|
Splicer posted:You are a bit yeah. You "invented" a problem (not knowing where east is) and then "solved" it by rolling perception (should really have been survival though). She "invented" a problem (the way is blocked by debris) and "solved" it by athleticsing it out of the way. It's all made up (tm). Giving the players an opportunity to take over the making up is pretty much the entire point of skill challenges. I really love when the party gets to help flesh out the world. It helps promote that this is a cooperative game and we’re all having fun together. One of my favorite questions for PC’s is “what do you see?”. They often make up cooler stuff than I ever could and we just roll with it.
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2021 03:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 18:53 |
|
|
please knock Mom! posted:I gave one of the rogues a t-rexbane crossbow after the party killed an undead t-rex (with traps and tricks because they’re level 4-5. XXX-slayer, Mace of Smiting, Mace of Disruption all exist in the DMG and give you something to pattern off of. Just swap the creature type.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2021 03:17
|
|
|
change my name posted:Revised beast master is quite fun, even good. Getting it to play well with DNDbeyond is... impossible though Why does it not work through DNDBeyond?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2021 03:20
|
|
|
Yorkshire Pudding posted:Why does it not work through DNDBeyond? It’s old unsupported UA
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2021 03:28
|
|
|
The Primal Companion option from Tasha's is supposed to improve PHB Beast Master a lot, and I'm assuming it's available in D&DBeyond, if this helps any.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2021 04:01
|
|
|
Real UK Grime posted:The Primal Companion option from Tasha's is supposed to improve PHB Beast Master a lot, and I'm assuming it's available in D&DBeyond, if this helps any. Perhaps a bit fiddly to get to the stats for it but it's active.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2021 04:37
|
|
cowboy
|
FFT posted:You have to have "Optional Class Features" enabled on the first screen then enable it in the "optional feature manager" on the class screen then go back to the normal class features and select a type but yeah it's in there. You need to buy Tasha's wholesale to get Optional Class Features as an option, btw. I picked it up cheap in the character creator bundle last week but there is no piecemeal option for it
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2021 04:39
|
|
|
The DM took great pains to describe the current weather and time (early morning, roughly 9 am). We were given a direction to go to McGuffin and came to crossroads, so to help the DM and prompt other players about the SC I just went with the perception > sun's position check. Ultimately it wasn't a good implementation of a SC to be honest, but it was more an introduction to the mechanic. See, for me the devil is in the details, and why many of you think I'm overthinking it (and that's fine). For me it's verisimilitude and the feeling that it's a living world. We as a group also try to avoid being too gamey, or meta-gamey. Lots of us are video game players and know how to cheese as well as anyone. So, when a player makes up an obstacle that they already have a solution to, that comes across as gamey to me. However, if they simply ask the DM "are there any obstacles in the path along the way?" and the DM answers "yes, you come across a fallen tree" then that's not as gamey, as they're reacting to the DM's arbitration. If we had someone who had strong Deception and wanted to use it, they'd need to be creative obviously since they're just trying to get to location B from Village A. Compare "I lie to a passerby that I'm a messenger heading to B, and ask for confirmation directions." with "Do we meet anyone along the road?" If the DM says yes he can describe who we meet, then I'd have to react to that: "I lie and claim we're messengers from A village, and need to get a letter to B location. Are you from around here? Is this the right way?" In the end it's just trying to get the passes vs. the fails. And ultimately the destination is the same. But one of the approaches takes me right out of the game and another pulls me in. That's the real difference I'd argue. A player asking a leading question to prompt the DM AND THEN react to that is ok, but a player telling a DM that something exists sticks in my craw.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2021 05:00
|
|
|
Trivia posted:For me it's verisimilitude and the feeling that it's a living world. Why does the role of the player matter in terms of verisimilitude? Like, if one person at the table describes: "A bit after noon, the party comes to a particularly treacherous part of the road. A tree blocks the way. Bovar, with his prodigious strength, heaves the bulk of it out of the way, allowing the group to pass." What does it matter if that person is the DM or another player?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2021 05:27
|
|
|
I'm not trying to bag on your way of play, by the way. I tend to prefer the DM to decide the bulk of what happens. On the other hand, as a DM, I often ask my players to build the world with me. Sometimes I tell my friend Chris "you remember seeing one of these creatures on your last adventure north of Mirabar", but sometimes I ask "where did you learn about this type of creature?" or "who taught you to climb icy surfaces?" or "what do you see when peering out into the swamp?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2021 05:31
|
|
|
IT BEGINS posted:I'm not trying to bag on your way of play, by the way. I am. Give your dm a friggin break they've got a lot on their mind and this game is already sitting upon a mountain of layers of people making things up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2021 05:35
|
|
|
Ignite Memories posted:I am. Give your dm a friggin break they've got a lot on their mind and this game is already sitting upon a mountain of layers of people making things up. Right? The most frustrating players I have ever GMed for are the ones who do the leading question poo poo instead of just saying what they want to do. They would never go "I hide in the curtains", they'd go "Is the room especially opulent? Yes? Does it have, like, lots of furniture and ornaments and stuff? Yes? And fine carpets and things? Yes? Does it have, oh..." (attempting to sound offhanded) "...drapes? Or maybe... Curtains? Yes?" and then all triumphantly "AHA! AND I HAVE PLUS SEVEN TO HIDE IN HANGING FABRICS!" or whatever special skill they wanted to use. Which is exactly the same result as saying "I hide in the curtains", but with seventeen extra steps so they could feel like they outsmarted someone who was just gonna say yes to them anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2021 05:41
|
|
|
Man, I just finished DMing a game so it's not like I don't get it. Like I explained earlier, it just sounds like it's a method of preference, and that's ok. For me it's about reaction to events or environment. IT BEGINS posted:On the other hand, as a DM, I often ask my players to build the world with me. Sometimes I tell my friend Chris "you remember seeing one of these creatures on your last adventure north of Mirabar", but sometimes I ask "where did you learn about this type of creature?" or "who taught you to climb icy surfaces?" or "what do you see when peering out into the swamp?" Each and every one of those statements is you as the DM prompting the player and THEN asking for their input; they are reacting to you. If your player said "Oh I learned about this creature from some NPC that I met in the past." unprompted, wouldn't that jar you as DM? Seems so convenient that you can just post-hoc justify whatever you want.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2021 05:47
|
|
|
Elector_Nerdlingen posted:Right? If they asked "Are there curtains?" and you said "Yes, sure" and they said "I hide in the curtains." then cool, fine. If they said "I hide in the curtains" they're the ones that invented the curtains and now you're the one that has to react to them. It's an issue of control I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2021 05:52
|
|
|
Trivia posted:"Oh I learned about this creature from some NPC that I met in the past." unprompted, wouldn't that jar you as DM? No, it hasn't. I agree that it's a question of control. If you prefer to have total control - cool. But it's totally cool to give your players control, too. You already give them control over their characters, what does it matter if they get to decide some of the scenery?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2021 05:57
|
|
|
It's the issue of it being too gamey. Inventing something to justify another things to tick off a check box sucks to me. But if the DM says for example, "you enter low lands that eventually lead to swamps, X character (who's leading), tell me what you see" that's cool and like you said, let's the players build the world. But if they're traveling and the DM says "tell me what you see" and the player says "snow capped mountain" where none had previously existed, oh man they've just created a ton of work for the DM.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2021 06:02
|
|
|
Trivia posted:Each and every one of those statements is you as the DM prompting the player and THEN asking for their input; they are reacting to you. If your player said "Oh I learned about this creature from some NPC that I met in the past." unprompted, wouldn't that jar you as DM? Seems so convenient that you can just post-hoc justify whatever you want. This is a pretty interesting take to me. Can you tell me how you feel about each of these scenarios? The party has encountered some creatures they have never seen before. They don't know it, but they're face to face with hostile owlbears. 1: Player: "Brian Greenstrider told me about these!" ("I'm gonna make a knowledge check") <rolls a 2> GM: ("He said they were harmless") Player: "He said they're harmless" <is eaten by owlbears>. 2: Player: "(I want to make a knowledge check") GM: ("Cool, roll it") Player: <rolls a 2> GM: ("Fail, you think they're harmless but they're dangerous) Player: "Brian Greenstrider told me about these. He said they're harmless" <is eaten by owlbears> 3: Player: ("Do I remember any NPCs that might have told me about these things") GM: ("Brian Greenstrider told you they're harmless, but roll a knowledge check") Player: <rolls a 2> "I guess he was right" <is eaten by owlbears> 4: Player: ("Do I remember any NPCs that might have told me about these things") GM: ("Brian Greenstrider, roll a knowledge check") Player: <rolls a 2> ("I failed") GM: ("He said they were harmless") Player: <is eaten by owlbears> Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 06:07 on Jan 15, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2021 06:05
|
|
|
I'm sorry, but even if the DM describes the weather and the time of day, you are still making assumptions when you say "I want to help us orient ourselves by finding the direction of the sun." You are assuming that the group's passive perception wouldn't be able to spot the sun shortly after it rises, you are assuming that no one in the group is carrying a compass or has a natural sense of direction, and you are assuming facts about the setting like "the sun predictably rises on a fixed point of the horizon." Unless the DM had explicitly said that you could use the sun productively in that particular circumstance, and that the main issue stopping you is that you cannot see it from your current position, you are still making assumptions about the scenario that lets you use your skill. That isn't a bad thing. That is how collaborative storytelling works. I don't know your campaign, and I don't know the player in question, but it seems likely that they made similar assumptions that you did. Your group is traveling through the countryside on unmarked roads, so it makes sense to them that there would be some physical obstacles along the way. Their assumption about the conditions of the roads seems just as logical to me as your assumption about the movement/position of the sun. Why should that player have to jump through hoops to confirm their assumption when you were free to assume that your campaign is set on a round planet that is rotating in a predictable way near a sun? Tenik fucked around with this message at 06:39 on Jan 15, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2021 06:06
|
|
|
Trivia posted:It's the issue of it being too gamey. What about it is 'gamey'? I mean, the context of a skill challenge itself is already pretty 'gamey', but the part where the player invents a part of the world is exactly the same as the DM doing it. As far as it being more work - so what? If your DM is fine with doing that work, what's the problem? (Note, I disagree that it's more work. You're expecting the unexpected if you're asking that kind of open-ended question. And it's certainly not any more work than you making up a bunch of swamp encounters and your players completely skipping the swamp because they hate swamps.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2021 06:08
|
|
|
Trivia posted:If they asked "Are there curtains?" and you said "Yes, sure" and they said "I hide in the curtains." then cool, fine. If they said "I hide in the curtains" they're the ones that invented the curtains and now you're the one that has to react to them. God gently caress this is the most depressing topic the thread has come across. You're all playing the game, you're all actively talking and working with each other to tell this story. Every single one of the people at the table, whether they are playing as a player character or playing as the GM has equal levels of control of the situation. At any point a player can stand up and say 'no that doesn't happen to me' and there is not a single thing a GM can do to countermand that. The fiction and story and therefore the game and play itself is a collaborative experience by its very nature and it only functions by shared input and shared agreement. It is some really loving lovely browbeating Gygaxian pants shittery that tricks people into thinking that everyone contributing to the story is a bad thing or somehow an incorrect play experience. If not everyone wants to invent things in a scene and add colour and set dressing then they don't have do but if players have a creative and cool idea, don't stop them, support them. In any other medium, adding increasing texture and scenery to a story is critical for really tactile experience but for some reason its being frowned up on in the medium of make believe storytelling. Let me explain to you what that Skill Check was about. You see travelling from point a to point b is boring poo poo. It doesn't matter, it literally just unimportant filler that has no bearing on what you're actually doing and you can just cut straight to the destination but instead the GM has opened up a box for everyone to have a chance to give a spotlight on each player. The consequences are pretty limited but it turns an irrelevant and boring scene into one where 4 people can put their heads together make it interesting and exciting, to add some texture to the world. They're given the opportunity to be writers and a writer when handed a list of solutions (skills) is going to find a problem for those solutions to solve. Thats the core consequence of that mechanical design. Trivia posted:Each and every one of those statements is you as the DM prompting the player and THEN asking for their input; they are reacting to you. If your player said "Oh I learned about this creature from some NPC that I met in the past." unprompted, wouldn't that jar you as DM? Seems so convenient that you can just post-hoc justify whatever you want. Everything everyone does in a ttrpg is a prompt for input, from players to other players and from GM to players and if my players invented something unprompted I would be loving hyped. That player just straight up said allowed something they cared about their character that integrates their character to the world around them. I would want to immediately write down and talk to that player about what they said, who is this person what experience led them to knowing about this stuff, etc. A player who does that is actual gold. There is genuinely nothing more miserable to me as a GM than when I find out nobody at the table is going to want to invent something and surprise me. If I want to just tell a story I wouldn't GM, I want to be a part of this play experience, I want to have people share their stories and change what I was expecting as well. If I'm the only arbiter of what happens in the world and what the world consists of, that world is going to be pretty loving dull to me because I already know it all. Having a whole table of additional voices and ideas and perspectives placed upon that baseline I can provide improves both from the finer details to the grand structure of the worlds ideologies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2021 06:16
|
|
|
Trivia posted:If they asked "Are there curtains?" and you said "Yes, sure" and they said "I hide in the curtains." then cool, fine. If they said "I hide in the curtains" they're the ones that invented the curtains and now you're the one that has to react to them. Either way, the curtains were made up on the spur of the moment because the character wanted to hide in them, so not only is the result the same, the motivation for getting to the result is too. And what do you mean, "control"? Who has it, over what, why do they need it, and why would they feel like they were losing it in this situation?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2021 06:22
|
|
|
"How do you want to do this?" The DM was soliciting a skill check scenario instead of a description of the final blow on a big bad, but I bet this player enjoyed sharing their idea on how their character would use physicality to solve a problem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2021 06:26
|
|
|
13th Age has this as an explicit mechanic in its Organised Play adventures called montages. GM: "PC 1, what was a problem the party faced in the course of this journey?" PC1: [explains obstacle] GM: "Cool. PC 2, how was your character prepared or otherwise best-suited to deal with this obstacle?" PC2: [explains solution] GM: "Cool. Now PC 2, what was the next obstacle the group had to deal with [which will be dealt with by PC 3]?" And you go around the table like that. It's a cool good way to do things when you want to have interesting things happen without dwelling on them. I can't imagine why someone would dislike it. It works for more than just overland journeys too. For example you can do it as a 'battle montage' where your group describes how they fight their way to the frontlines, or reaches an enemy general. You want to have a big epic battle without having it taking up multiple sessions and actual fight scenes. Trivia posted:It's the issue of it being too gamey. This may be shocking to you, but when you play DnD you are playing a role-playing... GAME! All games are gamey. DnD is exactly as much of a game as Snakes and Ladders or World of Warcraft is. They are all games. Just like no book is more 'booky' than another. Hop On Pop is just as much of a book as Finnegans Wake is just as much of a book as the DSM 5. bewilderment fucked around with this message at 06:36 on Jan 15, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2021 06:32
|
|
|
Trivia posted:It's the issue of it being too gamey. Inventing something to justify another things to tick off a check box sucks to me. You literally invented the need to identify where the sun was, you invented the solution based on a problem that you created . This issue I'm seeing with you is that you want to be fed a set of parameters from the GM and only have that box to play in as a control space anything that goes outside of that feels like a player is creating an unfair solution to you because you've been operating in what you perceive to be that control space the GM has provided. Every example you've given me too has been 'man that would be awesome, I'd LOVE if my players did that!'. A player saying "snow capped mountain", I sit there going 'gently caress yes hes just given me more world or adventure hooks' and if I can think of anything immediately cool, I open a follow up to the group. "What are those mountains home to, anyone's character heard any rumors about them, what are they called, are they on the map (if not then woah what are those mountains doing there??)'. Here's another thing I feel you're not quite understanding, this isnt 'work' for the GM to do. If this isn't something the GM enjoys or doesn't want to do, they can ask the whole table for this. Everyone at the table can take on that 'workload' because if you personal don't enjoy it, I guarantee it's going to feel less like work if everyone chips in a little bit. That's all great stuff. The game you are playing is a blank canvas and the goal is everyone at the table adding to put their little touches onto it. EDIT: Like I get it, its harder to understand this because D&D provide literally zero support for this kind of group contribution to the fiction so the only way to really inject this is for players to provide this information unprompted some times and thats important to recognize. Without tools like flashbacks, bennies, fail forward, degrees of success, multi-axis results etc, the GM has a huge burden to provide specific entry points for the other players to push their own ideas into the fiction, otherwise the only real avenue players can take is the unprompted ideas. kingcom fucked around with this message at 06:40 on Jan 15, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2021 06:34
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:It's still coming across as lazy DMing. If the DM wants to make the journey interesting, then make it interesting. Come up with things to happen, that's literally the DM's main job. If they don't want anything interesting to happen, skip it and say nothing eventful ocurred and you are now at whatever town. Or let the players RP walking and talking for a bit. Also I got some loving beef with this poo poo. What the gently caress are you talking about 'that's literally the DM's main job'. Now lets put aside the paid GM's stuff cause I've got no experience with that and don't really understand the social nature of it. For anyone else, the GM's main job is to have fun and make sure everyone else has an enjoyable time. Its not coming up with poo poo. This isn't work, this is you and your friends sitting together to enjoy yourself, if it feels like a job you should stop playing this game you are doing for fun. Holy poo poo, this is why its hard to get people to GM because you got assholes calling what they were hoping to be a fun night with their friends a job. Your GM did want something interesting to happen and wanted everyone to get involved, maybe because they couldn't think of anything or maybe travel sequences aren't something they care about but know its important for setting the tone or maybe they just want everyone at the table to have the opportunity to have a little spotlight on them so the player gets to talk and everyone else gets to listen. Thats the best part of those skill challenges, if its not your thing (and its definitely not everyones) you can just do something simple and move on and let another player who really wants to flex their creative muscle have at it. D&D 5e frankly doesn't give them that opportunity very often, especially not in a group setting in session. You're making some grand sweeping statements like you have a clear understand of what all players of all types are there at the table for, and its extremely narrow mind and ignorant and frankly a lovely attitude to have towards people who should be, if not friends, at least people you get along with. kingcom fucked around with this message at 07:49 on Jan 15, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2021 06:51
|
|
|
Just as an aside, the way I've presented travel sequence skill challenges is as a flashback where each character either boasts about or apologises for their most interesting personal moment. Because it's not like failing a travel skill challenge means "they don't arrive", right? It means they arrive, but in a worse situation than if they'd succeeded. Because otherwise how does it end up? "Sorry guys, you're all gonna have to go home because I didn't prep "lost in the forest" as a scenario"? Because if I'd prepped that we'd be running it instead of glossing past it with a skill challenge.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2021 07:10
|
|
|
kingcom posted:Real good It's wild how many D&D GMs think it's badwrongfun to give players any agency over the fiction. I actively incorporate the equivalent of bennies that allow the player to just invent whatever once per session, and I encourage it outside of spending bennies with a little more restriction (explained in Session 0). Each thing they invent gives me more to work with. More NPCs they care about. More hooks, more interesting locations, more weird poo poo that happened long ago. Even if they just use to create cover in combat, I can use that in interesting ways. It also lets the players feel like they matter to, and in, the world. Devorum fucked around with this message at 08:13 on Jan 15, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2021 07:40
|
|
|
Elector_Nerdlingen posted:This is a pretty interesting take to me. Can you tell me how you feel about each of these scenarios? 1: If B.G. had been set up as a supporting character for Player, then I may go along with it. However, it's awfully convenient that B.G. just happened to mention something about these creatures the party doesn't know or recognize (slightly gamey but potentially hilarious results, I'd roll with it were I DM). 2: Seems perfectly fine (assuming B.G. is an established character) as the character is roleplaying and reacting to the DM's answer. 3: Were I DM, I'd not prompt for a roll because B.G. told the player outright they're harmless, and if B.G. is a trusted source, the player would have no reason to doubt their claim. Maybe have them roll insight instead (the owlbear after all does NOT look harmless). 4: Seems run of the mill and fine. I think I see what you're getting at. 1 and 2 have the best RP and would be hilarious. 3 and 4 are very mechanical and less fun. And, even if it changed to something like: Player: ("Do I remember any NPCs that might have told me about these things") GM: ("Brian Greenstrider, roll a knowledge check") Player: <rolls a 2> ("I failed") GM: ("He said they were harmless") Player: "Brian Greenstrider told me about these! He said they were harmless." Then you'd have a lot of repeated information at the table which is less spontaneous and fun. Hmm, good food for thought, cheers. Tenik posted:I'm sorry, but even if the DM describes the weather and the time of day, you are still making assumptions when you say "I want to help us orient ourselves by finding the direction of the sun." You are assuming that the group's passive perception wouldn't be able to spot the sun shortly after it rises, you are assuming that no one in the group is carrying a compass or has a natural sense of direction, and you are assuming facts about the setting like "the sun predictably rises on a fixed point of the horizon." Unless the DM had explicitly said that you could use the sun productively in that particular circumstance, and that the main issue stopping you is that you cannot see it from your current position, you are still making assumptions about the scenario that lets you use your skill. I actually brought that point up much earlier in the adventure. But I said something to the effect of "I'm going to assume that the sun behaves the same way in this plane as it does in other planes. Maybe I'm wrong, but until then that's how I'll behave." DM nodded knowlingly and we let it go. The crux of it is that barring some weird dimensional fuckery, there's always going to be a sun. I don't have to invent one out of whole cloth, it's always there (and was previously alluded to, as the DM said it was midmorning (also we didn't see it rise)). Based upon the DM's previous setup and our task at hand, it's entirely reasonable to use the sun's position to attempt to ascertain direction. But to invent a log out of whole cloth so you can justify using a skill to tick off a box feels bad to me. IT BEGINS posted:What about it is 'gamey'? I mean, the context of a skill challenge itself is already pretty 'gamey', but the part where the player invents a part of the world is exactly the same as the DM doing it. Well, the whole thing is a game and maybe I should just relax yes. But in my first example, I found it so jarring that it pulled me right out of the experience, and I have a need to talk about it. As for more work, yes you're right. An open ended question like that is on the DM. But if the DM is meticulous and say, crafts a true-as-possible world, then a mountain would gently caress up roads, gently caress up rainfall patterns and thus watersheds and thus rivers and thus city and town placements. Geography affects civilization in so many unforeseen ways. kingcom posted:God gently caress this is the most depressing topic the thread has come across. I'm sorry this isn't more entertaining. kingcom posted:At any point a player can stand up and say 'no that doesn't happen to me' and there is not a single thing a GM can do to countermand that. Then what's the point of even playing at all? kingcom posted:It is some really loving lovely browbeating Gygaxian pants shittery that tricks people into thinking that everyone contributing to the story is a bad thing or somehow an incorrect play experience. Man it sounds like you've had some bad experiences before and you're projecting that on to me. When this happened in game we rolled with it and I deferred to the GM. I took my issue here to talk about it. At no point did I say "you're playing wrong" or "players shouldn't help create the world." And I absolutely wouldn't want to hang up the game for however long to hash out the minutiae of one stupid detail. kingcom posted:if players have a creative and cool idea, don't stop them, support them. I agree. Within reason of course. kingcom posted:I would want to immediately write down and talk to that player about what they said, who is this person what experience led them to knowing about this stuff, etc. See, this here shows me that there is a fundamental need to ground things and justify their existence. If a player said that X person from their backstory told them, that would satisfy me much more than making up an NPC to justify their knowledge. It's like Screenwriting 101. You have to introduce people, places, and things first and then use them later. If you watch a movie and the movie suddenly cuts to the protagonist piloting a helicopter to chase Bad Guy without first setting up the helicopter's existence, I can't but help think "oh that's convenient (and lazy writing)." Elector_Nerdlingen posted:Either way, the curtains were made up on the spur of the moment because the character wanted to hide in them, so not only is the result the same, the motivation for getting to the result is too. I totally agree. The end result is the same. But, if you first prompt the DM then they have the option to say no, for X reason. Curtains are a minor point, but what if the room had no windows? Would it still have curtains? Eh, maybe. But asking first gives the DM a moment to think. So, instead of telling the player "No, you can't do that." (which sucks), they can say "This room has no windows, and thus, no curtains." bewilderment posted:13th Age has this as an explicit mechanic in its Organised Play adventures called montages. That sounds like a fun mechanic, I agree. With that above I wouldn't have any issue whatsoever. The problem with the SC as we did it is there wasn't a good framework I feel (it was a first attempt at it). With your 13th Age example, the players have a framework of what their journey is. They can create an interesting obstacle that fits within that framework (some kind of journey). Other players then react to that and solve them in interesting ways. Cool. Fine. Players probably come up with something novel and funny, or make up cool obstacles that test the next player who has to solve them. The point here is there is a reaction to a set up. There's a difference to solving a problem, and creating a problem to your solution. bewilderment posted:This may be shocking to you, but when you play DnD you are playing a role-playing... Yes I understand it's a game. Saying that isn't revelatory. I hear it all the time when anyone criticizes a video game, or show, or movie. That's the thing, there's no "right" way to do it, just as there's no "right" way to enjoy a movie. But just because you don't like talking about the nuts and bolts doesn't mean others don't. Just like how someone who doesn't give a poo poo about subtext in film doesn't mean that people who do shouldn't talk about it. kingcom posted:You literally invented the need to identify where the sun was, you invented the solution based on a problem that you created . Not really. I haven't laid out everything (and that's my bad), but the NPC we talked to said to get to our destination we need to go back the way we came, then head east at a crossroads. The need to go east is prompted by him (the DM). A solution to finding east is to find the sun's position. kingcom posted:Every example you've given me too has been 'man that would be awesome, I'd LOVE if my players did that!'. A player saying "snow capped mountain", I sit there going 'gently caress yes hes just given me more world or adventure hooks' and if I can think of anything immediately cool, I open a follow up to the group. "What are those mountains home to, anyone's character heard any rumors about them, what are they called, are they on the map (if not then woah what are those mountains doing there??)'. Well, it really depends on the adventure doesn't it? We're using a published adventure, which comes with a pre-made setting. Having a mountain suddenly appear where there was none before affects things. If it were a homebrew adventure where anything's possible, then hell yeah, that snow-capped mountain would be kickin' rad. That's the very definition of emergent gameplay and what makes tabletops so fun. kingcom posted:You literally invented the need to identify where the sun was, you invented the solution based on a problem that you created . I totally agree with you, provided it's a blank canvas game. But if it were a module it seems like headaches could arise. Elector_Nerdlingen posted:Just as an aside, the way I've presented travel sequence skill challenges is as a flashback where each character either boasts about or apologises for their most interesting personal moment. I think this is a pretty cool angle at it and seems fun. My DM told us that we arrive, no question, but the manner in which you arrive was determined by the skill challenge. That made perfect sense to us and we were all on board. Devorum posted:Each thing they invent gives me more to workirk with. More NPCs they care about. More hooks, more interesting locations, more weird poo poo that happened long ago. Even if they just use to create cover in combat, I can use that in interesting ways. I agree with this. But then again, we're using a published adventure, so anything players say may not mesh with it, or at worst, outright destroy some things. Telling the players an outright no sucks. It's better to do the "yes, but" / "no, however" method. Hot drat that's a lot to reply to. I get a sense that a lot of you have dealt with this kind of nitpicking before and are tired of it, what with the minor snipes directed towards me. Mind you, I'm new to the game as a whole so haven't been around long enough to know whether I'm retreading old ground or not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2021 08:07
|
|
|
Trivia posted:Iagree with this. But then again, we're using a published adventure, so anything players say may not mesh with it, or at worst, outright destroy some things. Telling the players an outright no sucks. It's better to do the "yes, but" / "no, however" method. That wouldn't bother me at all. Maybe it's a fundamental difference in GM philosophy, but nothing is more boring to me than slavish devotion to a published module or setting. Things should be able to change. The rails should be bendable. Hell, some of the most fun I've ever had was a group effectively blowing up a module. I also don't agree that NPCs are like characters in a movie. A player shouldn't have to have mentioned every NPC they've ever met in their backstory just in case. These characters existed before the adventure, for centuries in some cases, and it's not outside the bounds of chance that they knew a guy named Brian Greenwald that told them some bullshit about owlbears. There's a game called Blades in The Dark where inventing NPCs and the like on the fly is a core mechanic (you basically run "jobs" like heists, and use flashbacks to explain how you prepared to get past obstacles beforehand) and I love it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2021 08:22
|
|
|
Man I'd feel bad for blowing up a module. Our DM has done a gently caress ton of work to prepare. It's also his first time as DM and I feel that would be mean. No, they shouldn't have to backlog every character. I think it just needs to be plausible. If someone were raised in a temperate climate, would they know what a cheetah look like? Or a giraffe? Yes it's a tabletop game and you can have temperate giraffes (that'd be p cool), but I feel that would need to be established first by the DM "this world is unlike ours, the assumptions and many rules by which we live do not apply here" would be the legwork to set the stage. If the PC told me that they know an NPC that taught them about beasts and creatures, that's the legwork. At that point them saying "Oh! B.G. told me about them!" * rolls * is much more believable than conveniently pulling it out of their rear end. It's like the helicopter problem I mentioned earlier (looking at you, Spectre). I mean, at the end of the day it's a game and ppl should do what they want and have fun, so I won't go so far as saying NO gently caress YOU YOU'RE WRONG. But, like screenwriting and storytelling in general, DMingis an art, and I want to get better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2021 08:37
|
|
|
Trivia posted:Man I'd feel bad for blowing up a module. Why? Were expectations about how much this is following the stock adventure not discussed in Session Zero?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2021 08:45
|
|
|
It would be fun but undermines a lot of the work the DM does to prepare. My DM is following in my wake with his own module. When I started mine I told them all it was my first time DMing and as such it may be a little railroady here and there, but if they did something that changed outcomes or some storylines or characters then all the better. It's his turn in the hotseat now and it's much the same. He's spent weeks preparing, reading the module and getting his ducks in a row. To blow that up, while fun, would kinda waste his time which isn't cool, especially for a first-timer. If this were a homebrew adventure then all bets are off for sure. I mean, if you were going to play Mario Kart with someone for the first time, and wanted them to like it and get into it, you wouldn't make them eat poo poo at every turn would you?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2021 08:50
|
|
|
Trivia I'm sorry but you need to unlearn whatever thing is making that rub you the wrong way because it's correct and good to provide contributions like a log that needs to be moved. If the player oversteps the DM can say 'no there's nothing like that' and it takes about 1/20th of the time it would take for a player to ask a million leading questions to leverage a skill they wanted to use. 'The DMs main job' is he works at whole foods and he's at constant risk of novel coronavirus. Anything that can be done to lessen his workload is helpful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2021 08:54
|
|
|
Trivia posted:
I like storytelling, too, but DMing is not like screenwriting. It's a collaborative effort between the group and the DM. The art is in figuring that balance out. In my experience, when you approach it too much like writing... things get overly restrictive and railroady real fast.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2021 08:54
|
|
|
Trivia posted:1: If B.G. had been set up as a supporting character for Player, then I may go along with it. However, it's awfully convenient that B.G. just happened to mention something about these creatures the party doesn't know or recognize (slightly gamey but potentially hilarious results, I'd roll with it were I DM). Why does Brian have to be a pre-established character? Does the player not even have the freedom to name an NPC as part of a narrative moment? What about if it was written down in a backstory before play started? What, if anything, is the difference? Trivia posted:I totally agree. The end result is the same. But, if you first prompt the DM then they have the option to say no, for X reason. Curtains are a minor point, but what if the room had no windows? Would it still have curtains? Eh, maybe. But asking first gives the DM a moment to think. So, instead of telling the player "No, you can't do that." (which sucks), they can say "This room has no windows, and thus, no curtains." The example was using an ability to give a bonus to hide in "hanging fabrics". Curtains. Drapes. Tapestries. Flags. Whatever. Because I'm not an rear end in a top hat, and my players aren't assholes, I would assume that a player isn't going to be pulling "I declare that there are MANY HANGING TAPESTRIES in this DAMP MOSSY CAVE, so gently caress you, I'm hiding in them, nobody can stop me just declaring whatever I want!", and I would trust them to assume I'm not going to be a massive loving dickhead and pull "AHA! I never said there were WINDOWS in this BEDROOM! There are no windows and therefore no curtains! You can't hide, you are stabbed 122378 times, you die". Because "No you can't" is the same as "No you can't because I just decided that the fiction is such that that would be impossible", except the former is being honest with yourself about saying no because you wanted to say no. Here's the point, reiterated because you didn't address it: Why would you want to say no? You said this is a control issue. What are you trying to control, why do you need to control it, how is control being taken from you, and what do you think the consequences will be?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2021 09:04
|
|
|
Ignite Memories posted:Trivia I'm sorry but you need to unlearn whatever thing is making that rub you the wrong way because it's correct and good to provide contributions like a log that needs to be moved. If the player oversteps the DM can say 'no there's nothing like that' and it takes about 1/20th of the time it would take for a player to ask a million leading questions to leverage a skill they wanted to use. I get your point. But if you can just let players make up anything to tick off boxes, what's even the point of the challenge in the first place? As I (wrongly, I guess) understood it, the DM creates a loose framework that could play out something like a cinematic. As an example, let's say the group is in a bustling market within a town. An enemy thief sneaks through the crowd and steals the party's McGuffin. Now there's a chase scene to get thing back / stop thief / capture thief to interrogate. Choice is the players. DM thinks, "ok, if I were the thief I'd try to get mcguffin and escape to here, where I'd be safe. Most likely route through the town is this one." DM then creates set pieces. First one is the market square. DM tells the group "Player 1 feels a small hand in their cloak pocket, as they look down they see the thief steal mcguffin and run off into the market crowd." What do you do? DM knows there are typical skills that can be used to solve this challenge, but if a player comes up with a novel way and can justify it, then all the better. Most players may try athletics to chase, or acrobatics to dodge around shoppers. Other characters may try to use intimidate to shout and get shoppers to move and make the chase easier. Depending on the results the challenge could continue to the next set piece: main thoroughfare of the city. group continues to give chase, using skills. maybe someone tries to persuade locals to tackle the thief, or get in their way. Or someone uses animal handling to "borrow" a horse or mule (it's plausible for those to be in the city). Hell, if the animal handling > ride a horse to chase was successful, I'd say "You attempt to grab them from horseback but only manage to grab his cloak, which he slips out of." But it slows him down enough to give others a bonus to their next checks (or something), or maybe just outright catch him. Thief moves to the last set piece, small alleys. Maybe this time a PC uses skills to say they follow him from the rooftops. Maybe someone uses insight to find a shortcut. Depending on the success track, any one of those could be the trigger towards them capturing the thief (or not). That to me seems interesting and exciting, with continuous ratcheting tension. But as I hear it described (or typically implemented) SCs just seem exciting only in the retelling, not in the moment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2021 09:15
|
|
|
So its ok for you to put a horse there but it's not ok for him to put a log there
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2021 09:32
|
|
|
The skill challenge is an attempt to slap something mechanical into an out of combat scenario - which, given that this is D&D 5e, is doomed to questionable mechanics and tears. I'm not sure official publications use the term skill challenge anywhere honestly, but those never worked very well in 4e either due to Mike Mearls' bad math skills, so I'm assuming this is some homebrew skill challenge dealie where you need either X successes in Y rounds or X successes before Z failures. Given that, it literally doesn't matter what the hell happens in the fiction because 5e's skill system is poorly defined and allows poo poo like "Batman Utility Belt proficiency". It's best used as a collaborative storytelling prompt (as the other posters have stated) and quite frankly I don't see a difference between "I use Athletics to move the log I just made up" and "my 200 page backstory is about how I was raised by a group of monks who picked locks as a mental exercise to get closer to God, so I should be able to use my Religion skill to open this lock". The latter is tacitly encouraged by 5e including randomly switching your ability scores for skill checks if you can convince the DM it's appropriate, so go nuts! It's a D&D game, not a masterpiece of writing. You're sure as hell not creating great prose as an untrained actor ad-libbing with your friends, the plot can change in 5 minutes because the PCs did something you didn't expect, characterization is ever-mutable as the DM needs surprise antagonists or whatever, and ultimately it's a collaborative story so you can't really go into it expecting a full 3 act structure with a set of recurring themes that create some kind of allegory because you have 5 people with very different ideas of where the story is going to go. Heck, the game even has characters pull new abilities out of their collective asses every time they level up, and if we're taking verisimilitude I find it less likely that a wizard would suddenly become a swordmaster than a strong dude finding a log in the road. It's all a game of ad libs to make people who focused on skills feel good about their life choices, don't sweat it too much.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2021 09:35
|
|
|
Elector_Nerdlingen posted:Why does Brian have to be a pre-established character? Does the player not even have the freedom to name an NPC as part of a narrative moment? What about if it was written down in a backstory before play started? What, if anything, is the difference? It's basically the difference between a deus-ex-machina and Chekhov's gun. If someone fires a gun where none once existed, ppl will say "where'd that gun come from?" or "how convenient that he just happened to have one." But if you set up its existence first, none of those issues arise. For me personally, seeing that sort of thing happen takes me right out of the moment. Elector_Nerdlingen posted:The example was using an ability to give a bonus to hide in "hanging fabrics". Curtains. Drapes. Tapestries. Flags. Whatever. Then say that. Don't say curtains when what you really want is "something to hide behind." Or ask the DM "what's in this room? Can you describe it to us? Now all players can react to the objects in the room and also use them. The player could also say "I overturn a table to use as cover." when there was no table before. Well, that's fine I guess, but what's to stop them from willing a table into existence in every conceivable room, or attempting to do so? Other than "Not being an rear end in a top hat." That's where it can get "gamey," and the distinction between action / reaction is important imo. Elector_Nerdlingen posted:Because "No you can't" is the same as "No you can't because I just decided that the fiction is such that that would be impossible", except the former is being honest with yourself about saying no because you wanted to say no. I don't think that's necessarily true. The DM may want to allow it but the environment doesn't lend itself to it. They do it all the time when they say no. That's where the "Yes, but" / "No, however" method of arbitration is useful. Elector_Nerdlingen posted:Here's the point, reiterated because you didn't address it: Why would you want to say no? You said this is a control issue. What are you trying to control, why do you need to control it, how is control being taken from you, and what do you think the consequences will be? I wouldn't necessarily want to say no, just the option to. Otherwise it could back a DM into a corner. If it's a homebrew free-form setting, then there's little reason to say no. If it's a module with set pieces, then there could be a reason. I get what you're saying and in all likelihood the consequences are minor or nonexistent. In my OP the consequences were nonexistent and I've admitted this is just nitpicky bullshit. If the character used curtains where none existed before, and the DM said ok, nothing would happen except the player doing something cool and having fun. Which is the point. I get it. All of you are clearly more experienced with the game and have way more to draw from, so forgive me for asking questions. And because I've only ever used modules and not a homebrew, all I have to go on is what I've experienced from that. It just seems to me that the DM would explain the setting and there's a give and take to action and reaction. The PCs react to the world around them, and then act. The DM then reacts to their actions. But since the DM is the main arbiter, they have abilities that players do not. Creating objects that fill the world seems like one of them. Otherwise, if players could just create whatever they wanted whenever they wanted, why even bother having a DM? It feels like it would devolve into Calvinball at that point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2021 09:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 18:53 |
|
|
Ignite Memories posted:So its ok for you to put a horse there but it's not ok for him to put a log there Is it plausible to have horses and mules within a city? Sure? I'd think the player would ask if they can see any horses or mules as well. Maybe the DM has good reason not to have them there! Most DMs would just say "absolutely you do", but asking first gives them an out. Is it necessarily plausible to have a log blocking a paved path, one that is traveled frequently, and then needing to use strength of all things to clear it (instead of walking around)?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2021 09:43
|
|