|
Update on the Pit Fiends fight: Really quite boring. Sorry folks, there's nothing really funny/fun to report. Due to our conference call the DM fiat'd a bunch of stuff in the player's favor (+1 or better weapons could hit them, the Pit Fiends could not Gate in reinforcements, they had magical cuffs that if you hit could dispel them) and the players had a lot of magical items, and there were also 6 slaadi in the fight as well (which meant a bunch of time was spent having two NPCs wack each other). Despite my friend's assurances, nothing was abstracted; I functioned as a human spreadsheet/calculator for 4.5 hours (setup and 1 combat round) and was super bored. Then I went home. Birthday wish fulfilled. I could tell you other stuff but it's really just Bad DM stuff (being more concerned how his DMPC was going to effect the fight; using a truly miserable, stupid adventure from Dragon #10 (yes Dragon #10, published in the 70s) as the bones for this adventure, etc. etc. etc.) but who cares? One of the players made a joke about 4e rounds taking longer than an hour each so they were still "winning" or something, idk. The player himself is very nice, but this is the kind of stupid/bad opinions that I had to deal with. One of the players asked me if I thought their characters were a bunch of badasses and I had to bite my tongue to keep from pointing out how pathetic this was. I guess everything went ok after I left though. Good for them. Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Dec 22, 2014 |
#
¿
Dec 22, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 18:23 |
|
|
DrOgreface posted:Hello, I'm about to start my first campaign as a DM. I've got one player who wants to run a paladin that gets corrupted/turns Oathbreaker and betrays the party. Unbeknownst to him, the main premise of the campaign is that a cult is attempting to help resurrect a cthulu type Old One, so the corruption idea does have its place in the campaign (and already happened to important NPCs). The character will be out after the betrayal and become a GM-run character permanently. The betrayal should not have an effect on anything mechanical - it should exist purely in the realm of the dramatic (i.e. no loss of any equipment or access to any resources or abilities). Follow these two suggestions and it might work out. What you're trying to prevent is: the player just wants to gently caress over the other players/be a dick and wants your buy-in to do it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
homullus posted:Make sure lots of characters have secrets they're keeping, most of which are not related to the actual mystery, but provides reason for them to lie to/mislead/avoid investigators. Have a plot that proceeds with or without the players -- like fronts in Apocalypse World-y games -- possibly more than one. For example, there could be a killer on the loose who coincidentally murdered somebody implicated in a larger conspiracy. Some of the clues and revelations will be related to a string of murders, some will point to the high level of the conspiracy, but connecting the two will bedevil the PCs because there is no connection other than that one murder. Ideally, though, both the murderer and the shadowy conspiracy are moved to rash actions by the PCs' investigations. It leaves you all sorts of room for an innocent man to end up on Death Row, or a femme fatale to be killed in a case of mistaken identity, powerful allies to lose their positions due to erroneous suspicions, or whatever. I'm not trying to be mean but have you ever run a mystery game? This is so far off from my experience that I can't imagine it working. Even in the most clear cut mystery without any GM intervention at all, the PCs will invent their own outlandish theories; they will trust the wrong person and mistrust the right one; they will miss or misinterpret "obvious" clues. What you have proposed will, in my opinion, end up as a series of disconnected, disjointed scenes where events inexplicably occur around the PCs and they have no idea why - in other words, a universe in chaos - until the denouement, where you finally provide some context to the random poo poo that happened. Here's what to do: Make a basic mystery with a series of clues (the spine) Hang a bunch of color off of it (the ribs), just sketches of characters and motivations. There's no independent plot, it only advances in front of the players Be ready to completely change the case to something better if the players come up with a theory/motivation you like Remember that KNOWING someone is lying and PROVING it are two different things This has served me well for many years
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
homullus posted:The stated desire was "very noir" and "interesting characters before they self-destruct,", though, right? Not The Secret of the Haunted Mansion. Right but I don't think what you've suggested is going to produce Noir outcomes either. There's just too much information that's not player-facing and so it's going to seem random. The thing about Noir is that the protagonist is allowed to think that he's seen and done it all, that he has it under control, and then the situation spirals out of control/is not what it seems to be. It's going to be very difficult to have the PCs sucked into the orbit of a self-destructing NPC. Most players are naturally risk-averse and slightly sociopathic in-character so unlike a real Noir, the PCs aren't going to be horny and stupid enough to follow Judie The Dame's advice to steal the envelope and give it to her. If I were going to do a Noir I would have the characters do a short standard straightforward mystery. Afterwards, Buron Fitts, District Attorney for the County of Los Angeles contacts them and reveals that they have in fact been duped and running errands for a mob boss and he's going to prosecute them unless they do a few favors for him...now you have leverage and counter-leverage. Maybe someone can help them out, or has something on Fitts? Squeeze the players mercilessly. This is going to be tough. I've never run a true Noir mystery that worked. They always collapse because PCs, when placed under the pressure of your average Noir protag, bail the gently caress out.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
Prison Warden posted:...the iPhones immediately come out and zero attention is paid to what is going on...one girl plays the exact same character every game and just tries to pickpocket random civilians all the time ...getting everyone to turn up is kind of a struggle. The part I bolded is the part I knew I was going to be reading right after I started scanning your post. See, the problem here is that you have absolutely unengaged players and this is their "default fun". This is surprisingly common, so common that I've talked about it before, years ago, in this very thread. So I'm going to let Younger Me say a few things at this point about it, since none of this has really changed: Megaman's Jockstrap posted:The reality is, every campaign has players that are not going to be engaged with the game at various times. When this happens, one of the first symptoms is absenteeism. Reason 1 of why people disengage from the game is because they aren't having fun. Reason 2 is usually player attitude; they consider RPG time to be "default" fun, which is to say the player has the following attitude: I will play if I can't find anything better to do. A couple more thoughts: 1) The Thief That Fucks with NPCs is actually The Player that Passive-Aggressively Fucks with the GM if you haven't figured that out. Here's what you do with that: tell them to knock it off, you and the other players are bored by it, and if they don't, kick them out. 2) No phones. If that kills the game, GOOD. They didn't want to be there, you were nothing more than background noise. Since you don't care about the campaign, and they don't care about the campaign enough to be honest with you, this is probably the end of the line. So now is your chance to practice some mediation skills and see if you can't sink one at the buzzer and turn this around. Edit: one last thing, you sound like a perfectly average GM with a bunch of poo poo players, so don't worry about that. Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 01:36 on Mar 5, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
I also think the thieves guild trying to go public with anything is just silly in my mind. They're thieves! Nobody is going to to trust a word they say! It would be better if Harkonus was trying to intercept and destroy the evidence before the thieves guild got it vetted and turned over to a trustworthy source (I assume the thieves guild is not a big fan of an rear end in a top hat who doesn't work with them and squeezes the common man) rather than "declaring war on a guild who specializes at not being located or caught". A bit like the War on Terrorism, that. The evidence should be an insurance policy from the mayor - perhaps some correspondence with one of Harkonus's black sheep relatives who comes right out and says that he can't wait to be Senschal of Mudsville whatever after Uncle Harky takes over the town. And it's sealed/signed with the Harkonus crest. Not great but not airtight. So now we have a couple of interests at play: Harkonus The Mayor, who certainly doesn't want it known that he's got insurance on Harkonus Harkonus's dumb family member, who will certainly renounce his letter and so may need to be persuaded (either with favor or with scares) that he should come clean The Thieves Guild, who just wants to ruin Harkonus (maybe they're after the family member too, and they're not gonna be nice about it?) The PCs, who know Harkonus is a piece of poo poo. Let it rip, see how it shakes out? IDK hope this helps. The nice thing is that this sets up the PCs to be visited by three or four different people that all want the letter or protection from the letter's fallout.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
4533josh posted:I recently found out he's been playing Hearthstone throughout all sessions so far, explaining his lack of attention. I'm not happy at all, considering there were 2-4 other people I had to turn down for this party to save him a place. Dump him. I've dumped players for less. You don't have to be nasty about it, just say "hey other people are waiting, you don't seem to be having fun, it's ok to not like what I'm doing but give up your spot to someone who gives a poo poo." Phone shenanigans annoy me already. I can't imagine how I would react to someone playing a different loving game at my game!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
This is the players loving with the GM, nothing more. Which is fine, if the GM is ok with it. It sounds like they aren't, though.paradoxGentleman posted:Like, maybe not having a spirit of vengeance chop their limbs off, but have the militia officer go "Oh, did you hear that lads? These ponces say that they AREN'T breaking the law here!" and punch one of them in the stomach is an acceptable reaction. Won't work, players will immediately escalate to full-on fight to the death. Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 00:19 on May 5, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
It isn't a matter of incompatible playstyles. Rules-lawyering + unwillingness to engage with the game = problem player. Dump him/her.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
Well he doesn't have to turn into a horrible monster all at once. A few scales on the hand that holds the staff, yellow taloned nails, bony ridges up the forearm and more scales, etc. Trying to get cute and wear a glove has no effect. Keep drawing the power, get the consequences: lizard eyes, a compulsion for raw meat, sleeping in a pile of refuse on the floor...etc. You might want to throw in benefits: increased strength, more HP as their hide leathers up, night vision...but if they keep going they end up an NPC but you've given them every chance to stop so why the heck would they do that? And getting rid of all the side effects means you have to get the Archmage involved, or maybe the Diabolist or something else...lots of fun things you can do with this.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
Yeah, sorry, that's the kind of player that breaks 3.5 and derivatives over a knee. You should ask him his actual motives for doing this stuff. If he doesn't want to play a cooperative party-based game where he shares the spotlight and instead wants to play Solo Demigod's Amazing Adventures you should run him through your campaign solo (if you feel like it) or just be straight with him and tell him it's a no-sale. If he's doing this because he thinks he's "winning" the game or because this is his default approach you need to tell him that the goal is to have fun, experience an interesting narrative, and not be a problem for everyone else, so in fact he's losing the game by turning into these dumb arguments and protracted intra-party conflicts and trying to trivialize the interesting conflicts that the rules offer.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
Takuan posted:Concept 2: 14 drowned, undead imperial concubines, each with a knuckle bone from Guatama Buddha giving them eternal undeath, attacking a floating restaurant. This is about a million times better than anything I could think up (my first adventure is beating up some local toughs in a supermarket and at a billiard hall, followed by a fight with a Sorcerer in a basement) so I'm just gonna say good job on this one, you rule.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
Hey here's some bad GMing that I saw in an article, this doofus thinks that he's owning the player but in fact he's owning himself. Don't be this kind of GM.quote:And now for a completely different kind of paladin story...
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Are the thieves supposed to be inherently evil-aligned for being thieves or something? Paladins aren't incompetent and if the player starts playing one poorly it's your duty as GM to help them realize their character, not stop them. Perhaps by reminding them that they have a way to detect evil to help resolve the situation's moral ambiguities? And to point out that a Paladin that puts people to the sword for theft is actually not following the law? And etc. etc. etc. but no let's just chortle about the stupid player and literally frustrate them out of the game. Nice work.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Doing things like using Detect Evil and not summarily executing lawbreakers out of hand are pretty basic D&D things that he should have learned by this point. And if he hasn't let's go ahead and run him out of the game rather than educate him. Great attitude, really good for the hobby and good for fun times at the table too. Keeshhound posted:I know I'm inviting some painfully obvious No smug emoticons here. I would estimate, conservatively, that 75% of the people who play paladins initially play them badly and need help and guidance with the character. They are one of the more difficult classes to play properly (and by that, I mean played in such a way as to produce a compelling/interesting narrative) Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 21:23 on Sep 2, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2015 21:18
|
|
here, but I can't help but think it's not the GM's job to be a goddamned kindergarten teacher and explain morality in monosyllabic words.
|
Keeshhound posted:I'm still inclined to throw most of the blame at the feet of someone who probably should have known better. What this boils down to is that this guy didn't know what he was doing and made a very typical D&D mistake that almost everyone has experienced. Your response is that there's some mystical Ur-Knowledge about playing a Paladin that this guy should have acquired somehow (because he's a "regular" or something?) and - since he didn't - it's his fault that he was driven to frustration and left the game. Yeah, sorry, gently caress that. That's a lovely philosophy for GMing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
The problem is that most players are bad actors (not in the legal sense, but in the professional "acting" sense) and have no idea how to play drama or desires. They say "my character doesn't like Person X, so I won't do what Person X tells me/deal with Person X in any way" but of course that's not how anyone works in real life. In real life there are long term consequences, there are social relationships that need to be considered, etc. etc. etc. All of us have people in our lives that we don't like and want nothing to do with but still have to subsume this desire and deal with them on a frequent basis. This sort of push-pull of desires is very rarely modeled in table-top "role-playing", player characters are generally simplistic cartoons with 1 - 2 desires that override everything (usually based on the player's own frustrations, which is why teenage boys are more likely to play characters who try to sleep with everything) and that they pursue with a sort of psychotic dedication and stubbornness that borders on parody. In fact there's an entire RPG dedicated to overcoming this problem called Hillfolk where players are actually rewarded for caving in to others or compromising their desires. There's no better example of this then the Paladin, who takes a lot of acting skills to do well and so is beyond the capabilities of most players (at least initially). The other side of that coin is that players who continually refuse to go along with plot threads are engaging in an emotional power grab and spotlighting. They are forcing the other players and the GM to supplicate themselves in order to convince them to engage in the activity that, by their very presence at the table, they have already implicitly agreed to participate in. The best way to handle this is simply to say "find a way to make this work" and if they don't then call out the behavior and remind them that they are breaking the social contract of the table, which is that they actually want to participate in this game. If they STILL don't go along then find a new player.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I had one guy decide to become a necromancer in a D&D game full of good characters and religions and society that was super anti-necromancy. He just HAD to become a necromancer because "role playing". Well great, the party is refusing to adventure with you. He wanted to continue off on his own as a whole side-quest being a necromancer. I told him any character that permanently leaves the party will become an NPC and anyone wanting to actually play the game needs to roll a character that can actually play in the party. He was then upset for a long time that we "railroaded" his character out and didn't respect his character's strict role playing When you're confronted by situations like this the best thing you can do is to question motive. Why? I would have asked the player: Why would you want to play a character who will be disliked by both the party and society? Is it because you want some intra-party drama (the good kind, NOT player drama)? It is because you don't like the setting we're playing in and want to lodge a protest vote by playing its antithesis? Is it because you want to show that Necromancers can be good guys, too? When people make strange decisions or behave outrageously take a deep breath and remind yourself that they are probably weighing information differently and operating on different assumptions than you are, and take a moment to question them. This prevents and resolves many, many conflicts. Or they might just be pricks. Pththya-lyi posted:Yeah, that's the ideal, but that's not always possible, especially in con games where every player is a stranger to the others. Do not play tabletop RPGs with strangers at cons.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
Man, today's advice from Robin D Laws is the best GM advice ever. Kick 'Em Out
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Also a good tip re: getting the party to stay together and not go off to do their own things under the guise of "sorry it's what my character would do". Make it clear from the start that characters that want to go off and do their own thing will become NPC's. I just had a player do this, he told me he couldn't see his guy staying with the party, so he bailed out at a logical point and started a new character. He asked me if he could rejoin if they ever crossed paths story-wise and I said sure. Everyone was happy.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
DivineCoffeeBinge posted:This. This this this this this. This happened to me in a D&D campaign where we met an undead general (dead for 300 years) who believed that he was still fighting a war against a massive goblin threat. We opened his tomb (to rob it) and he was extremely grateful to be let out, was mostly friendly except he had died in the middle of a battle and the psychic energy and sense of duty as well as a couple of magic items had left him undead and unaware of how much time has passed. He still had a massive compulsion to keep fighting the (now long-dead and defeated) goblin army. So he was planning to conscript the entire local town and force-march them to the "front" that was 200 miles away (this sounds monstrous, but keep in mind: he's undead and died with this compulsion on his mind, so his mental state was kinda confused, slightly delusional, and hosed up). Also with some effort he could read minds, for some reason. I don't remember why. Maybe a magical helm? Anyway the DM did a phenomenal job of RPing him, he had a German accent but not an overblown one. We had to call him "General" and pretend to be his troops and think happy thoughts and steer him around and delay him creatively. It was fun because other than his wacko ideas he was very honorable and duty bound and all that good stuff - basically a kinda-unhinged crusader who would have been a cool dude NPC under normal circumstances. Also the DM was one of those frustrated fantasy novelist types and so we learned all about the old war against the goblins and got some cool adventure hooks and stuff of that nature. And we kinda took a shine to the guy and thought it would be great if we could convince him that the war was over. So long story short, we managed to get him back into his tomb, and seal it up then spent a couple of sessions getting the PREMIERE historian in the kingdom to visit the tomb so that the General could read his mind and get the history of the world, and we got a copy of the General's 300 year old biography that ended with his death and his wonderful legacy, thinking it would put him at peace and we could take his magical poo poo. Instead, he attacked us when we opened the tomb door and couldn't be reasoned with becuase "he was mad at us". I didn't go back to the game after that. Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 01:22 on Dec 16, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
Jintor posted:My first alternate thought is: "you put the duder to his deserved rest and get his cool poo poo. You step outside. In putting him to his deserved rest, you have accidentally raised part of the goblin army somehow. Weird. Roll for initiative" Yeah, this feels nearly as bad imo.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 04:59
|
|
|
Oh yeah. I can get behind that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
Cat Face Joe posted:It's these. I can't imagine this is ok with the rest of the group. Time to rotate into a new GM.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
If you have a problem with how the 5e thread functions you might want to bring it to their attention rather than belly-aching to a separate group of people who largely don't post it in it and don't care.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
Cool, well I just went over to the thread and checked and it's a neutral discussion about how 2e D&D didn't need a grid, a link helping a guy find a virtual tabletop, and some general misc poo poo (like questions about bounded accuracy and martial powers) going on. No bashing that I could see, but maybe I'm not as sensitive as y'all.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
poorlifedecision posted:My issue is that she's very likely going to do something that would logically be a really horrible idea. Like break into a castle at night and wait in the guy's room and then kidnap him for a gondola ride or something. Great stories are full of things that aren't logical. Go for it. You are not simulating a real fantasy world here, you are creating a fun narrative with your players. This sounds like a fun narrative.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
Iceclaw posted:So I'm kind of bitter. Both of the games I tried to DM for are probably dead in the water, because none of the chucklefucks in either can afford one effin day a month. gently caress it, I'm done. If they are parents, I can see this happening. If not, well, they just don't care enough. It happens.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
"Stop doing this right now, Ken. It's disruptive to the game we are trying to run and none of us are enjoying it." *continues doing it* "Ken, we've collectively asked you to stop behaving like this and you refuse. You are breaking the social contract at the table and this isn't cute, funny, or entertaining to anyone outside of maybe your SO. We are ending today's session early. Go home and think about what psychological issues are causing you feel the need to be a disruptive jerk toward your friends in-game after being repeatedly asked to stop." *continues doing it* "Ken, you are not invited back to our next game. Ken's SO, you are free to continue attending although we completely understand if you feel awkward about attending without Ken. Ken, we hope to see you at <some other social event in the future.>"
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
If an any point you design a situation where the only way out is for the PCs to fail despite their best efforts, you done hosed up.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Crumbling walls manned by children and the elderly was practically the first thing I described, yes. "It's obvious that..." was the exact thing I was going for. Another thing I like to do is say some variant on "you know, guys, I didn't necessarily think you would need to resort to violence in this situation..." and sometimes that redirects the scene without scolding them for punching their way through the adventure. (other times they just say "nah, I wanna sock this guy" or w/e) Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Jan 28, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
So I know that I've talked before in this thread about my insanely hardcore grognard friend who plays D&D with a bunch of dudes in their 40s and 50s who run it pure Fantasy Vietnam style. Well he just told me some amazing facts that I'm going to drop here because HOLY poo poo THIS GAME: They are playing Dungeons and Dragons 2nd edition. The campaign is 4 years old. He is 3rd level. The DM only runs modules, EXACTLY as written. One player is the DM's Favorite, he constantly switches characters and plays homebrew classes that are completely unbalanced. Everyone is constantly passing the DM notes during the game like some drat Mean Girls clique. Not once, not twice, but THREE TIMES the party has awoken to find some/all of their equipment stolen and a character missing. They have been robbed. The player then rolls up a new character and tells the other players "you can't be mad at me, I was playing my character, anyway please meet this new guy". The DM's Favorite as done this twice. I mean it's like Toxic Game greatest hits, man. This dude is the most hardcore acolyte of D&D I know and he's like "I hate this, it's a huge waste of time and I'm so angry at all the other players." DM is a Simulationist and liberterian, btw. Goddamn! Bad management results in bad outcomes.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
Harrow posted:Holy poo poo. I want your friend to post here with detailed stories from that campaign for my own personal entertainment The one he just told me was that they were teleported into the lowest level of a deadly dungeon and had to fight their way out, only for the DM's Favorite to trigger a trap that sent them back to the lowest level of the dungeon again with all new monsters. This just happened like 2 weeks ago. Fuckin' LOL it's hysterical. The DM's Favorite constantly does mechanically stupid poo poo in-game and puts the party's feet to the fire and when my friend rages out about it (he's an EXTREMELY intense dude) the guy says "playing your character mechanically correctly is metagaming" aahahahahahah it's literally Gamer Hell, when he was telling me this poo poo I honestly started sweating because it took me back to lovely high school and college games with incredibly dysfunctional idiots. This DM's Favorite guy is in his 50s btw, there's literally no excuse to behave like this other than he's an rear end in a top hat. Edit: I don't want to get him an account here because he's the kind of guy who gets extremely Red and Nude online. He's a very passionate, intense guy who is kind of "out there" and I honestly think this forum would shred him.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
Yawgmoth posted:Also yes buy him an account so we can hear his stories and/or shred him, both are good fun. I'm not going to let strangers mess with a guy who I consider a friend and who I know is 90% likely to get upset about it and take it personally. No. Also yes I told him I would have deleted that group about 25 times. He kept saying "well wait until you hear about this!" and laughing about it because he knew it was going to wind me up. I think I felt him feel a little better when I referred to the DM's Favorite as "not even aggressive enough to be an rear end in a top hat, he's rear end in a top hat-adjacent. He's the worst sort of anal polyp." Edit: I'm thinking of talking with him about this campaign and doing a Dispatches from the Frontier style writing on it. Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 19:02 on May 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 26, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
Harrow posted:Great, now I'm gonna picture him as Alex Jones. That's not too far off the mark in some ways, actually. Except he's not a moral monster who rails against the GLOBALISTS. You might want to use the post history function to check out my posts about this guy in this thread, he's a real hoot. It's like stepping back in time 30 years whenever I play with him. Extremely dysfunctional gaming imo. Spoiler warning: these series of posts seems to be building to an insane clusterfuck but ultimately goes nowhere. https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3150535&userid=11551#post439096334
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
2nd edition AD&D fans, would any one of you want to spend 4 years playing at 3rd level or below? Because that is what has happened to my friend.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
Yawgmoth posted:I didn't read most of this because lol holy poo poo you are so loving buttmad over being called a lovely DM You're massively overreacting and being an rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
Yawgmoth posted:I'm not the one posting about his sw8 own from 20 years ago but sure, i'm the rear end in a top hat for finding his screeching kinda funny You're aggressively hostile about it. For whatever reason, that story clearly pushed your buttons. It happens. But please don't pull the "I'm a bemused observer" thing now, it's a transparently obvious dodge. Just stop posting about it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
The Victims of the Demon Lord series for Shadow of the Demon Lord adds a lifepath system to character creation. And yes, your character can die during it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 18:23 |
|
|
Sanford posted:You’re right, they are going to blow it up. If they’re on it, that will kill them. How would you get out of a tpk in this instance? Give them one turn to react and see what they do? It shouldn't kill them. They get blown into the water and live, just like every other hero on an exploding boat. Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Jan 17, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2018 18:15
|
|