|
Harrow posted:Usually, I've found it's a lot easier to start a campaign and have the group work together when we start with everyone already knowing each other, being an established group of some kind, that sort of thing. My go to is "Everybody describe your characters. Now tell me what cool thing your character heard [player to the left's] character did?"
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 17:01 |
|
|
So I haven't play a big commercial rpg like D&D for a long time, most of my friends have "moved on" to more simple home-brew ultra-lite systems where the rules don't really matter so much so there's no rules to lawyer, no stats to min-max. But I just started playing a 5e D&D game and there's a dude that's kinda being "that guy" . He's like a level 2 sorcerer or something but all he does is use some cantrip over and over to "create water" or "move water" and he just says he creates/moves water into people's lungs or their face so they totally drowning. He's "look it up" and "done the math" and claims this is 100% within the rules. One of those players who prides himself on "outsmarting" the system because he's so creative and thinking outside of the box or what ever rather than just having a good time and playing within the spirit of the game. The DM isn't happy about it either but it's a big game with like 8 players so he doesn't have time to tell him why he can't do that. Every encounter is just him smugly stating how he's going to create water, or move X gallons of water from his canteen and hold it perfectly over the enemy's face or put it down their nose/throat and then turn it to ice which will last for X hours, or some other simple cantrip abuse. Is there something simple and explicit in the rules to stop this?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:So I haven't play a big commercial rpg like D&D for a long time, most of my friends have "moved on" to more simple home-brew ultra-lite systems where the rules don't really matter so much so there's no rules to lawyer, no stats to min-max. But I just started playing a 5e D&D game and there's a dude that's kinda being "that guy" . Why can't the DM just talk to him and tell him to stop being an rear end in a top hat?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
That's really a shame because you could probably do a lot of cool things with like, a amphibious water-themed sorcerer who uses water and his control over it in all sorts of interesting ways without trying to thoughtlessly end encounters the same way over and over. My ruling would just be "you don't have line of sight on his lungs. You make his face wet, but he holds his breath and the water falls to the ground next round." but really the DM's gotta tell him not to be an rear end. Thankfully, with 8 people, alienating one of them isn't game-destroying. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 21:45 on Aug 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
He'll be sad the first time some lowly kobold shaman does the same thing to him. I mean yeah, the first option is to say don't be a dick, the second option is for the DM to pull rank and say no, it doesn't actually work that way, and then somewhere down the list is turnabout followed by just saying bye.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
waterboard him irl
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
DOWN JACKET FETISH posted:waterboard him irl He used his magic to waterboard a goblin to get information... Like i'm fine with that, the goblin was totally tied up immobile. If i was the DM I'd make him roll a ranged touch attack or something and the force of the magic being way weaker than the force of someone's lungs blowing the water out or just swatting it away with their hands. It should be about as effective as trying to drown someone by spraying them in the face with a garden hose from 30' away while the person is actively avoiding your water.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
I haven't played or read 5E but every other version of Cantrip I've ever seen explicitly says you can't use it to hurt people, it's not strong enough. Alternatively magical effects that violate your person should always get a saving throw, so if he wants to spend a turn creating water and then spend another turn on a relatively crappy save-or-die that can be pre-empted by the Heimlich maneuver when he could be, I dunno, Finger of Death-ing them or something, that's his prerogative. Also because it's just ordinary water that was magicked into position and not magical water designed to kill people or anything, it should probably be a relatively flat / easy saving throw not boosted by his own stats.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
I feel like drowning takes longer than 6 seconds. Just walk away from the floating water. Hold your breath for six seconds and step back.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:So I haven't play a big commercial rpg like D&D for a long time, most of my friends have "moved on" to more simple home-brew ultra-lite systems where the rules don't really matter so much so there's no rules to lawyer, no stats to min-max. But I just started playing a 5e D&D game and there's a dude that's kinda being "that guy" . I just ran an aquatic encounter in D&D5 last night, so the drowning rules are fresh in my mind. Basically, unless he can create water in and on the target's face place for several minutes straight, the rules don't bear it out. I had a PC get paralyzed while treading water, and he sunk like a stone. Three rounds later, the caster who paralyzed him got paralyzed herself, so the effected ended. He was still only half a minute out of the seven minutes or so that he had to go before he would have to start making death saves. D&D5 is pretty forgiving about drowning characters. Your DM, on the other hand, should not be forgiving with dumbasses that pretend to know rules just to blow through games. In short-- DOWN JACKET FETISH posted:waterboard him irl Edit: the the sake of reference, here's a quick run-downof drowning in D&D5: Character gets 1 + [CON mod] in minutes to hold his breath. After that, he has [CO mod] minutes off suffocating before he reaches 0 HP. Then he start in on Death Saves normally. SO, a character with, say, 12 Con (+1 mod) would be able to hold his breath for 2 minutes, suffocate for 1 minute, and then he's at 0 HP. Bear in mind all of this is in minutes and a combat round is 6 seconds. Railing Kill fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Aug 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
Also: that Create Water to drown a dude isn't clever. It's as old as fuckin D&D. The least a cheeseball player liek that can be is original with their bullshit.  The last time this happened to me while I was running a game it was over ten years ago. I let him do it, and the target just barfed up a bunch of water and got mad at him. I don't give a poo poo how much water Create Water says you make; lungs only hold so much, and it will be immediately expelled. It's a stupid trick and I hate it. There. I'm done.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
Railing Kill posted:Basically, unless he can create water in and on the target's face place for several minutes straight, the rules don't bear it out. Worth mentioning a round is ~6 seconds.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:So I haven't play a big commercial rpg like D&D for a long time, most of my friends have "moved on" to more simple home-brew ultra-lite systems where the rules don't really matter so much so there's no rules to lawyer, no stats to min-max. But I just started playing a 5e D&D game and there's a dude that's kinda being "that guy" . Several people have already reccomended that the GM tell him to stop being a dick-- this is the correct answer, but I got curious and looked through my PHB I'm not sure what cantrip he's claiming can do that -- none of the sorceror cantrips in the PHB have anything to do with creating or controlling water, but even higher-level spells that are explicitly about that can't do what he's claiming. Create Water creates either water within a open container within range, or makes it fall as rain over a 30-foot cube area. It can't be held in the air over someone's mouth or nose, nor can it manifest inside someones lungs. Control Water gives one of four effects, all only affecting freestanding water -- so no using your waterskin--, none of which are 'lol water floats over to your face'. (Make a Flood, Part the Sea Like Moses, Redirect Flow, Make a Whirlpool).
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:I haven't played or read 5E but every other version of Cantrip I've ever seen explicitly says you can't use it to hurt people, it's not strong enough. 5e cantrips are basically 4e at-will abilities. for example Fire Bolt does d10 damage, can ignite stuff and you can do it 24/7.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:I haven't played or read 5E but every other version of Cantrip I've ever seen explicitly says you can't use it to hurt people, it's not strong enough. 5e has cantrips that fire bolts at people, as at-will attacks for casters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
adhuin posted:5e cantrips are basically 4e at-will abilities. for example Fire Bolt does d10 damage, can ignite stuff and you can do it 24/7. Yeah I probably should have left that question to the experts, I just wanted to get some use out of knowing too much about how 3.5 works one last time. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
Oh right he's also using "minor illusion" to create mirrors or boxes to put over enemy's heads to totally blind them... I'm looking through the level 0 and 1 spells and I can't find anything that matches what he's been doing with water. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 22:27 on Aug 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Oh right he's also using "minor illusion" to create mirrors or boxes to put over enemy's heads to totally blind them... Create (or Destroy) Water is a divine spell, so if he's a sorcerer, then he's cheating for more than one reason. Your DM just needs to Also, if he's using Create Water, I'm pretty sure the description says the water, "flows out of the caster's hands" or something to that effect. You can't just make a cube of water in mid-air. That's a little detail that doesn't usually matter, but if the player wants to be cute and exploit little details, then they can be used to foil him. "Live by the sword, die by the sword." Railing Kill fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Aug 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
beat him with a bunched-up rubber hose
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
The minor illusion thing is less dumb, but it wouldn't last very long, if at all, and wouldn't ever work on anything smarter than an animal. (It's also an old cheeseball trick, so gently caress that guy.) Fuckin guy either needs to play Mage to learn more creative poo poo, or NEVER play Mage for the same reason.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
I've found systems like D&D really weird in that everything has a very strict VERY abstract mechanic to determine the result. You don't and can't say "I sneak up behind the guard and jam my dagger into his neck trying to kill him quietly" no, you roll to "attack" and then roll for "damage" and if the guy has more "hit points" than you do damage, he ain't dead. You or the DM can add some descriptive fluff to narrate how it went down, but none of your description of your plan of attack matter, all the system cares about is that you attacked the guard with your dagger and maybe have sneak attack bonus, it doesn't matter that you wanted to stab him in the neck, or slit his throat, or go for his heart through his back, the system doesn't support that sort of "called shot". And most everything in D&D is resolved this way with fluff added after the dice rolls. But then when you do add some of these spells that seem a little more free form and open to a player being able to just say what they want to happen, suddenly balance goes out the window because the game was not built around this sort of thing and a DM who's used to relying on very strict stat based mechanics isn't sure how to resolve the situation in a "fair" way, "fair" being based on a super legalistic/mechanical view of D&D.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
That's kind of the point, though. You want both a complex, heavily bounded system -- because D&D is still basically a wargame, it's centered around encounters that you either win or lose and where there are objectively good and bad choices you can make -- but also to be able to introduce ideas or contingencies that a computer program or a referee-less board- or war-game couldn't handle. The GM's job is to translate the players' abstract intentions into the mechanical framework that combat (and in theory other things, but really, it's combat) operates within. I suspect a big part of the "why" is because a lot of the time, if you're recruiting for a tabletop group, especially before widespread online play was a thing, your odds of finding 4+ people who are all equally good at and equally interested in tactical wargames is almost zero. So what you have is several generations of a game that's designed (consiously or not) to give everyone a reason to be there, but to not really require everyone to have their head in the game. The crunch gives the mechanical player a way to convert mastery into success, and the GM's role of converting abstractions to mechanics lets the person who just has one cool, cinematic idea per session contribute to the mechanical game without needing to master it. Now, mind, that's a flawed solution, because any mechanical player worth a drat is going to see that happening and start asking "can I do that? is it repeatable? is it stronger than my normal options?" which is exactly what a player should be doing if they were playing a completely bounded game -- but in this context, sooner or later the GM is probably going to screw up and interpret the abstraction in a way that invalidates the mechanical side of play. (Or just end up saying "no" to the abstract side a lot which obviously isn't great either.) But it's still a problem worth solving -- if it's actually possible, anyways -- as opposed to just going to a pure-narrative system where the mechanical player is going to be bored out of his wits or to a completely bounded system where the referee, if you even have one at all, is only there to resolve disputes and play the monsters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
Man, I usually love listening to the Adventure Zone, but the last couple of finale episodes have really highlighted to me how important it is to actually let players guide the scenes and story. Some of the scenes are legit tough to listen to for sheer amount of DM narration and lack of player input, and I know I'd be so mad if I were a player a couple years into it. I get that it's a different medium and a different goal- it's more important for what they do to have a coherent/quality story than make a few players happy- but I'm a little bummed out. Now I'm heading into the last month or so of sessions for the (first) campaign I'm running and I feel really paranoid about not letting the players play stuff out. Any tips for running the last arc of a game?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2017 01:21
|
|
|
I'm thinking about trying to run a Dungeon World session or two, based on the (very brief) description of play I've read here. I've run DnD for more than 20 years, along with various other RPGs (Every version of DnD since 2nd ed, Many of the WoD games, Some Super Hero RPGs, Star Wars, etc). How is Dungeon World significantly different from DnD? I've got a player like the one described above, min/maxer, always trying to find a rules loophole to take advantage of. I've dealt with his type MANY times before, but this time, he comes along with a genuinely great RPer, and I'm sure banning one, will lead to both leaving, and the pickings are already slim. So I'm looking for a system that is a bit more free form, and I'm hoping that's what DW will deliver.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
don't try to quell that kind of behavior via the rules. Tell them to knock it off. Alternatively, waterboard them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2017 02:57
|
|
|
If someone says "I've checked the rules" or "It's 100% legal" then you can never believe them and should always ask for proof. Except me, it's fine when I say it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2017 03:00
|
|
|
Admiral Joeslop posted:I've been out of the dungeon making game for a while. What do people use for creating dungeons nowadays? Something with a grid that I could print out if needed. I use roll20, but the Starcraft II Map Editor has actually been great for certain settings. Here are a few I've done: http://imgur.com/a/GZwIM - just plug some extra assets on them in post, like the aforementioned Dungeon Maps kit. It would probably be easy enough to overlay a grid before printing. Hell, the tool itself has one (of sorts) built in. DarkLich fucked around with this message at 04:23 on Aug 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2017 04:20
|
|
|
DarkLich posted:I use roll20, but the Starcraft II Map Editor has actually been great for certain settings. Here are a few I've done: http://imgur.com/a/GZwIM - just plug some extra assets on them in post, like the aforementioned Dungeon Maps kit. this is really good  that looks straight out of a 4e tactical encounter l
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2017 04:27
|
|
|
N0data posted:How is Dungeon World significantly different from DnD?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I've found systems like D&D really weird in that everything has a very strict VERY abstract mechanic to determine the result. You don't and can't say "I sneak up behind the guard and jam my dagger into his neck trying to kill him quietly" no, you roll to "attack" and then roll for "damage" and if the guy has more "hit points" than you do damage, he ain't dead. You or the DM can add some descriptive fluff to narrate how it went down, but none of your description of your plan of attack matter, all the system cares about is that you attacked the guard with your dagger and maybe have sneak attack bonus, it doesn't matter that you wanted to stab him in the neck, or slit his throat, or go for his heart through his back, the system doesn't support that sort of "called shot". And most everything in D&D is resolved this way with fluff added after the dice rolls. But then when you do add some of these spells that seem a little more free form and open to a player being able to just say what they want to happen, suddenly balance goes out the window because the game was not built around this sort of thing and a DM who's used to relying on very strict stat based mechanics isn't sure how to resolve the situation in a "fair" way, "fair" being based on a super legalistic/mechanical view of D&D. well to be fair "i sneak up on an unaware dude and kill him" should basically just be a sneak roll because slicing an unaware dude's throat from behind isn't "combat"
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2017 05:59
|
|
|
Elfgames posted:well to be fair "i sneak up on an unaware dude and kill him" should basically just be a sneak roll because slicing an unaware dude's throat from behind isn't "combat" The problem is if there's a rogue with assassin then what is the point of it if anyone can do it? Why put points into feats, skills, or talents if anyone can perform them as fluff? In that scenario the rogue would get his autocrit assassination damage but if anyone can get an auto gib wouldn't it have been better to go with a different build? Basically you don't want to alienate players by allowing to do via fluff things that players would have to do mechanically unless you give players fair warning so they don't spend mechanical options on things you're invalidating via narrative.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2017 08:31
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I've found systems like D&D really weird in that everything has a very strict VERY abstract mechanic to determine the result. You don't and can't say "I sneak up behind the guard and jam my dagger into his neck trying to kill him quietly" no, you roll to "attack" and then roll for "damage" and if the guy has more "hit points" than you do damage, he ain't dead. You or the DM can add some descriptive fluff to narrate how it went down, but none of your description of your plan of attack matter, all the system cares about is that you attacked the guard with your dagger and maybe have sneak attack bonus, it doesn't matter that you wanted to stab him in the neck, or slit his throat, or go for his heart through his back, the system doesn't support that sort of "called shot". And most everything in D&D is resolved this way with fluff added after the dice rolls. But then when you do add some of these spells that seem a little more free form and open to a player being able to just say what they want to happen, suddenly balance goes out the window because the game was not built around this sort of thing and a DM who's used to relying on very strict stat based mechanics isn't sure how to resolve the situation in a "fair" way, "fair" being based on a super legalistic/mechanical view of D&D. Yeah so you've basically discovered for yourself one of the major criticisms of D&D 3.X and 5e: some players have to roll to do the one thing they're supposed to do, other players can just declare poo poo happens and it does. They got rid of that for the most part in 4e and a lot of whiny greybeards complained for infinite dumb reasons so they changed it back and now you either gotta deal with it or play something else. EDIT: but for real, tell your GM to grow a backbone and tell the shithead wizard to knock it off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2017 08:43
|
|
|
Serf posted:I feel like drowning takes longer than 6 seconds. Just walk away from the floating water. Hold your breath for six seconds and step back. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2017 09:00
|
|
|
This is a good post and I approve of it heartily. Paramemetic posted:The problem is if there's a rogue with assassin then what is the point of it if anyone can do it? Why put points into feats, skills, or talents if anyone can perform them as fluff? In that scenario the rogue would get his autocrit assassination damage but if anyone can get an auto gib wouldn't it have been better to go with a different build? It doesn't have to be 100% fluff. Make them make a stealth roll. That way the character best at stealth, presumably the rogue, is going to get to do the Cool ThingTM. Everything after that can be fluff, but the GM has chosen one key roll to differentiate character roles and reward someone for having poo poo on their character sheet. One-shot kills/incapacitations always bothered me in D&D because they've never worked as written. Using a sap to deal enough subdual damage to knock a guy out was practically impossible if strictly following the rules. I've always solved everything after the stealth roll with fluff (unless the situation or story needed something else). If they got the jump on a dude, then he's knocked out. Maybe give him a Fort save/Con save, something like that. Nothing crunchier than that seems to work well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2017 11:52
|
|
|
Yeah I feel like stealth kills should be a class feature that Martials, and only Martials get.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2017 13:03
|
|
|
Maybe make things easier for the martial classes at some stage. Like this: Stealth check (contested against Perception) If success, then: CON Save, DC based on the relative kill-i-ness of the attacker. Say, rogues and martial classes impose a higher DC because they actually know how to cut a throat without the scene turning into a Coen Brothers-esque clusterfuck. So if the Wizard wants to try it, he can, but if he passes Stealth and the target also passes their CON Save, then they just take normal damage from the weapon and then they go into rounds because the wizard doesn't know which side of the neck the jugular vein is on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2017 13:22
|
|
|
Railing Kill posted:the wizard doesn't know which side of the neck the jugular vein is on. There's... there's two of them. On either side. Also you want to cut the carotid arteries, not the jugular veins. That way the heart pumps blood right out and new blood doesn't reach the brain, so the person faints and bleeds out right quick. Anyways, hold this shovel, I have to go find some leaves.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2017 13:49
|
|
|
Bubblyblubber posted:There's... there's two of them. That's what I get for being a Bard. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2017 14:20
|
|
|
N0data posted:How is Dungeon World significantly different from DnD? To begin with, Dungeon World (as a "Powered by the Apocalypse" game) is paradigmatically different from D&D. While DW still has a lot of the trappings of D&D (HP, stats, etc - and those trappings are actually its biggest weakness TBQFH), the way the game plays is completely different. First off, aside from I think damage for monster attacks, the GM never rolls dice. Second, the dice that the players roll don't model any kind of physics or reality or skill level or whatever - they serve only to drive the story. While moves might look like it on the surface, there aren't really any "skills" at all. So where in D&D you might say, "There's a 15-foot chasm. Make a Jump skill check with a DC of X to get across," at which point the player would roll a die, add any appropriate skill or attribute bonuses, and figure out whether their character got across, in DW you'll say, "There's a chasm. You think if you get a running start, you might be able to cross it." At this point, a PC might opt to try, which is probably a defy danger roll. If they make it, awesome, they're across. If they fail it, well, that chasm was wider than it looked. If they get a partial, you're going to offer them a worse outcome (you make it partway across and are now hanging on the other side), a hard bargain (you make it across, but lose whatever you were holding in your mad scramble to keep from falling on the other side) or an ugly choice (chicken out at the last second, or you make it across but your leap dislodges loose stone and widens the chasm substantially - you made it, but you're alone on the other side). Because the rolls don't model reality, there are no modifiers for "difficulty." You might be tempted to add them, but seriously - don't even go there. Next, the game doesn't have a fixed time scale. Moves explicitly do not have a duration, and a single hack & slash roll might be a single flurry of blows or an entire battle. You can scope the move to whatever is happening in the fiction (and the general mood of the table). Also, pay attention to the triggers for the moves. If what the PC is doing does not match the move's trigger, then DO NOT roll dice. Just narrate what happens next and move on. But if what the PC is doing DOES match the trigger, then you MUST roll dice. Some players will want to avoid rolling dice (because responding to a failed roll is how complications and bad things generally happen to them), but the cardinal rule of "to do it, do it" reigns supreme. That's why the triggers are important. A player doesn't have to say, "I am going to defy danger now." But if they say, "I'm going to climb out on the narrow ledge and work my way around to the Baroness' window," then that is exactly the kind of thing that triggers the defy danger move. So you'll respond, "Great! Roll+Dex!" and apply the results of their roll to the move as written. Much is incumbent upon the GM to just groove with what's happening and narrate effectively. This requires some improvisational skills, but the game really helps you in this regard by always giving you a set of "go-to" things you can do when it's your turn to talk. In combat, you'll have to be very proactive when playing the monsters - it's a very common mistake for new DW GMs to have monsters just stand there like idiots while the entire party smashes them to a pulp; don't be that guy. Have the monster do things to which the players must respond (or risk just sucking down damage). For instance, if you say, "The troll uproots a tree and just loving swings it at you, branches and all - what do you do?" If the answer isn't something like, "Um, get the gently caress out of the way?" then it's totally cool respond to whatever they said with, "OK, cool, but take X hp of damage first from getting hit with a tree." And if they do decide to duck out of the way, well, that sounds like the trigger for a particular move, doesn't it? Roll some dice, suffer some consequences. Oh, OH! Consequences! Every roll in a PbtA game should be consequential. Under virtually NO circumstances should you simply allow people to say, "I try again" after they fail. If you fail to pick the lock it's not that you've lost time, it's that you've gotten caught in the act - or maybe you've broken your pick in the lock and now there's no opening it at all. Finally, PbtA games work best when you aren't really planning too far ahead. Follow the fiction (i.e. just let the next "logical" thing happen), and for gods' sakes don't try to "plot" for your game. PCs moves can have some serious, powerful, game-reality altering effects. Just run with it. Don't get too attached to any particular NPC/henchman/villain/monster. Give the players a free hand in participating in world-building and adding to the story - it'll be better for everyone involved. That's what "play to find out" is all about. Ilor fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Aug 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 02:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 17:01 |
|
|
Ilor posted:Oh, OH! Consequences! Every roll in a PbtA game should be consequential. Under virtually NO circumstances should you simply allow people to say, "I try again" after they fail. If you fail to pick the lock it's not that you've lost time, it's that you've gotten caught in the act - or maybe you've broken your pick in the lock and now there's no opening it at all. This is a good idea in general, and I find myself doing this in most games I run. If the players can inconsequentially spam a skill check, why even call for one in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 02:54
|
|