|
Someone mentioned 5e in some way restricts spells from affecting the narrative? Could someone explain that?
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 15:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 01:47 |
|
|
Firstborn posted:So my D&D group took 4 hours to do a little roleplaying and clear the Necromancer's Cave in Princes of Apocalypse. I worked in some background info, but I think it may be too lore heavy and my group of relative newbies prefer hack and slashing and more tropey straightforward stuff, at least for this game. I'm considering sending them to the Elemental Nodes and calling it a game, then reforming into a smaller group of just the players who are actively engaged. All of them are my friends. Yes absolutely do this. Seven people is too drat many for a group and if half of them aren't engaged in the game they aren't going to be adding anything for the other players. Even complete newbies who only feel comfortable hacking/slashing and being murder hobos is better if they feel actively involved. I've been one of the involved players in a large 6+ people group where 2-3 of the people had to be woken up whenever their turn came around in combat and otherwise they never did anything and it is incredibly unfun. Have a conversation with the group about the need to have a nice homogenous group of players who all have the same general ideas of what the group dynamic should be. You 'can' play with a group where 3 people want to roleplay and engage and 3 people just want to kick doors down for loot, but generally people are going to have less fun doing it than if everybody was doing the same style of dnd.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 15:02
|
|
|
Yeah, this situation is like... we're all drinking, smoking, having a good time. Critical failures and misses tend to lead to light-hearted opportunities for comedy to remove the sting of missing. The problem is that's the only speed of the group, whenever I try to slow down for some pathos, it's treated in the same aloof way. I'm fine with this, and it's all a good bunch of people that get along and have the meta knowledge of teamwork and stuff. I introduce a lot of silly tables to roll on and weird effects. I'm thinking I'm going to send them to the Temple of the Moving Stones, because they are more interested in the intro cult and the interpersonal background stories we've been developing for the PCs than anything pertaining to the elemental evils yet. I'm thinking after the Temple, I'll do reprisals, and send them into the Temple proper, skipping the Keeps and stuff. It's not running the adventure how I wanted it to, but I think the players would be more satisified with that. They got through about half the content I prepared for this session, and while it was fun, I can tell I was losing some people when I started talking about a little of the background. It's very video gamey to lay it out as such, but that might work in a Legend of Zelda sort of way. There's two poultry houses, and a butcher's and wainwright's and all of that with stats and names and relationships and secrets, and my characters don't care. They want to fight stuff, they want more personal background info, etc. So, yeah. Moving Stones -> ???? -> Temple of Elemental Evil/Quadrants/Nodes -> wrap up background stuff along the way -> done Also, it's not necessarily that they aren't engaged in the game itself... it's more just like... there's a lot of cross chatter that I have to pipe down, people will sometimes lose interest if I focus too intently on one character's conflicts, that sort of thing. In character they are newbies, though, so they are actually pretty quiet and straightforward and try to resolve things out of character (which I've been trying to curb a little). TLDR: We're having fun, but I'm not running POTA as I want to. Still good result, but yeah, I think next game I'm going to use the starter set intro and then maybe Hoard of the Dragon Queen or something. I really want to run Curse of Strahd, but a few of my players have no heart for horror, and at least 1 of them is the type of guy who turns the Blood/Gore Setting to OFF when he plays video games with the option. My game is sort of like a real good episode of Adventure Time, I guess. E: I've identified some of the player types, which is fun for me. One guy is more of an observer, and likes to actually listen to the story and more about how his friends react. One is very Type A, feels he knows all the tropes, and tries to disarm the situation he inaccurately predicts over and over (he's a Paladin, it's fantastic). One acts very aggressively because he likes the combat, so whenever something has the opportunity to turn violent, he's "Can I say something?" "Yeah!" "I say, 'gently caress you'" Firstborn fucked around with this message at 15:20 on Apr 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 15:12
|
|
|
Sounds like a bunch of new people who don't know how to play tabletop as anything but an analog video game. That sort of thing is fine but it'll never stop if you don't have a conversation with em and even if you do they may not be interested in that sort of game. DnD is more like a deck of playing cards than anything else since you can play so many different styles of DnD off the same rules, if the players and DM want to play different styles there will eventually be trouble. Maybe try to have a conversation about the issue and if it doesn't seem like they care just plod through the short campaign and call it a failed experiment. E: to clarify, this is basically the only type of new person you will ever see until somebody comes up to them and talks to them about how to turn dnd from a loot/strategy game into a cooperative story telling experience. (mostly) Nobody comes into the game eager to explore a nuanced character and world. People just aren't exposed to that sort of thing outside tabletop so you might find that they actually are interested in that if you can find a good way to explain what you're looking for. Agent355 fucked around with this message at 15:19 on Apr 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 15:17
|
|
|
There's also nothing in the actual game aside from the Background quirks and Inspiration that would lead to more story-based gameplay (which, granted, is more than any other edition of D&D). If you're truly interested in cultivating a group dynamic with more of a focus on story, you might need to try at least a short run of a game that has more explicit mechanics in it -- to jump-start the engine so to speak. Also yeah, trim down the player count. There's no way to do story focused stuff with that many players. There's just not enough spotlight to go around.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 15:24
|
|
|
Agent355 posted:Sounds like a bunch of new people who don't know how to play tabletop as anything but an analog video game. That sort of thing is fine but it'll never stop if you don't have a conversation with em and even if you do they may not be interested in that sort of game. My games are actually 50% roleplay / 50% combat right now, even if unintentionally. The can usually clear one combat "event" per session, and the rest is just talking to each other and investigative work. You are exactly right, though. The players seem to be both enamored in the possibilities of their characters, the breadth of the game (I get a lot of "you made this up?!" in reference to spells or rules or some things I honestly did make up concerning story beats), and the tying of die rolling probability with rules to back up a game of make-believe. A few of my players are there probably for the fellowship, do contribute, do try and roleplay, but also can't be assed to... as you say... explore a nuanced character and world. It's more of a reactive way to play to me presenting a problem. RE: Trimming Players ~ It's funny, after the first session, I thought at least 3 of them would be like "this isn't for me". I'm talking people who never play RPGs, don't like Fantasy anything, don't play boardgames. Talk to me and text me all week about how they can't wait to play. It kind of backfired. In the past, I'd invite 8 people to play, and after a few sessions I'd have that core group of 5 or whatever. I tried to be all inclusive... the initial players I asked talked to me about the game in front of other friends who became interested organically, this one begs for his friend to play he's been talking it up every day to him, etc. E: I guess what I'm worried about is motivation along with pacing, and my players are advancing through the game because "that's what you do", and the story is explicit window dressing at this point. I'm hoping any of my posts make sense. Firstborn fucked around with this message at 15:29 on Apr 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 15:24
|
|
|
They could be down for a more interesting sort of roleplay then if you present it to them well. I'd still say pare down to a group of 4. I've only run for a group of 4 more than once and NEVER again, as well I've been in groups of more than 4 and they are always worse for it from a player standpoint too, not enough spotlight to share. A good DM/player conversation is the best balm here. Gotta get everybody on the same page, though that doesn't mean 'force them onto your page' if thats not what they want. You might just end up running some murder hobo simulator for a short campaign before hitting the eject button if you get pushback. E: No your posts make perfect sense, thats a really common new player syndrome so while its hard to describe exactly what you mean I'm sure everybody in this thread knows exactly what you're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 15:29
|
|
|
ImpactVector posted:There's also nothing in the actual game aside from the Background quirks and Inspiration that would lead to more story-based gameplay (which, granted, is more than any other edition of D&D). It's true there is nothing in the explicitly rules (mostly) that encourages you to play a nuanced cooperative storytelling experience and not a smash and grab loot game, but I don't think running another system is really a good substitute for just having a conversation with the players about the sort of environment you want to cultivate. Direct clear conversation is the best option, alot of people don't even realize there ARE different ways to play dnd. I've had players who've played for a decade who seemed completely at a loss when I had a conversation about them about the sort of roleplay I was looking for.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 15:33
|
|
|
/\/\/\ I've had a lot of comments during play about the way the characters are responding. Just things to get them thinking. One of my players was like, "Reina, do X and X" and I had to say, "You never introduced yourselves to one another." or... "I kick down the door!" "You kicked down a door that was unlocked anyway" sort of thing. To try and get them thinking more on the story path than playing it like DIablo. We'll see! Thanks for the quick replies and letting me vent a little. I've been collecting player feedback every session (this was the 3rd with this group). I'm thinking trying to do a short murderhobo and hitting eject. I've identified at least 4 really interested and dedicated players. I'll take them along on the next one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 15:33
|
|
|
Thats the best plan, yah.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 15:34
|
|
|
Firstborn posted:Someone mentioned 5e in some way restricts spells from affecting the narrative? Could someone explain that? Its a relative thing. You can't autokill people at your level for being of opposite alignment because Metamagic because Metamagic is a Sorcerer thing with clear limits now. Concentration ended the "Buff myself 12 times and then solo the dungeon shenanigans." Which means casters are toned down from 3.X. However, if you're comparing to 4 which supported martial only parties and had ways for weapon/skill users to have as much narrative clout at Epic as the Wizards 5e will feel very much like a return to the status quo. Critical Role's first campaign ported to 5e around level 9 and the spellcasters were already levitating sections of lakes and making half the party fly over several encounters. The "useless" Lore Bard drop a pillar on an Elder Brain and he's at the lower end of things. Meanwhile the Rogue was "deadly" cause he could throw 3 knives in a round and the Gunslinger had to spend a whole round setting up his special 1d12+Dex elephant rifle. Edit: forgot the episode where Marisha Ray tried to cast Summon Woodland Spirits or w/e and Mercer first called out Pixieswarm Polymorph as stupid and then immediately threw her Dryads into a pit trap because gently caress summoning spells. Razorwired fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Apr 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 15:46
|
|
|
/\/\/\ I skipped 4E. I'm not sure what you mean about martial narrative clout, but it seems real cool if you feel like it explaining it! The backgrounds I wrote for them are fun and cool, though. When I started the game, I folded index cards over and had everyone write a nametag of their character and put it on the table so my players could respond with the name in-character. One of my characters, the Bard, wrote Gulberg "the longwinded" Windgut - so I made his story something like he filibustered the exit exam at Bard College until some of the judges gave up and gave him pass. I made him a rival... a Half Orc Bard modeled after Danzig named Zuggy who uses Shocking Grasp on his Axe (with strings to make it a lute, naturally) to make it an electric guitar while he's playing. Two of my new players are a couple who are very shy. One is a Half Elf and the other is a Elf. I made it so the Half Elf is the exact physical double of the Elf's spouse who died hundreds of years ago, so there's no way that's him. She is kind of doting over him, but is stubborn. When he got wounded in combat and cried out, I was like, "Reina, your ears kind of perk up when you hear Anuii's yell of pain", that sort of thing. They are anime fans, I'm pretty sure this is called ... tsundere. They can kind of lean on each other and I think it helps them having an anchor like this. They love it, as the backgrounds they made for themselves can use this little piece I gave them. They are more interested in this stuff that I made up rather than the evil elemental eye and all the other poo poo. I feel kind of failed... all my games since I was a kid have been homebrew, and here I am running a published module and can't help but throw distracting poo poo in. E: I didn't decide their characters personalities, by the way. This was done with their permission asked in private. I read this post and it realized it may sound like I wrote a couple to play out of a romance in front of me. I don't forsee this game having that sort of gravity. It's more just a background quirk to give my new players 1 roleplay trope to lean on if they need to. Firstborn fucked around with this message at 16:00 on Apr 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 15:47
|
|
|
I'm not sure what you mean by failed? It's normal for players to take more interest in their own characters than the world around them, so enjoying the tidbits you added is just to be expected.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 16:01
|
|
|
/\/\ 4e Paragon(10+) and Epic(20+) tiers were treated as entirely new playing fields for everybody. Where an Epic level Rogue in 5e can turn 1 miss into a hit because he's lucky the 4e Rogue of similar level has stolen things so often from so many weird places that he can pickpocket things like dreams and concepts. A 4e Fighter at higher levels can take part of Thanos' shtick where you've attained such an intimate knowledge of death that you can control it to a minor degree, similar to a Long Death Monk without the ki. Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies took some time to ask some of the questions that this thread is discussing like "What does a Chosen One with a sword look like mechanically?" Now because this is the 5e thread I will be fair and say in practice Paragon and Epic 4e were a mess because after a point the party is just pulling epic Marvel vs Capcom combos against your bosses but D&D almost never gets high level right.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 16:05
|
|
|
/\/\/\ Epic Destinies sound cool as you describe them, but I can't tell based on the hardcore coolguy names they all have which ones you are referring to. Sounds real cool though. Oh, I'm just saying that I was really excited about using the module as written, and ended up just kind of cherry picking things. If one of my players were to ever crack the book and see that they only played like 15% of the whole thing, some named were changed, etc. I wonder if they would feel "cheated" out of the experience. I don't know. I'm hard on myself I guess. Firstborn fucked around with this message at 16:12 on Apr 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 16:06
|
|
|
Oh yeah I see what you mean. Nothing says you can't do the module again sometime with a group that takes more interest. S'not a problem.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 16:10
|
|
|
Firstborn posted:/\/\/\ Epic Destinies sound cool as you describe them, but I can't tell based on the hardcore coolguy names they all have which ones you are referring to. Sounds real cool though. And while 4e did do some things to bring martials up in narrative capability (powers/dailies for everyone*, Martial Practices/Rituals, cool PPs/EDs), the other side of the coin is that it massively reduced the narrative capabilities of spellcasters. Most of the big narrative altering spells like scrying, long distance teleportation, knock, etc were moved to the Ritual system, with casting times in minutes or hours. I personally prefer this setup quite a bit, because trying to GM around even a mid-tier caster in 3.x is a massive chore, but it's one thing that detractors pointed to as a break from previous edition(s**). * - Except Essentials martials ** - IMO 3.x was the main edition where casters really went off the rails because most of the restrictions like random starting spells, spell components, etc. were removed or streamlined because they were annoying in play, but did serve to curb the power of spellcasters
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 16:38
|
|
I hate Essentials and Mike Mearls.Kaysette posted:Volo’s Guide has a bunch, yeah. I was pretty amused that Lizardfolk and Kenku get to be fully fleshed out races but then it gets to mainstays like orcs and hobgoblins and the book is like "Are you crazy? Geez ask your DM, here's some stats I GUESS."
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 17:04
|
|
|
Another DM and I are talking about athletics vs acrobatics. I'm generally of the mind that they have a 90% overlap just so that both dex based and str based martial sort of characters can still run/jump/climb equally well. All the sort of normal run of the mill adventuring physical checks so that a dex based fighter doesn't find themselves in a position where they can't scale a wall to get to the goblins in an alcove above them. There are things that are exclusively athletics or acrobatics but they're more optional sort of solutions to problems, like lifting a very heavy rock or walking across a crossbeam in some rafters. My friend is of the opinion that things like climbing just can't possibly be acrobatics because it doesn't make sense. Which seems reasonable, but it also seems just another way to punish a dex based class. Particularly rogues who would rather regularly be scaling the walls of a mansion they're going to break into. What does this thread think?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 17:24
|
|
|
Athletics is one of a very short list of things the STR stat does - I wouldn't take it away in favor of more dex, the stat which already does everything. I don't give a poo poo about verisimilitude that's just bad game design. Certainly there is plenty of overlap but climbing is pretty seriously strength-bound, you should let strength have that one at least. Things str does: Athletics Starting a grapple Non-finesse melee attacks Things dex does: Acrobatics Stealth Sleight of hand Finesse melee attacks Ranged weapon attacks 1/3 of all saving throws AC Initiative Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Apr 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 17:28
|
|
|
Agent355 posted:Another DM and I are talking about athletics vs acrobatics. I agree that in a nut shell it wouldn't make sense for thieves and rogues who climb walls to break into things to not be able to climb a wall, but I'm with Jeffrey there; since this is the system you're running you either completely ruin STR for being anything really useful outside of combat or you rule very strictly. In a system like D&D where the mechanics run the fiction, if you don't use the mechanics you might as well play something else imo It's why I finally just completely gave up the last vestige of attachment to D&D as a DM, and I'm only playing in a campaign a friend is running because I love the people a lot. Quite simply D&D is a system where career fighters could miss an opponent and then sit out the round, or a career rogue could fail to sneak by a child, etc etc It's a very very feelsbad system SO if you're going to use it I think everyone should agree so they can take it into consideration when deciding who they want to be. "Do you want to be someone who can climb? You need to stat STR." edit: In the interest of being productive and not just making GBS threads on D&D as a system, here's what I did in the last few sessions I DM'd (again, from the files of "you might as well be playing a different game", but I digress): For every ability check you come across, have the players justify rolling something "non standard" and allow them to roll that skill instead. Climbing a wall? Explain to me in the fiction how, using 'History' you can tell that the construction of this castle is using blah blah techniques and you can exploit a design flaw in the blah blah mortar they used in that period to create footholds. Or maybe you roll 'Nature' and know that "hmm in this area usually there's invasive vines that grow and AHA! I knew there had to be some, here they are, I can climb them up" Waffles Inc. fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Apr 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 17:34
|
|
|
Agent355 posted:Another DM and I are talking about athletics vs acrobatics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 17:36
|
|
|
Agent355 posted:Another DM and I are talking about athletics vs acrobatics. Realistically, acrobatics shouldn't apply to stuff like climbing a cliff or a rope, but dexterity absolutely should. Think of all the ninja warrior type stuff - it requires not only great strength, but also a ton of coordination. Climbing a wall absolutely relies on stretching and placement and whatnot. Even a rope - making sure your hands and feet are all in tune is important. Of course, the stronger you are, the less that matters. That being said, with the way ability scores and skill checks work, just let them replicate each other. Another example would be a tuck jump - one guy can do the flip through sheer power (think of a NFL player), while another guy can do it through great form and technique (think gymnast). If you really wanted to mechanically represent stuff like this you'd have some sort of combined cutoff for athletics+acrobatics where a minimum floor let you pass , and only people without either would struggle or fail. But d&d's really stupid about skill checks
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 17:47
|
|
|
There is not a single parkour expert in the world who doesn't have shitloads of core and leg strength. If they wanna pull that poo poo off, don't dump STR. There's more to each skill obviously but as a shorthand I say Athletics is for going up and Acrobatics is for coming down. edit: Oh we finally got back together for that session where we were probably supposed to die from the clusterfuck on the island with giants. I feel like DM interpretation of how many giants were alerted and came for us was extremely lenient, but there was in fact a moment where I was the only guy conscious when we fought a dragon. I quietly hoped as I picked people up one by one that the dragon might, in its psychotic baby rage over its eggs, kill off the guy who got us in this mess. No such luck. Nehru the Damaja fucked around with this message at 18:33 on Apr 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 17:51
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:That being said, with the way ability scores and skill checks work, just let them replicate each other. So I agree with the above. Just let Acrobatics cover all movement stuff for DEX people except lifting heavy things. It's not worth it for a character to invest in both since there's so little narrative difference, so don't penalize them for only having one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 18:37
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:
For Orcs and Hobgoblins the reason they did not fully flesh them out in chapter 2, is because they just fully fleshed them out in chapter 1. Like the book more or less said. "We are not going to do a big detailed write up on these races, cause we just did a big detailed write up on them earlier in the book."
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 18:52
|
|
|
Firstborn I would recommend just not getting too Lore intensive at the very start. There is time for that later, leaving some hints and such, and don't worry if they are interested in their own stories. If you can try and integrate their stories into the adventure. You are not in a huge hurry to get to the end if you are interested in the Adventure. Try running the Adventure as you wanted to for a bit longer to see if you can make it work. I would also recommend that you bring up that 7 people is a bit too much for you to the group. Maybe try and divide them into two groups eventually. This is one of the harder things to do if everyone is still interested.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 19:01
|
|
|
Thanks for the advice. I have already been sitting here thinking on when and where to integrate POTA into the backgrounds of my PCs, even replacing some characters and factions with more personal ones. I think what I'm going to try and do is each session kind of single out and spotlight a PC and bring up their background with relation to the plot (ex - the character in question has to debate why his personal BBEG's henchmen shouldn't kill the party because of his past transgression + interest, meanwhile maybe the rest of the party can be trying to escape or something. Next session I'm going to do a Bard Rockoff.. opposing Charisma + Dex checks, the party asssisting or working the crowd or looking for that macguffin that i'll put there.. that'll coincidentally lead to the sinkhole that reveals the Temple of Moving Stones). I think by the time I get to everyone, their backgrounds will be cinched up and I'll hit the Nodes and Temple and be done. I've got two weeks until the next session, so I'm just spitballing. I keep a notebook I wrote silly ideas in as they pop up from time to time. I'm very surprised + pleased that they enjoy the game and also want to continue playing, you know? The pacing is glacial but the fun and variety in responses and plans is a+. They often will split into two groups to accomplish tasks that I've yet to really plan for. I don't know! It's a fun challenge to think about, anyway. Next game I'm hardcapping at 5 players for sure. Also going to play 5E proper. Right now I'm still very much using 2E + some OSR... but I've been reading more and more 5E lately and like what I see. Firstborn fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Apr 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 19:13
|
|
|
I seem to be in the minority on this, but I find doing goofus accents to be helpful in developing NPCs. When I put on a silly voice, the character will want to say things with a certain rhythm and selection of words. Maybe I'm crazy, but I let the character lead me to their personalities as I'm acting them out. For a stupid voice starter kit, I recommend Urkel, Bill & Ted, Bernie Sanders, and Crocodile Dundee. Each one of these is very recognizable and had mannerisms that are easy to imitate. Cartoon characters are good for this too. Turn your big bad into Snagglepuss!
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 19:28
|
|
|
I shamelessly used The Monarch as the voice of the insane Necromancer that talks in the third person last night. Went over fine! I'll brainstorm for ideas for the Princes.
Firstborn fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Apr 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 19:30
|
|
|
What game should I play instead if D&D?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 20:46
|
|
|
Yes
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 20:47
|
|
|
The stock answer seems to be Shadow of the Demon Lord for better gameplay and Dungeon World for better story.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 20:50
|
|
|
My party have chosen a Paladin, a Cleric and a Monk. The all-holy party has given me some good story ideas, and they'll obviously find a lot of undead to turn, but they seem to be lacking a bit in ranged options, so I was wondering if there would be any pitfalls in encounter design that I should watch out for to avoid wrecking them by mistake.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 20:51
|
|
|
Do the opposite; present lots of enemies with ranged capability and watch the emergent roleplaying of the party trying to solve that jam.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 20:54
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm betting they'll pick up some ranged weapons after a few shellings.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 20:58
|
|
|
kidkissinger posted:What game should I play instead if D&D? Just play a game and have fun instead of worry about stupid internet nerds fighting the one billionth iteration of my gaming system's dad can beat up your gaming system's dad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 20:59
|
|
|
New Unearthed Arcana. http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/order-domain
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 21:00
|
|
|
kidkissinger posted:What game should I play instead if D&D? HONEY HEIST is a free one-page roleplaying game where you you are a criminal bear with two stats: CRIMINAL and BEAR. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 21:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 01:47 |
|
|
kidkissinger posted:What game should I play instead if D&D? When you think back to what happened during your favourite ever D&D moment, which sort of moment was it and what happened?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 21:07
|
|