|
Original Post for Context:A Dumb 19 year old posted:While I do have specific questions I would like to ask about GMing, I'd prefer it if this thread was a general "Help me be a good GM" thread. Welcome to the GM Advice Thread! It's been years since the thread has started, but it seems to keep kicking no matter how much neglect and abuse it takes. This is a great place to bring any questions or concerns you have about running games, problems running games, or what the hell to do with those drat mary sue characters you keep infesting your games with. While I don't consider myself to be a great GM, I consider a lot of the philosophies harbored by TradGoons to be very, very fundamental to a fun and successful game. If you're totally new to Pen and Paper games, you've come to the right place. If you're a seasoned vet to this whole dungeon-mastering business, your advice and input is more than welcome.  Some Quick Discussion Links For Those Who Just Wandered In (in Chronological Order)A Discussion on Open World GMing: All Roads Lead to Rome Player Involvement Within Combat Encounters: Click to View Cinematic Worldbuilding and Removing the Stigma of Necromancy: Arise! Running Games for the Totally New (NWOD) What does this button do? Foreign Languages in a Campaign Setting Ano! On Character Voices It Can't Be Any Worse than Deep Fear What to do when your players go out of control And how to avoid becoming a controlling GM Project1 asks about the nature of running a sandbox game And some interesting concepts are brought forward  Useful ToolsMasterplan: A very handy campaign organization tool. Also great for 4th Edition D&D Encounter creation. Softrope: Suggested by Ritorix A sound mixer designed for Dungeon Masters. You can use it with soundtracks and sound effects to create a very nice atmospheric effect for your players. Link AutoRealm: Suggested by Guesticles A program for building world maps. Link Obsidian Portal: Suggested by RicochetD20 An tool used to organize your campaigns online, for all to see. Link  Music, Artwork, Etc.Freesound.Org: Suggested by Ritorix A killer website that contains a nifty selection of sound effects, useful for any DM that wants to up their game a notch. Link NIER: Very Dark soundtrack (with a few exceptions), and it's all in a made up language (minus one song) so the lyrics won't distract anyone. There are some tracks that come with intense and dramatic versions, so you can use them as a theme if that's your thing. Link Bastion: A somewhat well played soundtrack with very industrial/western sounds. Also great for the open road Link Arrrthritis fucked around with this message at 21:52 on Jun 29, 2019 |
#
¿
Jun 8, 2009 08:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 05:10 |
|
|
tendrilsfor20 posted:Tip 1 would be use 4th edition because it's soooo muuuuccchhh better for DMing. Seriously, I used to be really aggravated trying to build meaningful encounters, but now it's like "booyah!" I really would like to give DMing 4th edition a shot, but unfortunately half the group is a much bigger fan of 3.5. I personally think that Fourth is better and more fun, but the group has a much varying opinion of 3.5 ranging from "money grubbing whores" to "Pretty loving sweet." Bass Concert Hall posted:This seems like something that you ought to ask your players directly. It'll save you a lot of grief just to learn what they want beforehand. I was going to do something where they had some sample riddles and puzzles for a couple side quests, but it's probably a lot simpler to just ask the players up front. Bieeardo posted:If you want certain encounters to take place, design them loosely and simply. That way you can drop them in and flesh the details out on the fly. A damsel in distress, menaced by five kobolds, could be up a tree in a rural environment, trapped in a dungeon cell, or down a dank alleyway. I was going to have the encounters be in a "Schroedinger's Dungeon" sort of sense- where they're both there and not until the party becomes an observer. Could this work? Would I be better off designing what I want them to encounter, but not where?((assuming all theory arguments are null and void and the monsters do not count as an observer)) Thanks for the advice! You guys have been great so far.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2009 21:36
|
|
|
One of the past DMs I had always had a knack for having only one solution to a problem. If there was a band of pirates about to raid a village- you had to protect the village. When asked "Well, couldn't you leave before they attack?" they would reply "But we love this land." or when thinking "We could intercept the pirates before they strike." he would reply "But the villagers want to fight, too." Which really didn't make much sense. Starting out, it seemed fun, but as the sessions dragged on and the story got more and more tediously dull, I thought "There's got to be a better way to do this." I quote him on this, but he always said that he "doesn't understand the notion of someone changing opinions." So in every case negotiation was nigh impossible- Diplomacy was 30 minimum. I want to craft a campaign where, if the adventurers chose to defend a village being raided by pirates, they could convince the villagers to leave, they could fight the pirates head on, they could intercept the pirates head on, they could kill the villagers and join the pirates, or whatever half-baked plan they wanted to do. I want this to be a game where thinking out of the box gets you rewards and can help make a normally difficult situation much easier. How does 3.5 deal with kicking someone into a fire or causing a boulder to fall on someone? Should I incorporate designs in dungeons where players could use the environment to their advantage, or should I just stick to the basics and keep it to sword on shield action? One other thing: It's already set in stone that we're going to do 3.5. While I agree that 4 is a good system, we don't have the patience to learn a new system as we go along with a new GM. 3.5 is a system we're all very familiar with and I won't have to deal with sessions of people interrupting with "That's such bullshit." after I tell them that a kobold dies after the first swing. tendrilsfor20 posted:
That's exactly the kind of thing i'm talking about.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2009 04:12
|
|
|
Here's an example encounter i'd want to run by to see if it's decent enough to pass as a challenge. The party, which consists of a level 1 barbarian, bard, and sorcerer, busts into a condemned church full of orcs. ((6 in the immediate and more downstairs.)) In the center of the room there's a pile of debris, while along the sides of the room are some wooden statues of Gruumsh's heroes ((if the spot roll is good enough)) that are propped up fairly poorly. ((if asked)) the statues are big enough that they could at least impede the orcs. ((if asked)) Along the ceiling are a series of lanterns, supported by ropes and keeping the church at a dimly lit state. In case I didn't make my question clear- would that be an encounter i'm hoping for? Challenging enough to warrant outside thinking, without being too hard to require it? Vv I would like to request that the whole 4 vs 3.5 discussion be ended in this one case. While 4e is a good system and has it's perks. I, and the group, are much more familiar with 3.5 and I want my ability as a GM to be measured by my ability, rather than "Yeah, it was alright but fourth edition SUCKS man! gently caress Capitalism!" That, and the group can get sidetracked by a book rule they don't particularly like. vV Arrrthritis fucked around with this message at 06:45 on Jun 9, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2009 05:01
|
|
|
GMed my first session, it was glorious. The party didn't turn out as expected ((One of the players wanted to be a lumberjack, he's newer than I am so I was like "start with ranger, make a prestige class and I'll yay/nay it")) While the more experienced players rolled up a barbarian and a bard. Cue the lumberjack player starting up unforgotten realms. While i'm not a big fan of the series, hearing the line "Who's going to wrestle a bear when it tries to take your girl? A barbarian? A bard? No! A loving lumberjack!" made everyone crack up. While at first it was kind of slow getting the players to interact and explore, a great moment spurred when I was describing the entrance to a throwaway dungeon. "Your investigation of the cult has led you to a two-story wooden building, where you can hear some murmuring inside. What do you do?" The ranger was first to interject "You say this building is made of wood?" "Yeah." "I'm going to set that bitch on fire." "Okay, how do you want to do this?" "I'm going to sneak around the building and dump oil around the sides, then set the oil on fire" "Roll a move silently." *Player rolls, gets a 24* *I roll a couple of dice to determine if the cultists notice or not, they fail miserably* "While the fire starts out small and easily escapable at first, What you believe to be the cult inside failed to notice the flames quickly engulfing the building around them and blocking off any available passages. Eventually, the flames weaken the supports of the building such that the second story collapses on some of the occupants inside." And here I was thinking that knocking over statues was out of the box.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2009 08:45
|
|
|
The players didn't do anything loot-wise, I guess they figured it all got destroyed by the building/fire. I figure if they do return to the building and search for loot, the dungeon was still going to be there, just all of it's inhabitants will be dead from a lack of oxygen. The dungeon wasn't all that big to begin with- just a little test of traps and patrols, with the boss being a warlock carrying a red herring ((These guys don't like cliche plot placeholders, after defending a farm from zombies I gave them an invitation from the king. The king told them to deal with this cult. It was entirely optional.)) I'm going to see where the next session takes them, and if they go for any hooks I throw at them. I don't want them to return to the king and have him be like "Oh, good job. See you guys later." and have them do dickall for an hour until they stumble upon another quest. Definitely a lot more fun than I thought it would be. Vv I was considering the alignment ramifications for a long time after the encounter. I thought about things like what the players' intentions were, what they believed was the situation, and the possibility of killing innocents. In my mind, it boiled down to the fact that they believed what they were doing was the right thing to do- They were informed that cultists inhabited the building, and that the cult was hostile towards them. Believe me, i'm still thinking of bumping them down to chaotic neutral, but I think I'll let this one slide because I just wasn't expecting the idea. vV Arrrthritis fucked around with this message at 13:15 on Jun 10, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2009 09:57
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:I have a player like this in my campaign, and he's an idiot. It's supposed to be a heroic campaign and he's constantly trying to burn down buildings and poo poo. loving annoying. Perhaps you're quick to judge, but this in itself was an isolated incident. Neither before or after the fire did he even attempt to set anything else ablaze. I understand how easy it is to think that anyone who so much as hints at the thought of something ablaze is a maladjusted cretin- because most of them are. But hey- I'm the newbie. If he does start to try killing innocent bystanders or set another building on fire without purpose or persecution, the guards will do something about it- Rest Assured.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2009 13:06
|
|
|
Jiggity posted:Dragon Stuff Although I haven't had the opportunity to play a party assisting NPC, one of the worst experiences my gaming group had was with a high-level NPC reliant party. What happened was the GM introduced a Githyanki NPC who did all of the fighting for the group. When confronted with this conundrum, the GM had the character bring us up to a higher plane to gain 10 levels, and then sent us to some variation of hell. At that point we all got tired of her poo poo and quit her game ((third session in oh boy)). So while a gold dragon that helps the party out at first might seem like a harmless and very epic opportunity, you have to realize that if it's the gold dragon doing all of the work the party may as well not even be there. I speak as a player when I say that cutscenes are meant for video games and video games only. If the party is at third level, the young green dragon is a fine idea. But there is a very thin line when it comes to dealing with NPCs of a much higher power. I myself have not been able to make such a situation work, but I have seen many situations where it has not. You might be best holding it for a later level, or introducing the artifact that some of the previous posters mentioned. But if you feel like the party deserves a gold dragon assisting them in slaying a black dragon, so be it. On a similar topic, how do you guys normally play NPCs? How often do you try to include one in the party, and how often do you try to pull them from out of the fire? ((That is to say, if a player kills them prematurely do you go with it or try to save them?))
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2009 09:56
|
|
|
My players gotta want the XP. If they don't want it enough, too bad, tarrasque up their rear end. Really, it seems like experience and loot penalties are for new players and (man)children. I'm sure a perfectly normal and well-balanced players realize that playing D&D is for fun, and sometimes poo poo happens and you have to prioritize your life over a tabletop game. However, there is that minority out there that thinks that D&D is all about getting an epic level 60 illithid monk/sorcerer and that if their character takes 1d4 non lethal it is going to ruin their lives. It is for that minority that the GM has this power. This might get them to actually play the game, and who knows, maybe they'll realize that playing D&D can be fun.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2009 21:34
|
|
|
I'm starting up a Dark Heresy game with some online buds soon. Odds are it may be a light-hearted and death-filled journey in learning the system. I do, however, have a couple questions concerning online (live) tabletop. What are some good tools i can use for grid based combat? I don't want to have to have MSPaint out for most battles and send it to them after each turn. Is there a good tool we can each use to show player actions in? What are some good xenos to throw at them? I'm thinking of starting them in a space hulk type situation and they will all die miserably, to get familiar with combat and the system. It didn't look like the core book had anything on tyranids, orks, or even eldar. What should I do about this? Is there a book that does contain info on them? What's a good world to have them explore and purge? I'm thinking between a couple of things -A hive world that is slowly being corrupted by the forces of chaos -An agri world with a space station in orbit, with outposts and villages disappearing one by one ((be it via Xeno or heretic)) -A fuedal society built upon a long forgotten tomb world, with a Ctan's influence growing by the day. But i'm sure there's better options out there. Would you recommend me using any of these? Do you have an idea for a world I could use? Would this be too challenging? Thanks for any advice.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2009 10:51
|
|
|
Hey thread, how you doin'. My, my, Look at how big you've become! While I have a little bit more GMing experience, I'm still fairly new at the whole process. Lately, though, there's an idea in my head that's been brewing... I'm tempted to run a game with what I think is an interesting idea- the basic concept of it is that there are two opposing player sides, both working to meet their own set of objectives while directly and indirectly trying to block their opponents from achieving their own. Along the way, each side would have to make decisions on how to best achieve their goals, who to side with to achieve them, and what methods they should employ to make this possible. I'm tempted to do this Play-By-Post, but first there are a few things I'm wondering about... 1) Has this been done before? Did it work? Was it a complete and total train wreck? Please, let me know! 2) What rule-systems might work for this? The systems I am most familiar with right now are PDQ# and D&D 4E. The main concern I have with PDQ# is that it wouldn't harbor enough character development, while 4E I feel like the one side of characters might get bogged down in a tough battle while the other side might blaze their way through, causing me to throw whatever obstacle i can in their way to hold them back when they should be succeeding. While those two do have their upsides and downsides, I feel like I could learn a new system while I further flesh out this idea. 3) What's a good way to handle soldiers? The idea I'm going for is that the players wouldn't be acting by themselves, that is, they would at least have some nameless mercs to help them out. The problem with this, though, is that if they're too weak, the players might as well go on by themselves, as they'd just bog down combat. If they're too strong, they'd do all the fighting and it wouldn't be fun for anybody. There's a bunch more on my mind, but I just wanted to get three main concerns out of the way before this post became a whole bunch of words. Any help would be appreciated!
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2010 23:20
|
|
|
I was thinking at the start of the campaign each group of players would start as very low-tier recruits for their faction of choice, while by the end of the campaign the players would become second-in-commands/leaders/heroes of the faction they choose. So at the start they would have utter poo poo for allies, but nearing the end they would be giving commands to entire armies in hopes of sabotaging the other group of PCs and meeting their objectives, while being able to take on a few of their own. I guess it's hard for me to give a definite answer to that question because there is none- I want them to be random recruits working under the bureaucracy, but I also want them to be commanders of entire armies. I don't think players would be willing to change systems over the course of this adventure, but I do think that there are some systems out there flexible enough to handle this. As for empire building, I was thinking it would be kept to a minimal. I don't want the players sitting in one spot for too long, but I do want them to see the fruits of their labor. While directly building a fortress wouldn't be possible given their circumstances, they would have direct and indirect control over the fate of some villages/cities, characters, and even races that the realm may possess. I don't necessarily mind the slow-paced action of PbP, but I do want to have a system that won't get bogged down by unnecessary dice rolling or limiting a player from having a good time to having a really great time. Also, could you give me a link to a thread that failed, and the history of the world threads? And thanks, your help is much appreciated.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2010 03:17
|
|
|
Forer posted:Keep in mind, what if a player wants to be a traitor and say "Screw working up this chain, I'll hop over and be higher anyway" That's a very good, questionable situation, and I'm glad you got me thinking about it. While I do think that it should be an option for a player to go turncoat, I don't think that it should be as simple as going "Oh hey now you're good." The faction they're turning to might not accept them, the faction they betrayed might want to kill them, depending on their ranking. That isn't to say that they will end up still working for their starting faction. I think that there should be plenty of opportunities for the players to switch to another side, change their faction's philosophies, go rogue, or just say "gently caress this, We're starting our own faction, with blackjack, and hookers." I'm glad you brought that up, though. I'm going to have to think of a better solution if something really complicated happens- like both sides wanting to work together, or one player trying to sabotage the efforts of his/her side.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2010 04:33
|
|
|
The Ugly Duchess posted:Actually, I think that a bare-bones system actually harbors more potential for character development than a strict one: with fewer mechanics structuring the character, the player has more room to use his imagination. Now, some people need structure to help flesh out their character, and that's fine - you can't always come up with an interesting and complex character right off the bat. But trust me: if people want to take their character in a certain direction, they'll do it - mechanics be damned. Just let your players know that you'll reward creativity, and they will give you ample opportunity to reward them. Oh! I meant actual numbers development, not character direction. Sorry about the confusion. I'm positive PDQ# would harbor actual character development, I like working with it. The only problem I have is that characters can get their fortes at +6, and then they have to get some new fortes. While I think that works in other settings, I'm trying to go for a big difference in power from beginning to end. While at the beginning they might fumble with the sword a bit, by the end I want them to be capable of Dynasty Warriors levels of ridiculousness. I did look up Burning Wheel- could you go more in-depth on how it works? It seems to have a system not unlike New World of Darkness/Exalted. How do Beliefs come into play? Do they work like PDQ#'s Foibles? How many popular/known is Burning Wheel, and would my characters need books to be able to play it?
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2010 06:33
|
|
|
homullus posted:The old Fallout series also let you pimp out your spouse (not in the sense of adding lit hubcaps) and gave you a perk if you were in a porn shoot, if I recall aright, so special sexings are totally part of the Fallout world. Maybe so but that doesn't mean that it should become a vital part of our Tabletop experience.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2011 05:11
|
|
|
Ice Phisherman posted:Just thought of this. How does everyone here feel about killing main NPC's in games with no or limited resurrection? Not just in a main fight or at an appropriately dramatic time, but I mean because they're unlucky or in the wrong place or just in some way which cheapens their life and leaves whatever destiny they supposedly had unfulfilled? If I ever feel like my NPC cast is too much, or if I feel the characters are getting too cozy with the setting, I do precisely this. It really depends on the setting you are going for- if you are going for something fun and light-hearted, do not do this. Consistency is great when it comes to engaging players, and when they want to help NPCs succeed in their goals it can provide for great sessions ahead. I feel like it's an accomplishment in itself to get players attached to your characters. I've recently run a game of WFRP with some old friends, and I'm going to be running a game of ASIFRP soon. I feel like in these kind of games, where the players themselves are mortal as gently caress, it's appropriate to do that to NPCs. Perhaps there's a character that's out to avenge the death of his father or something- Kill his rear end off. Be sure to pay attention to who the PCs like and who they dislike. I always kill off someone they like offscreen at some point in the campaign before they even catch a glimpse of their goals. I'd like to say that it creates a dramatic effect or provides an amazing storytelling experience, but the most i've ever gotten out of my players is "Man, what a bummer." So be sure to take my advice with a grain of salt- I'm still experimenting with the concept myself. Arrrthritis fucked around with this message at 06:42 on Aug 11, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2011 06:39
|
|
|
mugrim posted:Odd question, but I've been trying to think of a way to make a system where damage is dealt to PC's in a general value, but PC's can choose to have specific injuries to reduce the overall HP damage and mitigate it. Something like "Instead of taking 10 hp, I'll take 1 but my arm is broken. ASIFRP uses this exact system. When you're reduced to 0 hp, you're defeated in combat. You can take injuries (mitigates damage for a -1 to results) or wounds (reduces all damage taken for one less dice rolled on all skills). I wasn't a big fan of it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2011 18:58
|
|
|
Some neurons have been firing for a campaign and I thought I'd ask this thread a couple questions. When it comes to world building and campaign construction, how do you guys normally go about the process? How much of it do you do before the sessions start? Obviously player input is a great device for both creating a diverse world and getting the players invested, but when are some situations when it would not be appropriate? (barring the obvious "My guy is super awesome and everyone loves him everywhere") The campaign I have in mind is set in a northern italy type setting, with different cities coexisting in a region, each one vying for power and all of them attempting to resist outside invasion. Each one with different customs, culture, rulers, and governments. I'd like the ability to go into detail about these things should the players be interested, and would probably end up spending a bunch of time working on them. I also think it would be cool if my players would create a city for the setting, either building it in character, or OOC telling me what that poo poo is all about. If I do this, should I really spend so much time on the other stuff? Would I just be wasting my time if the players are very likely to spend all of their time in something they created? Another thing I mean to ask, what's a good way to divulge all of this information, and how much is too much? If these are characters that have been living in the setting their whole lives and have been traveling in-between, should I break Show, Don't Tell and give them access to a cliff notes of each city? Or would it be best to let the players infer knowledge through narrative, and have them roll knowledge checks along the way for whatever questions they have? I'm digging the intelligent discussion in this thread (Necromancers in particular, you guys are awesome). I'm thinking of adding a bookmarks section to the OP so that any straggler can wander in and click on a topic they might like. (e: If you guys have any in particular that you want added, message me a link to where it starts, or just post it in the thread) Arrrthritis fucked around with this message at 03:41 on Nov 8, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2012 03:33
|
|
|
This is all really, really good stuff. At first I was thinking I would limit the player involvement on world building to just the one city, but thinking about players creating their own cities to throw into the world would give me a lot more to work with and really help make it diverse. I did something like that in my Monsters! game, and it worked out really well (Well, until I flaked on the game. Apologies to all involved.) I would like the whole process to be newbie friendly, though. So I'm thinking I could do something along the lines of "Tell me about the city your character is from" and then they could go hog wild with as much detail as they want (and let me fill in the blanks), and have the additional questions available if they're having a hard time coming up with something. I think I might create some additional cities to put on the map, but if the five players have fun hopping between the five cities they created, I want to give the players both a sense of wonder at what they created, and a sense of discovery when they get into the nitty gritty details. Do you guys have any experiences with world building going horribly wrong? What made it go that way, and did you manage to fix it? If so, how? I'm thinking I'm going to add a Useful Tools section to the OP. So far, on my list, I have Masterplan as a great tool for organizing a campaign (especially a 4e one.). In addition to this, I'd like to add an ambience section where we can put up resources for artwork, music, and general flavor stuff if anybody needs some help with the ambience. The soundtracks to NIER and Bastion, I think, are great for this (I love to throw a ton of music in my games). If any of you guys have suggestions on what to add, post itt or send me a message.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2012 22:24
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I wrote a thing about telegraphing your monsters' attacks in order to make combat more informed and reactive that I wanted to share. I dig this quite a bit. How specific do you get with spells? Do you make it clear beyond a doubt what spell is being cast or do you keep it somewhat vague but enlightening (i.e. "Fire erupts from BBEG's hands as she channels her spell, it could be quite damaging to the wizard" vs "The BBEG looks like she's channeling a big fireball at the wizard.")
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
Moriatti posted:This is my solution. It turns out I've been more or less using this idea for my own game (Actual companion cards can be found on the second post) I've been sticking to giving them passives of +2 skill / +1 Def and an encounter power that kind of represents what the character is about (and limit the party to one passive that they have to decide on). (example) I personally don't really want to track morale mechanics, so I just decided to give them sidequests or items that when resolved would guarantee the companion won't desert, barring outright cruelty. I can't really attest to how valuable having a passive/encounter is because the game is still in its early stages, and I always make sure to mention that powers are in their formative stages and will be changes if they trivialize encounters too much, but the response I've gotten so far from it has been really good and people have been making sure to recruit people in battles now. tl;dr the system works.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2016 07:56
|
|
|
Moriatti posted:Yeah, this is an early test for me. Yeah, I meant to say that it was a matter of personal preference for me, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with holding a morale system if you want desertion to be a recurring thing. Elfgames posted:What i need from you guys is robotmaster/maverick names, the theme i was thinking about going with is D&D monster plus D&D class Instead of the typical Element+Animal of mega man X Ardent Aboleth Skeleton Swordmage Bardic Beholder Will O' The Warlord Roguish Rakshasha Purple Worm Paladin
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
The Huge Manatee posted:I guess I'll lead with this: one of the links in the OP has expired and now leads to malware, the masterplan one. Maybe there's more, I don't fancy checking. Removed the link. Serves me right for being horribly negligent about maintaining this thread!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2019 21:53
|
|
|
Whybird posted:I super agree with most of your post but I would phrase this a bit different -- to me, a darkspot is a situation that the character's skillset isn't designed to overcome, not a game-mechanical roll they have to make. I think this is a great way to approach it (as well as the spotlight/darkspot approach in general.) Overall it is very unsatisfying as a player when what is supposed to be my strength is negated by some GM fiat or when it's very obvious they're trying to match creatures to beat my build- it makes the character creation process feel meaningless and cheapens the whole experience imo. All of that said, if the other players are feeling weak or that they aren't able to do enough compared to 22 AC forge cleric, the answer might be to help elevate the others than to bring the one guy down.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2019 13:45
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:If it's true to 4E it'll be much tougher than the Ranger and not as much of a spellcaster as the Druid, and where the Druid turns into animals and creatures it'll more take on aspects of trees, mountains, storms etc. Turn into a walking blizzard or no deal imo.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2019 13:04
|
|
|
Nephzinho posted:Last night drew my game to a standstill for 20 minutes when they were presented with the following options at the end of a scenario involving collecting a ton of ingredients: I'd take the 3d6+5 over the other two options any day, but that's just because whenever I need to roll well I usually get like, a 2 or a 3. e: unless i'm running a game, then I usually crit everyone when they're on the verge of death.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2019 14:52
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:My players hated the idea of taking a campaign loss to the point where it blew apart our entire campaign. Honestly, I just ask players if they're okay with their character dying if they hit negative bloodied or whatever. If they say yeah then they can choose how they go out and I reward the rest of the group with some rerolls/modifiers. If they say nah then they're out of the battle until the group is in a narrative safe zone. It's made running games a lot easier and I've noticed players get a lot more adventurous when crawling dungeons. The players who still want a lethal experience always take the "yeah kill me!" option while the players who don't don't feel like they need to reroll Bob McFighter's brother, Rob McFighter Bhodi posted:I'm not in an adversarial role, I'm here to enable them to have a good time. If they want empowerment fantasy to escape from their daily lives, I'm perfectly willing to accommodate that! I personally don't think it's narratively interesting to have someone die in my campaigns from a bad dice roll and so no, that's never going to happen and I make that pretty clear at my table. Failure is interesting, death isn't. I have no interest in actually TPKing a party and I'm never going to do it because they're the main characters of the story for better or worse. FTR some people might play differently and that's OK too! This is pretty much where I'm at. There is so much at play behind the scenes of a combat heavy game that it's really unsatisfying if a bad string of dice rolls leads to a character death, especially if the player isn't ready for it. There are plenty of interesting stakes you can bring to the table that go beyond "your character dies". That isn't to say that there isn't value in high lethality games where a stray goblin rock will render your character incapacitated/dead, I just don't enjoy running those types of games and the behavior they promote. Arrrthritis fucked around with this message at 21:51 on May 26, 2021 |
|
#
¿
May 26, 2021 21:38
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:Yeah I was getting ready to dispense some advice but then I read "my own father" and went mmmmnope just cut your losses on that game. Yeah, I think with this game you're going to need to think about the reality of what your players are expecting from the game versus what you want to get out of it. It sounded like they don't enjoy doing strategic fights for their encounters. Do they enjoy fights that are challenging in other ways (overwhelming odds, civilians to protect, etc.) or do they seem to not enjoy combat at all? You might be better off finding a new group to play with if the experience they want is one you wouldn't have fun providing. Squidster posted:I feel like punishing players because they're playing wrong rarely makes a great story. Depending on the setting, maybe give a character visions of X villain totally wrecking the party, and build up the tension before they face them. Players are always going to do dumb poo poo that, no matter how much you telegraph is a bad idea, can end up paying off spectacularly or fall flat. The important thing is to not punish them for not being on the same mental wavelength as yourself, because that will just end up encouraging them to play defensively and take a lot less risks.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2022 20:11
|
|
|
Jinh posted:-The unicorn fawn was given to you with the expectation that it would be protected. You know someone out there tried to kill it's mother. The unicorn fawn cant die, but if you let it be visible in a public place then it may be targeted by people with evil intent and stolen. There's a lot of degrees of danger in-between relative safety and death. I think if you wanted to threaten the unicorn without the player feeling like its life is on the line, you could have some poachers try to take it to cut off its horn (or harvest some other magical aspects of it). Or maybe it can tie into your second idea and some demons would try to turn it into a Nightmare or some other evil brand of horse. Jinh posted:-Despite it's looks, a unicorn is closer to an angel than it is to a deer or horse. It has a spark of divinity that grows as it ages. If the unicorn is surrounded by murder and evil, they will eventually become aligned with that evil. You were given this unicorn with the expectation of nurturing it. You need to try and convince this bunch of murder hobos to do good deeds occasionally, for his sake. This is a pretty good idea. Another way to get this across without explicitly saying "hey, go easy on the murderhobo" would be to have the Unicorn express its own intentions in a scene; so if the party goes full murderhobo on an innocent townsfolk then maybe the unicorn takes some time to (futilely) heal the dead townsfolk.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2022 17:15
|
|
|
Dareon posted:If you help him with *parties*, soon he will be really here and he can help *campers* *become*. *Parties* are really *fun* and keep him from being *frumple* everyday. Do not make him *frumple*. "What happened to the shopkeeper who lived here last?" *Roll initiative*
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2022 20:56
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:Adding in red herrings and false clues to a puzzle you gotta solve to proceed is some real bullshit though. That's grounds for sitting down after the session and having a heart to heart. lol yeah, that would be so frustrating as a player to learn that half of the clues you had gotten were there to deliberately mislead you. When I'm in puzzle solving mode I tend to latch onto clues/aspects that make sense and that could be a recipe for disaster. Nowadays if I ever do a puzzle in a game I have an "answer" in mind, but also if the players roll decent enough they can do their own thing to circumvent it (or if they come up with an even better solution i'll fess up that what they did was cooler than what I had in mind). An important thing to keep in mind is that video game puzzles get tested pretty rigorously, and unless you like to reuse content the stuff in campaigns are being tested live. So more often than not if the players aren't getting the solution it's a failure of communication on the GM's part and not the players being dumbos.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2023 18:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 05:10 |
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:"i killed your dad" is drama once. "your dad's a piece of poo poo" is drama forever "Your mom is asking why you don't write her as much as you used to." is a harrowing thing for a villain to say.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2023 20:58
|
|