|
That's cool.  Some people really like that style and other people don't, but as long as everyone's on the same page then it's all good.
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2012 04:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 21:52 |
|
|
InfiniteJesters posted:Now that's what I call soul food!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2012 15:39
|
|
|
Congrats, your character was literally  . What's really amusing is that I could totally understand your character's actions, it's just a lot of those Things We Usually Ignore so the game can progress.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2012 23:58
|
|
|
The Adventures of Dwarf Quixote would be an awesome game to play in/run.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2012 00:13
|
|
|
D&D has rear end for mass combat rules but if my players (or myself as a player) ever build up a huge army, I usually just ask for a rundown of tactics, figure out base stats for the average combatant on either side, and roll like 10d20+mods with some dice roller and line up the results. Each die is 10% of the force and is for a day of fighting. If one side outnumbers the other I usually throw in a bonus for the side with bigger numbers, and poo poo like terrain, clever tactics, etc. all net bonuses/penalties for the sides. It usually works out pretty well, and helps easily determine how many of your 500 skeletons with +4 strength, +1d6 cold damage claws, +2 natural armor, and on-death explosion (corpsecrafter feats are so good) have actually been slain, and how much resistance remains.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2012 12:22
|
|
|
Really Pants posted:Whoever that someone is, I already hate them and wish them ill. Secondly, that guy's a double rear end in a top hat for both bring a total newbie into a pbp and acting like such a douchebag because his friend's character got bloodied. It's D&D, if half or more of the party isn't bloodied at some point during a fight, you're doing it wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2012 22:01
|
|
|
DivineCoffeeBinge posted:Remember all that poo poo I said we were doing in the Throne Room? Yeah. While we're doing all that we can see out the windows that the sky is on fire.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2012 05:59
|
|
|
Axelgear posted:Obliesse was no named because we had a packet of vanilla wafers as a snack for this particular table session
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2012 01:50
|
|
|
Axelgear posted:the story of the psychic mermaid with a shop-vac.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2012 02:32
|
|
|
Liesmith posted:Nobody's saying it's good GMing, I'm just saying that it's terrible play on Smug Sociopath's part and really reflects poorly on him. He had a lot of options, from walking away from a terrible game, to trying to be a good player and maybe turn the GM around, to just acting like a huge passive aggressive jerk who decides that if the GM is gonna be bad, then there's no reason for him to treat anyone at the table with respect. And his buddy is worse since he'd been planning to gently caress with this game since character creation. They were attempting a turnabout-is-fair-play lesson and they failed. It was notably bad and that's what this thread is for.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2012 00:50
|
|
|
Liesmith posted:I disagree. I mean, yeah, just sitting passively in hopes that their lovely GM grows up is a schoolboy nerd error, but turning around and saying "well this guy sucks, so we will be dicks first"  " and also made full notice that this was going to be a GM-vs-PCs game. So they accepted and took on the fight. When the GM couldn't even make the game interesting and had to resort to disappearing invisible mummies, they quit.I've been in some adversarial GM games that have been fun, and they were fun because the GM started off with "I'm gonna throw poo poo at you that you have maybe a 1:100 chance of winning and you're gonna try to avoid the bottom 99 of that range." The GM did what he said, we made our characters as absurd as possible, and poo poo was hilarious for both sides. It's like the bizzaro world version of Smug's story, but it is possible if the GM isn't a fuckhead (or at least isn't a boring fuckhead).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2012 01:07
|
|
|
Rods/Wands of Wonder are usually (not always but most of the time) an indicator of a lovely DM. They can be fun and entertaining and even useful, but more often than not it's just a way for the DM to say "I made a wacky table that no one but me gets to look at! You should roll on it to see what zany thing happens next!"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2012 17:14
|
|
|
Rods of Wonder aren't universally a terrible idea, it's just that it's a yellow light when one shows up. Last time I ran a D&D game I put a Rod of Wonder in as an artifact, but about 90% of the effects were either "this hurts the thing you point it at" or "this helps you, the wielder, in some way". An 01 on the d% was "roll again, whatever you roll hits everyone within 100 feet" and an 00 was "pick something from the list, it hits whoever you want" and there was nothing really massive in it; no instant death or granting of wishes, but the odds were good that if you're using it that whatever happened was worth the action spent on it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2012 17:28
|
|
|
Swags posted:Also, just tell him, in character, that next time he targets you with an attack, you're going to kill him.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2012 18:32
|
|
|
evol262 posted:I suppose that telling someone "I'm upset with what your make-believe character did, so I'm cutting you out of my life, and uninviting you from anything you might share with our social circle" just might put someone on the defensive. "I'm uninviting you" doesn't really qualify as non-confrontational. Here's how the exchange should go, assuming he's not being a prick intentionally:  : Hey, could you kindly stop being a loot vacuum? It's killing the game because you try to take literally everything, up to and including things obviously meant for others. : I had no idea, also I am bad at recognizing lovely actions! I will pay attention and stop trying to loot like I'm playing solo.Here's assuming he is a prick: : Hey, could you kindly stop being a loot vacuum? It's killing the game because you try to take literally everything, up to and including things obviously meant for others. : No! I deserve to have all the things because I'm friends with the DM!: Look, here's the deal. You either knock it off and let others have a fair share in this game, or you don't play. And if you can't handle playing a team game like an adult, then we have no reason to interact at all.: Well if I go, I'm taking the DM with me!: If he would rather play with you than us, fine. We have other options.tl;dr: Not gaming at all is better than gaming with assholes.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2012 21:22
|
|
|
^^^ That is really cool.DivineCoffeeBinge posted:The reason they blow is that they take story control away from both the GM and the players and turn it over to polyhedral chunks of plastic, which do not care whether you're having fun or not. I wouldn't say that's always a bad thing - some groups, in some games, thrive on that kind of chaos - but they're definitely a thing to think very long and hard about putting into your game. I actually had a player (playing an artificer) who got the rod of wonder and actually spent part of his item creation pool to get new abilities related to it. I was so chuffed that he liked it that much that I didn't charge him much, and let him get abilities like "roll twice, take the better" and "burn infusions to use effects you've seen before". Yawgmoth fucked around with this message at 03:20 on Mar 22, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2012 03:18
|
|
|
Yeah never try to kill the newbie's character, and never set him up to die. You should have just said "hey instead of being an elf, be a drow, they're pretty much the same thing and my character won't want to kill yours!" Then instead of extra stats you could just drop the LA (also LA is terrible).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2012 21:48
|
|
|
Yeah I don't know a single (good) DM who used either table from the book, especially not the Deck of Many Destroyed Games. Usually the DM in question makes their own table based on the theme, tone, and mood of the game intended. I am so stealing the pouch of many things.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2012 02:16
|
|
|
thiswayliesmadness posted:Edit: Something I was wondering. Has anyone really had a long term evil game work out well? I found them fun as one shots or small games, but long games always devolve into full on party conflict. Of course it didn't help my gaming group back in the day wasn't the best. I should have realized how much of a pain one player would be when he insisted he his druids name be "Lord DukeKing Numbnuts".
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2012 15:08
|
|
|
52. Goggles of Detect Air (everything not glowing is not air)
Yawgmoth fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Mar 23, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2012 18:56
|
|
|
Basically the best way to have an evil party is to pretend you're planning for a Vampire (masquerade or requiem) game, with the only difference being that the PCs won't burn in sunlight.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2012 22:49
|
|
|
Wahad posted:14. Carebear All your skill rolls to intuit directions automatically fail for the rest of the day.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2012 22:04
|
|
|
homullus posted:#bear. Bear Bear Bear
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2012 00:18
|
|
|
Yeah kids are pretty much born sociopaths who eventually (usually) lose most of their monstrous evil as they age. Also, what's really disgusting is that according to the books, using magic and/or brainwashing to turn someone good actually IS a [Good] act. There's even a spell that imprisons a non-good being for a year and basically beats a Good alignment into them. Death to Alignment.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2012 17:09
|
|
|
ImpactVector posted:And then I get this in my email last night:  " kind of DMs. It's a habit that is breakable.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2012 16:42
|
|
Seriously dude? I haven't seen this much railroady bullshit since high school. We're all adults now who can come up with our own reasons to be interested in whatever plot you've got going. You don't have to go cutting pieces off our characters.
|
Mechafunkzilla posted:players who get upset when they're character gets uglied up instead of finding it amusing are annoying, as they tend to be the types who get more pleasure from living vicariously through their Mary Sue avatar than from actual roleplaying. Like most things that involve >1 person, roleplaying involves an agreement, spoken or unspoken, to the effect of "we will discuss to some degree what's going to happen and if one of us objects to it, we'll figure something else out." The GM shouldn't just fiat something horrible happening to the PC, and the player should roll with the punches if something critical does happen in the course of playing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2012 17:53
|
|
|
Mechafunkzilla posted:Losing an ear to a campaign arch-villain who goes by "The Mangler" really doesn't qualify as "loving over a PC". I mean, the guy could turn it into a secondary objective to find a magical healer who can restore his ear, or at least attach a convincing prosthetic. Likewise the player could turn it to his advantage, lobbying for a bonus to Bluff as he tries to impress a prospective employer with tales of That Time He Got His Ear Ripped Off While Slaying A Giant In Single Combat. I mean, being lovely to PC's for no reason and impeding on the way they want to play the game is one thing, but it's not like his character's background was that he was a handsome master of seduction who relied on his looks. "My character tl;dr: it's not about "my character " as much as it's a matter of mutual respect.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2012 19:22
|
|
|
Mechafunkzilla posted:Just because a DM does not run a campaign in the way you think is ideal does not mean it is automatically a big deal, unless you decide to make it a big deal. A Thing Happened to the character, sure it was a little unfair and shows a bit of DM inexperience, but it's not like the DM stole his agency and said "you are furious and follow him to his hideout and on the way you kill someone and are now wanted for murder". Just because it's "not the end of the world" doesn't mean he shouldn't say something. You don't get someone to improve by not telling them what to stop/change.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2012 20:48
|
|
|
DivineCoffeeBinge posted:It looks like the Emperor was killed but the Death Star never got blowed up. And now it's coming to say hello. So what's going on with the Annihilraper-class ship underneath the palace that I forget the name of? Weren't you gonna try to steal that too?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2012 05:21
|
|
|
Androc posted:which probably doesn't TECHNICALLY work
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2012 00:39
|
|
|
Beardless posted:I honestly thought that when you said that Endor had gone very differently and a mysterious Dark Jedi showed up that you would be fighting Darth Luke. "Yeah okay, sounds like fun on a bun. *keeps hand*"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2012 20:18
|
|
|
Malachite_Dragon posted:Hah, you wish. And thus, a much better scene was written.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2012 23:27
|
|
|
Any GM that says "it's not my job to give you things you want" or any variation thereof is going to be a lovely GM, since it's obvious that they don't want to run a game so much as tell you their poorly written story and have you fill in the dialogue.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2012 14:39
|
|
|
Triangulum posted:While it does take a standard action for the cleric, so does having your caster or melee characters pop a potion. In my mind it's more efficient to keep waste your turn healing a player with a high damage output than have them waste their turn by eating a healing pot. *damage being "things what kill your enemies" which of course becomes trivial for primary casters after about level 7.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2012 23:41
|
|
|
Triangulum posted:Granted, I've only been playing for a couple of years so it's very possible someone will point me to some maths that totally contradicts that and if so, cool it's time to rethink cleric strategies for me v If you cast a spell and heal someone, you've bought one person one turn, maybe. If you cast a spell and stun the attacker for a turn, you've bought everyone a turn definitely. Which is the better action?
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2012 01:20
|
|
v
|
Captain Rufus posted:A few minutes later I get yet one more email:
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2012 01:00
|
|
|
I hope someone said "good job, murderer. You killed them all with one spell!" because really, pacifist characters are only good for heckling in D&D.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2012 13:37
|
|
|
Isn't ork breeding basically pollination?
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2012 20:36
|
|
|
Beardless posted:IT isn't a tabletop game, but this past weekend I was introduced to Arkham Horror by my uncle, who. I was having fun, and in the second game we played my character had an item that allowed me to rack up something crazy like 18 or 20 sanity by the time that the Elder One showed up. Unfortunately, the Elder one in particular was Nyalathotep, and if your character doesn't have any clue tokens he devours you right off the bat. So while my character didn't go insane at the sight of the unnatural horror from beyond time and space, it didn't do him much good. It's a wicked fun game.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2012 04:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 21:52 |
|
|
Lord_Pigeonbane posted:Arkham Horror's rules are poorly organized and there's a lot to keep track of. It's pretty normal to get something like this wrong. The Lord of Hats posted:Everyone houserules Arkham Horror, whether they know it or not. A question: Does anyone know what the hell "activity at: <locale>" means? As far as I can tell, it just means putting a glowy number token on a place, but does it do anything?
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2012 13:22
|
|