|
actually the beholder is super weak and dying from a disease so he basically throws himself on the players swords, news gets out that they slew a terrifying monster and NOW they are put way the gently caress out of their depth and they (should) know it
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 05:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 23:51 |
|
|
Elfgames posted:actually the beholder is super weak and dying from a disease so he basically throws himself on the players swords, news gets out that they slew a terrifying monster and NOW they are put way the gently caress out of their depth and they (should) know it Alternatively it's a spectator being kept around and protected for its Create Food and Drink.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 05:25
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:I think blaming video games is too short-sighted. How many pieces of media can you say really have a scene that goes: "the threat is overwhelming, so our heroes wisely hosed off for the night?" Even in stories that have the heroes run from something, it at least usually starts with them sticking their dick where it shouldn't go first, then bailing when things go south. I think it's an expectation built up from years of roleplaying culture - every encounter is tailored to be tough but winnable. You look up the encounter, scale it to the party using a table and then the party triumphs after a few scrapes. This means that cake-walk encounters are rare and unwinnable encounters, unless they are plot-pivotal, are not part of "traditional" roleplaying.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 08:44
|
|
|
That's because while the "Kobayashi Maru" scenario is interesting as a piece of background fluff, it's no fun to actually play.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
I think you could actually make it fun, but you'd need to talk to your group ahead of time and say "this is going to be a story where you lose in the end, so let's make this more about roleplaying instead of trying to find a way to win." (Obviously, this wouldn't work for all groups.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
Sure, and the inevitability of dying or going insane is one of the things that makes Call of Cthulhu so charming. But I think these situations are the exceptions that prove the general rule.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
So in the D&D game I'm playing I noticed no one really role plays. 90% of anything said during the session is between the DM and the players, never player to player. It's like everyone's playing their own single player D&D between them and the DM and ignoring that there's other people at the table. The weird thing is that all the players have improv/theatre background so I was really hyped to play a game with a group of people who would obviously be really good at the role playing and characterization part of the game, which is what i'm mainly interested in. Instead it's just one fight after the next. Part of it is that it's a bit of a drop-in game with a slightly different mix of players every session, which has forced the DM into making each adventure a little self contained mission. We're all mercenaries working for the same company, so each session is "you have a mission to go kill this monster" or "go rescue these missing townsfolk". Which means there isn't really room to sit and discuss what our plan is, since our plans are made for us. Theres none of that open-world feeling where the party discusses how to best handle the overarching plot or mission because there isn't one, it's just little self-contained adventures and we're just mercenaries under orders. But even then, when we do have a choice on how to tackle a goblin fort, or if we should try to negotiate with the outlaw and getting them to surrender vs attacking, no one talks. People just roll initiative and jump in to do their own thing. If the first person to take an action decides to try diplomacy then that's what we're doing, if the first person attacks, that's what we're doing. The players are almost competitive to run in and "do something" first and force the situation how they'd like it to play out. I've talked to a couple other players who agree they'd like to see a lot more actual role playing, and I mentioned it to the DM who said he'd try to give more openings for role playing vs just rushing us off to the next fight. But this is a problem I've never encountered before, both as a player or DM. I've always played in groups that would talk each situation to death, both out of and in character. Any advice what I could better do as a player or what a DM could do to foster a little more role-playing and player-player interaction rather than everyone trying to shout over each other to the DM what wacky and impulsive thing they're going to do next?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
It kind of just sounds like they're hypercompetitive — each one wants to be the star of the show, or the one who does the cool memorable thing in the night's campaign. This especially makes sense if they're all improv theater kids, ha ha. I'd say the responsibility here falls mostly on the GM. There are a lot of things the GM can do to foster cooperation... firstly, punish players who try to go it alone. If there's a big enemy ahead and one player just rushes in without planning stuff out or cooperating, his character should get his rear end kicked. The GM can also make a bunch of situations that literally require teamwork: lifting or moving objects that are too big for one character to lift alone, simple puzzles that require all four players to do something simultaneously (like, hold down 4 switches), boss battles that literally require teamwork to win (the boss is invincible unless one player holds an orb), etc
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Any advice what I could better do as a player or what a DM could do to foster a little more role-playing and player-player interaction rather than everyone trying to shout over each other to the DM what wacky and impulsive thing they're going to do next? The best role-playing actually happens when there's conflict between PCs. And it doesn't have to be direct conflict where they're trying to kill each other, it can just be that they're working at cross-purposes - the Paladin wants to purge the unclean heathens, but those dudes did a solid for the Sorceror two sessions ago and he sort of owes them. Or they're the only source for some hard-to-find spell component the Sorceror really needs. Now the Paladin and the Sorceror need to come to some agreement or compromise that neither one is happy with and that serves to further complicate their relationship in the future. If everyone's just "following orders," then you don't have that conflict. This is especially true if everyone else just goes along with whatever the PC who takes the most initiative does. Simply rolling dice against monsters is phenomenally boring. It is the job of the players to provide clear, useful motivations for their characters, and it is the job of the GM to put the PCs into situations that leverage those motivations in interesting and compelling ways. This is best accomplished by presenting the PCs with situations that are both a) engaging and b) impossible to ignore. You come home one night to find your parents tied up and bleeding and some dude rifling through your refrigerator - what do you do? And if neither the players nor the GM are holding up their end of the bargain, the game is going to suck. Or rather, it's going to more resemble a tactical combat sim and involve less actual role playing. Some people go for that, but it sounds like you want something with more engagement. So give the GM some leverage on your character and encourage him to use it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
Elfgames posted:More Beholder chat Let the players grab something really shiny from the Beholder's lair and then flee the enraged Beholder. Cool Thing can be a plot hook for later adventures. Make it something the players will want to keep and protect from thieving NPCs. Your players do know what Beholders are and how dangerous they are, right? tom bob-ombadil fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Oct 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:So in the D&D game I'm playing I noticed no one really role plays. 90% of anything said during the session is between the DM and the players, never player to player. It's like everyone's playing their own single player D&D between them and the DM and ignoring that there's other people at the table. The weird thing is that all the players have improv/theatre background so I was really hyped to play a game with a group of people who would obviously be really good at the role playing and characterization part of the game, which is what i'm mainly interested in. First, D&D has never really been about deep role play. It's focused on combat , and is best engaged with on that level. For certain values of best anyways. Second, players who do a lot of improv and theatre may be good at RP, but they don't have as much need to do it in TTRPGs. Your typical group, TTRPGs are one of their few outlets to exercise that kind of creativity, so they have a lot of desire and energy stored up for it. Groups with a lot of theater people tend to get that itch scratched in their day job, plus they use up a fair bit of that creative energy. If you and the rest of the group want to have more roleplay, you probably need to switch to a different system that encourages it, and especially minimizes the effort for it. They need a bit of a kickstart, basically, and to minimize the friction once they get going. Trying to get them to RP in a system that doesn't prompt them to and then has a lot of speed bumps in terms of mechanics is just going to wear them out. The good news is, once a group like that does get rolling with RP, it tends to build on itself in a really good way. There is some potential that what the group really needs is a beer & pretzels game to just kick back and relax with though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
Ehhhhhhhhh if the group has fundamental issues cooperating and communicating, "switching to a different RPG system" isn't going to solve the problem. D&D's rulebook is heavy on combat stuff, but I wouldn't say that it actively discourages roleplaying in the slightest.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
Polo-Rican posted:Ehhhhhhhhh if the group has fundamental issues cooperating and communicating, "switching to a different RPG system" isn't going to solve the problem. D&D's rulebook is heavy on combat stuff, but I wouldn't say that it actively discourages roleplaying in the slightest. System matters. As long as the bulk of your character development is derived from how many monsters you kill, you have an incentive to kill monsters. Contrast this with a game like Shadows of Yesterday, where if you have the "Key of the Pacifist," you get experience for every fight you avoid. Totally different play experience, no modification or house rules required. Comrade Gorbash is right, if you want people to role-play, it helps to give people in-game incentives (and opportunities) to do so. On its own, D&D generally does not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
Yeah, D&D is a bad game if you want RP to be the number one focus. See if you can get them to try out dungeon world.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
While DnD is primarily a dungeon crawl and what you tell us sounds exactly like a ye olde DnD game, it's true that the system only helps smooth the experience Changing system would help, but I'm not sure it would definitely "fix" your group's problem (on a tangent, I put fix in quotes because there's nothing wrong with playing a TTRPG like a dungeon crawl if that's what everyone wants, it's especially true with new players who haven't played TTRPGs very long) However, if you want to change it up then someone needs to start showing off some roleplay initiative, and the GM needs to start doing it too Once the GM starts going balls deep with constantly interesting NPCs and quests with a reason (see the post above about having a reason for stuff) and at least one person responds to that in character 9 times out of 10 the other ones will see how cool/fun it is and start doing it themselves If everyone at your table is doing full on "ok it's my turn, I roll cleave... I did 10 damage... Luke is next" then no-one is going to take that roleplay initiative Also, sounds like your game is heavily a numbers game, even in DnD you only roll when something is contested or the results are interesting. If the party ranger and fighter are racing to see who pulls the lever first, maybe the ranger is just so much faster he gets there first due to his lighter armour and quick feet. These little things help too I think Of course the real issue might be these guys get a good creative outlet from acting and playing a TTRPG as a dungeon crawl is actually quite nice for them to chill and not have to do exactly what they do for work anyway. Bare that in mind too, since there is no "right" way to play a TTRPG it might just be the case you need a separate game where you can roleplay your heart out and this game is your dungeon crawl crunch fest Last thing, I had this problem for years with my group, and it made me super frustrated as the GM since they wouldn't put any effort into roleplaying. A few things fixed it for me, one was dropping some key people from the group who were really not helping the mood, two was moving away from DnD to Savage worlds then later feng shui 2 and dungeon world and last was just getting better myself as a GM and actually creating a setting which the players really wanted to be invested in, plus doing NPCs better as I got better Best of luck, I hope you find a solution which makes everyone happy 
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 07:44
|
|
|
A good way to bring players into the game is to ask them questions about their characters. Don't just say 'You see a group of hobgoblins', say 'You see a group of hobgoblins -- Fighter, you recognise the insignia on their armour. Where did you see it last, and were you fighting on the same or opposite sides?'
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
So last night we had a game and it went GREAT. There was a short fight at the beginning and then we got a bunch of diplomacy, we were put in a terrible scary situation and just left to our own devices to come up with a plan. We had some lovely NPC's in tow who could either be seen as deserving death or being left behind, or useful idiots who were just caught up in something bigger than them and worthy of a little pitty. The rest of the game was almost entirely puzzles and choices, players talking to each other, working together as a team to get the thief to unlock doors and the wizard to detect magic and someone with dark vision to peep through key holes and tell us what they see. It was like an entirely different game. I think the key is that it wasn't just one big fight, we were given an expansive "dungeon" to explore and a general goal of simply escaping, and the rest was up to us.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
Whybird posted:A good way to bring players into the game is to ask them questions about their characters. Don't just say 'You see a group of hobgoblins', say 'You see a group of hobgoblins -- Fighter, you recognise the insignia on their armour. Where did you see it last, and were you fighting on the same or opposite sides?' tl;dr it's good for some groups but it's definitely not for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
Yawgmoth posted:Don't make me on-the-fly come up with poo poo for your game. Really good points. I feel like when I’m a player and have to come up with something entirely on the spot, it ends up being a silly thing regardless of the game’s tone. Either that or it’s super boring because I don’t want to try and alter the game lore that I already really enjoy. I’m glad my DM doesn’t do it much because I don’t want to end up having some dumb joke become a big part of a game when it shouldn’t, or conversely have him toss out what could have been good character development because it didn’t actually fit with what he was going for. That being said, I think it works great for light-hearted one shots/short games exactly because of how quickly things can go off the rails.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
Agree with Yawgmoth. I generally don't like making my players think about those types of things in the middle of a combat scenario. It pulls them out of the scene. That type of world building is reserved for character building and occasionally downtime. Once you get to a certain point in the game you shouldn't need to be asking those questions. You already know that the hobgoblins bear the markings of Bratgurt the Flatulent, sworn enemy of Sir Kevin. Because that's all been made clear through other role-playing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
What is stressful about improvising in a roleplaying game? You realize you're making improvised decisions every step of the way, unless you're just going along with the party and not saying anything (which is what the question-asking technique is designed to discourage)? Some other questions: What are you doing to spend the time at the Inn tonight, or do you just go to bed? Your character has lived in this kingdom all their life, so how do they feel about the ruler? These are vampires- who has seen a vampire before? Etc and so on. I'm interested in the answers to these questions as a DM, and in answering them as a PC.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
thinking your ideas have to be good before you can say them is a trap imo. they have to be ideas, that's all. like saying 'oh crap, they're the, idk, black skulls clan. we fought them a few years back' to the question above isn't a clever idea, its cliche and obvious. and that's fine. it's now a part of the world, and you can hang other facts on that. do the have skulls on sticks on their tents? yeah sure. do they blacken them with soot from the funeral pyres of their chiefs? why not? sebmojo fucked around with this message at 22:25 on Oct 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
Yawgmoth posted:You know, a lot of people around here love this kind of thing but I honestly hate it. Just loving loathe it. It does the exact opposite of draw me in; it pulls me out of my "player" space and shoves me violently into my "design/GM" space. Don't make me on-the-fly come up with poo poo for your game, if you want to do that then ask me between sessions "hey I have this ideas for [game element] and I want your character to be the most involved with it/them, let's come up with something" or the like. Otherwise you're getting literally the first thing that pops into my suddenly-stressed-out brain and it's almost guaranteed to be poo poo and based off either something in the room or whatever I was watching to go to sleep last night. For me, as a player, I love the come up on he fly questions. I think because I spend most of my RPG time as a GM, it's right in my wheel house and I love finding ways to tie my fellow players together through NPCs and organisations. But as a GM, I've found that for the most part, the players I play with tend to be more in Yawgmoth's camp. I have had success in my last few campaigns by asking a few questions before play to establish 3-5 NPCs that the player knows. Usually you can get a couple allies and a foil out of it, and it means you can just use Anah Olos as the shady criminal contact when it's needed. When you're still handling character info and world building, I think people's minds are in a better creative place. e: sebmojo posted:thinking your ideas have to be good before you can say them is a trap imo. they have to be ideas, that's all. Also, this. Being willing to take cliche/simple ideas and run with them really goes a long way to encourage people to contribute more. TheTofuShop fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Oct 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
It's a different kind of improvisation than what you're typically doing in-session as a player--you're suddenly answering questions about the world instead of about your character, and you probably feel pressured to come up with something unique and interesting without any warning. In your examples, it would all be questions about what my character does, and what their backstory is like. Because this is my character, I feel enough ownership to confidently answer those questions. The question Whybird posted not has the DM making an assertion about my character ("They recognize this"), it's suddenly charging me with the task of inventing backstory of a bunch of hobgoblins that I as a player have never seen before, and doing it in a short amount of time. If you asked me that between sessions I'd happily come up with something. But getting it out of nowhere is a real ask.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
UP AND ADAM posted:Some other questions: What are you doing to spend the time at the Inn tonight, or do you just go to bed? Your character has lived in this kingdom all their life, so how do they feel about the ruler? These are vampires- who has seen a vampire before? Etc and so on. I'm interested in the answers to these questions as a DM, and in answering them as a PC. I think these are pretty different questions than the one Yawmgoth was responding to. Or at least if I were playing, I would view them differently. These are generally pretty good for drawing a bit of rp from hesitant players about their characters, but the original question had a different scope. The original felt like it was asking the player to immediately make up some NPC organization that would be involved with their character and place it in the DMs world. Meanwhile, these questions mostly just involve an individual character’s reaction or history, which, ideally, the player is already thinking about and focused on. I tend to dislike the former type of question, since it pulls me out of the DMs world and highlights where things haven’t been ‘finished up’, then I try to make something that fits, panic a bit, and make a joke answer. (I love improvising when I DM, but improvising another DMs world while playing isn’t very fun for me) Edit: Yeah, what The Lord of Hats said
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
Yawgmoth posted:You know, a lot of people around here love this kind of thing but I honestly hate it. Just loving loathe it. It does the exact opposite of draw me in; it pulls me out of my "player" space and shoves me violently into my "design/GM" space. Don't make me on-the-fly come up with poo poo for your game, if you want to do that then ask me between sessions "hey I have this ideas for [game element] and I want your character to be the most involved with it/them, let's come up with something" or the like. Otherwise you're getting literally the first thing that pops into my suddenly-stressed-out brain and it's almost guaranteed to be poo poo and based off either something in the room or whatever I was watching to go to sleep last night. The Lord of Hats posted:The question Whybird posted not has the DM making an assertion about my character ("They recognize this"), it's suddenly charging me with the task of inventing backstory of a bunch of hobgoblins that I as a player have never seen before, and doing it in a short amount of time. If you asked me that between sessions I'd happily come up with something. But getting it out of nowhere is a real ask. I couldn't agree more — as a player I want to improvise the actions my character does, not improvise random knowledge my character has or random details of my character's past. The first builds on my character in an active way while the second feels like I'm just stuffing my character with half-baked traits and factoids that I don't care about in the moment and won't remember in the future.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
I could not disagree more. Nothing takes me out of a game more than having all the setting information come via infodump from the GM. Give me a chance to establish some ownership in it too. Also you're all reading way too much into that question. It wasn't "tell me about who these hobgoblins are." It's "tell me about the last time you fought hobgoblins," with an opening for additional lore if you've got an idea you like. You could very easily explain what YOU were doing and whether YOU were fighting with or against the hobgoblins without ever saying what the insignia was. EDIT: As a GM, if I asked that question, I'm not looking for a dissertation on the culture and order of battle of the hobgoblin tribes. I want to know if the hobgoblins see the fighter as an old comrade in arms, or a blood enemy. If the fighter hasn't established much detail yet, I want to know if they're the sort of take mercenary contracts, or they served as a stalwart of their homeland's militia.If I do know about the fighter's history, I'm curious as to what part of their adventures coincided with running into hobgoblins. If the player happens to have some neat ideas about hobgoblins as well, cool, I've left room for that, but the question is much more about the fighter. Comrade Gorbash fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Oct 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
I made having seen the animal in question a requirement for my druid transforming into something, not to limit him in any way, but to make him come up with a cool story about that time he saw a Plesiosaurus or whatever. It's been fun and I wish I had more chances for stuff like that. I'd personally really like that as a player but I'll try and think about which parts my players engage with most.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
I like questions like: -What was your family life like? -What did you do before starting this adventure? -What sort of place did you grow up in? -During the war when you were a kid, which side were your parents on? -How does your character feel about goblins, and why? Stuff that related to my character only, it's not world-building, it's just fleshing out my character, and the GM still has the final say. I could say "I hate goblins because they killed my parents!" and the dm could say "There actually wasn't any goblin activity on the continent you grew up in, got another idea?" and that's good. But like crowdsourcing the world-building as you play is a huge turnoff for me. I want to explore and fully developed world. No "Ok you've arrived at the site on the map, what do you guys would be spookier, a cave or ruins?" or "Oh your character is from Avalumb, we're going to be going there now, tell me what the capital city is called, what's the king like, how do they feel about goblins?" what, no, you're the DM, you tell me! I'm not writing the story for you or doing a madlib.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Stuff that related to my character only, it's not world-building, it's just fleshing out my character, and the GM still has the final say. I could say "I hate goblins because they killed my parents!" and the dm could say "There actually wasn't any goblin activity on the continent you grew up in, got another idea?" and that's good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:If a DM asked me that question and then replied this way, I would walk away from the table immediately and not come back. Because he didn't change his world history to cater to one player?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I like questions like: That's a pretty tall order to ask of a person. Fully developed isn't something that you can easily come up with. I love to worldbuild, but I don't see what's wrong with asking the players to contribute things to the process. It helps invest people and get them feeling like they have some ownership over something beyond their character. I don't generally ask those questions in the moment though. I like to solicit suggestions and ideas between sessions so that people who might not be good at off-the-cuff improv can have time to develop their ideas.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Because he didn't change his world history to cater to one player? I'd walk myself. It would be ridiculous to ask that question and have there be a reasonable wrong answer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
Man I do that all the time. You have a character in mind that is pampered snooty arcane academic from country A, but country A is extremely anti-magic and has no legal magic academies so that won't work, so I suggest country B which is pretty similar except without the violent suppression of magic use. Easy. If you have a detailed world built it's pretty difficult and unreasonable to make huge changes to it. And as a player I'm playing to learn about and explore a cool world that the GM put a lot of time into developing, rather than make a character and demand the world change to fit around it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
This just sounds like a disagreement between Dungeon World players and D&D / Pathfinder players. The games are pretty significantly different in what they expect from players & GMs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Because he didn't change his world history to cater to one player? There are times where a player suggestion isn't appropriate for a game, but that's generally because the player is not keeping in spirit of the game everyone has agreed to play, and that's a case of them being disruptive and is a matter to be addressed out of character. Contradicting already established information can fit into this, yes. But if you've got a pre-established world where every detail is so set in stone that an innocuous change like that is too big an ask, and it's not a case where the group has agreed to play in a pre-set world they're already familiar with? That's just being a jerk. And also? If you aren't willing to be flexible enough to give the players some control over their backstory - especially when you just asked them to make something up - then you should go write a book.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
And as a GM I'm busy as gently caress already, so maybe meet me halfway. Also as a GM I probably made it clear before we started that I expect the players to meet me halfway because this is the GM Advice Thread and I'm gonna assume I've already communicated my intentions to the players and they've done the same for me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
The way I did it once was that we started with an almost blank slate. I told my players, you're entering a kingdom you haven't visited before each for your own reasons - what are they, and what do you know about the place? The crucial bit was, I asked them before we kicked off any gameplay. Whatever they came up with would be true, but I'd be the one to put the ideas together and develop them once the game started properly. It was an improvised method, but it got us a fairly decent setting of a kingdom fighting off an undead invasion from the East and a revolution from the West, and as far as I'm concerned, it worked.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
Lynx Winters posted:And as a GM I'm busy as gently caress already, so maybe meet me halfway. Also as a GM I probably made it clear before we started that I expect the players to meet me halfway because this is the GM Advice Thread and I'm gonna assume I've already communicated my intentions to the players and they've done the same for me. Gonna need you to make a preparedness roll on that hypothetical.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 23:51 |
|
|
There's obviously a huge spectrum of flexibility between: "So my character is a goblin space captain with a magical laser gun and his parents were adopted high-elf cyborgs" "umm we're playing a historic game set in the age of sail..." And: "So I was planning to play a goblin who was an ex-pirate from that 'Gato' pirate island you mentioned in your lore dump which I read, he was press-ganged as a baby and raised by the pirates but after realizing how brutal and evil the pirates were he secretly saved up enough gold to jump ship at a human port city and start a new life as a carpenter's apprentice" "No, no that won't work, you idiot, did you actually read the entire 900 pages of the lore dump?? First of all the pirates of Gato only pay their crew with shares in the ship which can only be cashed out after a pirate has served their term so you couldn't have saved up any money, impossible! And the Human port city you mentioned has a very established and unusual guild system based on numerology of surnames and your character's surname would not translate into being allowed to become a carpenter, only a mason, so you'll have to start over."
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 22:13
|
|