as a result, as a cost or through a move on a failure; but does the monster then just get "a turn" on which they Deal Damage? That didn't seem right to me, but without that, I thought that if the PCs don't roll failures on their Spout Lore then I don't get to make a hard move. Now I think this might actually be wrong at this point, but it was what I thought at the time. (As I said, the PCs rolled a ton of costs and my impression was that I was hardly making any moves at all and it was playing like Dragon's Lair - if you haven't seen that it's an absolutely frantic series of dangers and encounters - so I didn't think they were that important!)
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 12:54
|
|
|
hyphz posted:See, that's where I get stuck - and where I think people think I haven't read the content. It says "what's the best way out?", but it doesn't say how much detail this would be in. It also doesn't say that "best" doesn't include allowing for unknowns, so that it would have to include allowance for a tank driving through the wall (if the PC could reasonably know that was something that was likely to happen, of course) The book literally tells you that they're reading a situation. You do not have to do anything at all to account for any future situations and it's ridiculous to assume you would. Stop giving yourself impossible tasks and blaming it on the rulebook. Here's another example: They ask you "Which enemy is the biggest threat". You answer "obviously Count Chungus", which is true, he's got beer keg armor and the biggest motorbike and a chainsaw on a stick and is an all round bad motherfucker. This doesn't lock you out of later Announcing Future Badness and having Earl Eorsome show up wearing a potbelly stove, riding even bigger motorbike with flamethrowers on it and wielding a chainsaw on each end of a stick. If that happens, the situation has changed into a different situation (and, obviously, can be read again). hyphz posted:Yea, at the time I was very confused about how to deal with turn-taking. The players get to roll Hack and Slash and potentially take an attack from the monster as a result, as a cost or through a move on a failure; but does the monster then just get "a turn" on which they Deal Damage? That didn't seem right to me, but without that, I thought that if the PCs don't roll failures on their Spout Lore then I don't get to make a hard move. Now I think this might actually be wrong at this point, but it was what I thought at the time. (As I said, the PCs rolled a ton of costs and my impression was that I was hardly making any moves at all and it was playing like Dragon's Lair - if you haven't seen that it's an absolutely frantic series of dangers and encounters - so I didn't think they were that important!) "When to make a move: -When everyone looks to you to find out what happens -When the players give you a golden opportunity -When they roll a 6- Generally when the players are just looking at you to find out what happens, you make a soft move, otherwise you make a hard move. A soft move... ...it's something bad, but hey have time to avoid it, like having goblin archers loose their arrows. ...A soft move ignored becomes a golden opportunity for a hard move. If the players do nothing about the hail of arrows flying towards them, it's a golden opportunity to use the deal damage move". This is all on the same page, under the heading "When to make a move". You don't have to wait for them to fail for a hard move. You announce what's happening (soft), and then if they don't do something about it, it happens (hard). E: wait a sec. hyphz posted:I did actually run Dungeon World once for my group, using an adventure framework provided for con demos hyphz posted:it was years ago now - the PCs had actually already fought the lich but were debating if they needed to hunt down and destroy the phylactery) Hold up. The Slave-Pit Of Drazhu? That's the adventure, right? Drazhu Solitary, Magical, Intelligent, Dickish 10 HP, 2 Armor Icy talons (d8 damage 1 piercing) Close, Messy Soul Rip (d6 damage, ignores armor) Near, Far Instinct: To build -Set a ritual into motion according to plan -Gloat and explain the futility of resistance in the face of destiny -Destroy his own works in a fit of petulant rage Special: If not dealt with by a cleric Drazhu will arise again at 4HP for one last round of back-stabbing terror That's the guy? When you kill him, he does his special move, and then that's it, that's the end. You have reached the end of the printed material. The next step it gives you is to say good game and ask them to sign the map. The phylactery? Not mentioned in the material. You've gone past the end of the session and off the script. At that point you're into making stuff up regardless so why are you under time pressure here? Just say "oh cool, you want to keep going? Awesome, thanks, that means a lot to me. That was the end of the prepared adventure, but I'll have something ready for next week". And the players have already given you all the material you need! They want to either find and destroy the phylactery, or redeem the lich! No moves necessary, you're in downtime and this is your writing prompt. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 13:43 on Apr 29, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 13:13
|
|
|
hyphz posted:See, that's where I get stuck - and where I think people think I haven't read the content. It says "what's the best way out?", but it doesn't say how much detail this would be in. It also doesn't say that "best" doesn't include allowing for unknowns, so that it would have to include allowance for a tank driving through the wall (if the PC could reasonably know that was something that was likely to happen, of course) how much detail do you think it needs? it depends on the complexity of the situation, of course, but generally it doesn't take all that much. when i ran monster of the week and we discussed best ways in or out i never had to give them the exact dimensions of the back gate or the distance in yards to a busted window. the bit about unknowns here is just weird, but a tank driving through a wall and providing a way out would be pretty rad
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 13:29
|
|
|
Elector_Nerdlingen posted:The book literally tells you that they're reading a situation. You do not have to do anything at all to account for any future situations and it's ridiculous to assume you would. Stop giving yourself impossible tasks and blaming it on the rulebook. The thing is that the question "what's the best way..." is by definition about what will be done in the future. If Count Chungus is standing next to the exit door ready to slam it closed, it would be pretty ridiculous to argue that the answer to "what's the best way.." is "through the exit door" because he hasn't closed it yet. If the PCs are asking "what's the best way out" then if the PCs know that Earl Eorsome is likely to be around but not exactly where he is, then if he shows up, there must have been no better way in which the PCs could have managed that unknown, because the rules demand that the way presented must be the best. (Interestingly in Under Hollow Hills, the equivalent move, Sniff The Wind, has the question written differently as "If I trust my feet to carry me to safety, where will they take me?"; which makes it clear that the answer doesn't have to be perfect, because trust doesn't have to be 100%. I wondered if the author reworded the question in Burned Over, but he didn't.) Now in the case of "which enemy is the biggest threat", that's pretty obviously a question about the present moment. quote:When to make a move: Right, and this doesn't say anything about turn-taking in combat. It's been mentioned before that "looks to you to find out what happens" is really a terrible and unclear trigger - technically the PCs do that every time they make a roll, to see what happened as a result, although that's a very pedantic interpretation. But, the PCs were engaged in their own thing wailing on the lich so they weren't really looking for something new to happen. quote:E: wait a sec. Hold up. The Slave-Pit Of Drazhu? That's the adventure, right? Yea, I had to dig it up (as I said it was years ago) but that was the adventure. If I recall correctly, The General got the hero question "who is Drazhu to you and how will you save him from himself?", and he came up with an idea that made him potentially redeemable. The idea that he had a phylactery think I came from him too because he was making D&D assumptions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 14:27
|
|
|
hyphz posted:The thing is that the question "what's the best way..." is by definition about what will be done in the future. If Count Chungus is standing next to the exit door ready to slam it closed, it would be pretty ridiculous to argue that the answer to "what's the best way.." is "through the exit door" because he hasn't closed it yet. If the PCs are asking "what's the best way out" then if the PCs know that Earl Eorsome is likely to be around but not exactly where he is, then if he shows up, there must have been no better way in which the PCs could have managed that unknown, because the rules demand that the way presented must be the best. you understand that your interpretation of this move is the result of years of playing in a toxic group, right? if the players ask me "what's the best way out" and then act on that information, i'm not going to hit them with earl eorsome unless i get an opportunity to make a hard move. this reflects the idea that the best way is sometimes the best among bad choices, but it doesn't have to be actively punishing. the players understand that there is a risk of a hard move happening when they roll the dice, but if they're invested in the game then they should be okay with hard moves happening so long as they logically follow from what they did. you established that earl eorsome is around somewhere, and they roll a 6- so he shows up hyphz posted:Right, and this doesn't say anything about turn-taking in combat. It's been mentioned before that "looks to you to find out what happens" is really a terrible and unclear trigger - technically the PCs do that every time they make a roll, to see what happened as a result, although that's a very pedantic interpretation. But, the PCs were engaged in their own thing wailing on the lich so they weren't really looking for something new to happen. discard your pedantry. moving the spotlight from player to player isn't difficult. and if you're worried about when the enemies should act, its when the players present you with an opportunity. if no one is taking the time to attack the werebeetle, then the werebeetle goes after the most reasonable choice. or maybe it sees that a few other werebeetles have gotten killed and so it flies off to fight another day, that's also a perfectly rational way for it to act.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 14:49
|
|
|
hyphz posted:The thing is that the question "what's the best way..." is by definition about what will be done in the future. If Count Chungus is standing next to the exit door ready to slam it closed, it would be pretty ridiculous to argue that the answer to "what's the best way.." is "through the exit door" because he hasn't closed it yet. If the PCs are asking "what's the best way out" then if the PCs know that Earl Eorsome is likely to be around but not exactly where he is, then if he shows up, there must have been no better way in which the PCs could have managed that unknown, because the rules demand that the way presented must be the best. No, it's not. It's about what's the best way right now. If "right now" is clearly about to change, remember your principles: always say what honesty demands. Remember that in Apocalypse World, moves snowbal--they build on each other naturally through the fiction. Hyphz, you seem to assume that the only form of GMing that exists is "gotcha" GMing, where the GM only gives the players the absolute minimum information that fits the absolute most literal criteria of what they asked for, so he can spring "gotchas" on the players. Not only is that lovely GMing in general, it is explicitly against the rules of MCing Apocalypse World. The MC is required to be free and honest with information, clearly telegraph what's coming, and not gently caress them over because "ha ha, you didn't actually say you looked to see if someone was about to close the door!" Here's how that scene would actually play out: Player: "What's the best way out?" MC: "Well, right now the front gate is invitingly wide open--but over there you see Lord Chungus making a beeline for the lever that drops the portcullis. If he pulls it, kiss that exit good-bye. What do you do?" The MC is saying what honesty demands--Chungus is running toward the gate lever--and announcing future badness--Chungus is about to close the gate and change the situation. Player: "Do I have time to run through before he closes it?" The player is asking a question to clarify their next action. Totally allowed. MC: "Maybe. You'll be acting under fire to do it, and he'll definitely close the gate and trap the rest of your buddies in here with Chungus and his killamajigs. Still want to do it?" The MC is telling them the consequence and asking. Player: "gently caress it. If I ditch out on them, Brimms will never let me hear the end of it. I'm gonna try to pop the fucker before he can pull the lever." The player is doing it to do it. If they succeed, chances are the front gate is still the best exit. If not, the situation has changed, they've lost that opportunity, and they can read the sitch again. Alternately Player: "What's the best way out?" MC: "Well, right now the front gate is invitingly wide open--but you know for a fact Earl Eorsome is en route with more killamajigs, and the front gate leads straight to the Blacktop he'd be coming down. If you go now you cahn probably get to ground before he rolls up and pins you in place." Again, the MC is simultaneously saying what honesty demands and announcing future badness. Player: "Okay, I'm gonna round up the prisoners and hustle them out the gate while Chungus and his guys are distracted. MC: "The hostages are scared out of their gourds and disorganized. You'll have to act under fire to get them moving in time. Cool?" Again, tell them the consequences and ask. Player: "Okay, yeah. (Rolls) An 8." MC: "You're chivvying them along as best you can when you hear the unmistakeable roar of Earl Eorsome's even bigger motorbike coming in hot. You'll never get them all out in time: You can either abandon the slowest half of the group to their fate and you and the rest get away clear, or you can try to draw Eorsome's attention and buy time for everybody. What do you do?" A partial hit on act under fire means the MC offers a worse outcome, hard bargain, or ugly choice. Now I bet I can anticipate that next you're going to say something about how now you have to plan in advance to let the players know Earl Eorsome would be on his way and that requires you to build out an entire duty rota for Lord Chungus's killamajig patrols and what not. No you don't. If Eorsome hasn't been established as "future badness" in this way, you can just announce him now if it would make sense and make the game more fun. Instead of the MC saying "you know for a fact Earl Eorsome is en route with more killamajigs," he istead says "Well, your first thought is the front gate, but then you hear Lord Chungus scream something about how Earl Eorsome is on his way and you're all gonna be proper hosed then, and now you're thinking the window for using that best way out is closing loving sharpish." Same result.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 15:00
|
|
|
hyphz once again you are getting hung up on a single word (in this case "best") without considering what the whole sentence means. Here's the thing about read a sitch - it's not a "perception check" but rather a narrative cue by the player to the MC. When the player asks a particular question (especially if they only get one), it's because that's an option that interests them. So when someone asks, "what's my best way out" they are communicating that they are looking for an escape, and as a fan of the characters you should present them with an opportunity for a harrowing escape. If they ask, "what's my best way in" then they want to do a daring infiltration and I should give them that opportunity. And as a fan of the characters, I'm likely to give them an opportunity that plays to their strengths (so tell the Gunlugger about a weak point he or she could attack, for the Battlebabe maybe something that allows for stealth, for the Skinner maybe a social angle). But I still have to say what honesty demands (maybe talking your way past the guards just ain't gonna happen), and sometimes it's fun to present the player an option that plays to a weakness. And whatevs, they're taking +1 forward if they act on it anyway. And if they're asking "who's in charge here," it's because they're looking to take control - or take out the enemy leader to leave their opposition disorganized. As a fan, now I'm going to give them an opportunity to do so. Similarly, if they ask something like, "which enemy is most vulnerable to me," then you know they're looking to score an easy hit on someone. If the situation has not yet turned violent, this is the player clearly communicating that it's about to. I recall a session once where a players read a sitch and got a partial (only one question). I figured he would likely ask "what should I be on the lookout for," but instead he asked "which enemy is most vulnerable to me?". That communicated very clearly to me that a fight was about to happen, which was a surprise to me (oh, so it's like that is it? OK!) As mentioned by other respondents the answer doesn't have to be good - it could simply be the best from a bunch of bad options. And it doesn't have to be safe or easy. In fact it should always have some element of risk involved, as otherwise there's no point in taking +1 forward right? So yeah, maybe the answer really is, "hunker down and try to stay alive until your buddy crashes through the east wall with his tank. You know he should be here any minute."
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 16:18
|
|
|
GimpInBlack posted:Hyphz, you seem to assume that the only form of GMing that exists is "gotcha" GMing, where the GM only gives the players the absolute minimum information that fits the absolute most literal criteria of what they asked for, so he can spring "gotchas" on the players. Not only is that lovely GMing in general, it is explicitly against the rules of MCing Apocalypse World. The MC is required to be free and honest with information, clearly telegraph what's coming, and not gently caress them over because "ha ha, you didn't actually say you looked to see if someone was about to close the door!" That's not what I mean. It's not a matter of pulling gotchas on the players, which I usually specifically try to avoid doing, it's a matter of not being able to give all the information because there is always some information omitted. quote:Here's how that scene would actually play out: I can see how both of these work in the case where the PC is just asking for a way out. But the text says I have to tell the PC the best. And if I'm improvising, I can't look at the charts and tell them what the route with the best calculated chance of success is. Instead, I have to either have there be no opposition at all, or tread incredibly carefully to make sure that none of the opposition or obstacles could have been avoided by the PCs taking a different way out. quote:Now I bet I can anticipate that next you're going to say something about how now you have to plan in advance to let the players know Earl Eorsome would be on his way and that requires you to build out an entire duty rota for Lord Chungus's killamajig patrols and what not. No you don't. If Eorsome hasn't been established as "future badness" in this way, you can just announce him now if it would make sense and make the game more fun. Instead of the MC saying "you know for a fact Earl Eorsome is en route with more killamajigs," he istead says "Well, your first thought is the front gate, but then you hear Lord Chungus scream something about how Earl Eorsome is on his way and you're all gonna be proper hosed then, and now you're thinking the window for using that best way out is closing loving sharpish." Same result. Yes and no. I don't think it's necessary to build the rota, but it's necessary to potentially have a bit more information than that. If this fortress is in the middle of a plain with long sight lines, and a PC has had a chance to look out of the window at some point, and I didn't mention the smoke from Earl Eorsome's convoy in the distance, then I'm contradicting myself if he later shows up within a short period of time. That's the thing that really scares about trying to do improv of longer scenes. Even without being pedantic, every statement - no matter how generic - sheds consequences like crazy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 17:04
|
|
|
hyphz posted:I can see how both of these work in the case where the PC is just asking for a way out. But the text says I have to tell the PC the best. And if I'm improvising, I can't look at the charts and tell them what the route with the best calculated chance of success is. Instead, I have to either have there be no opposition at all, or tread incredibly carefully to make sure that none of the opposition or obstacles could have been avoided by the PCs taking a different way out. i've been running games by the seat of my pants for over a decade now and this has never once been a concern for me. because the best way out is the one you come up with. you don't need to worry about coming up with 12 escape routes and analzying each one for its best and worst points to find the absolute best one. and why are you so concerned with the opposition or obstacles that could have been avoided with other ways out? those ways don't exist
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 17:09
|
|
|
hyphz posted:That's not what I mean. It's not a matter of pulling gotchas on the players, which I usually specifically try to avoid doing, it's a matter of not being able to give all the information because there is always some information omitted. No, you just have to decide, in the moment, based on what's established as being in the scene, is the best way out. You don't even have to know what the obstacles are! Or even what, if any, other ways out there might be! Trust your gut and run with it, and if players subsequently ask about other ways out, just make up obstacles that are worse. As long as you take your cues from the conversation, I promise you it will work. hyphz posted:Yes and no. I don't think it's necessary to build the rota, but it's necessary to potentially have a bit more information than that. If this fortress is in the middle of a plain with long sight lines, and a PC has had a chance to look out of the window at some point, and I didn't mention the smoke from Earl Eorsome's convoy in the distance, then I'm contradicting myself if he later shows up within a short period of time. That's the thing that really scares about trying to do improv of longer scenes. Even without being pedantic, every statement - no matter how generic - sheds consequences like crazy. So you know what you do then? if a player notices and points it out, you go "poo poo, my bad, I forgot you checked a few minutes ago and the horizon was clear, forget I said that. Instead, uhh, HungaMunga sees you trying to escape with the prisoners and starts bringing his bigos machine gun to bear. Same basic choice--do you distract him so all the prisoners can get out or do you let half of them die to get you and the rest out safe." or you say "gently caress, I dunno man, the horizon was clear 5 minutes ago but now Eorsome's here, do you wanna try and figure out how he did it or do you wanna focus on not getting your face chainsawed off?" Then you make a note to yourself: "how did Eorsome get to the fortress?" And you answer it later. Underground highway? Weird as gently caress portal through the Psychic Maelston? Who knows, that's something the PCs can try to figure out! and if nobody notices... you just loving ignore it and keep playing. My dude, The Dark Knight is widely considered one of the best action movies of the last decade+, people love it, it got a ton of critical acclaim, and there is a chase scene halfway through it we're literally between cuts it goes from the middle of the afternoon to the dead of night. Nobody noticed or gave a poo poo, because the action was engaging, the characters were interesting, and what was going on in the scene was more compelling than background minutiae. Your game will not be a perfect multifaceted Jewel with no internal contradictions or inconsistencies. No work of fiction is. You will make mistakes, you will describe a character as having brown hair in one session and black hair three sessions later, you will forget that you established that the Duke is allergic to cheese and then have him comment on how delicious the gouda you will change a character's name halfway through a campaign because they haven't shown up in a while. That is okay. if it's noticeable you walk it back and correct it, and if your players aren't complete assholes, they will not bat an eye at a small retcon now and then. If it's not noticeable, who the gently caress cares? GimpInBlack fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Apr 29, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 17:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 03:17 |
|
|
Nessus posted:The cognitive structure for me, is a little old fashioned but it is I suppose how I got raised on a diet of old pulp novels. It is that there is a nuance between violence and murder, especially when you are considering literary representations (which I suppose covers D&D). If Vargnr pursues the orcs after he decapitates the fell sorcerer or does the Gygax crap with wiping out orc-infants or whatever, he has gone from violence to murder. I'm amused but not surprised that a discussion of the philosophy of roleplaying games turns to Just War Theory. It's probably inevitable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2020 17:25
|
|
