Options

Dungeonings and Dragaerans and Labyrinths and Wyverns etc.

19495969799

Posts

  • Options
    SixshotStrikerSixshotStriker Registered User regular
    All the kobold talk reminds me of an unfinished campaign.

    Our regular DM was taking a break from DMing and decided to roll up a kobold monk. In the setting, he was living in the basement of the inn where the party stayed (The reason being was he was effectievley the inn's cat. He caught and ate the rats and got free room and board. Win-win) Anyway, one thing lead to another and the party was summoned before a dragon god (I forget which, it doesn't matter really) and he had his character just drop everything and start rubbing himself down with butter...because he wanted to become one with his god by way of being devoured. That stopped the moment the god gave us a job, which was to go after another god. He started prancing about saying he now had a mission from god. I asked which god. Turns out it was another dragon god. He stopped celebrating, sat down and "started thinking about his life choices." Some further inquiries revealed that this was actually an elemental dragon god to which he sprang up and shouted "Loophole! It's not technically a true dragon!"

    Much later we got into a fight. Now he's a monk, which means stupid high movement speed. I should also mention that he was using The Kobold Victory Chart. Well, he killed a monster and rolled an 18, rolled a 4 on the d4 and ran away. Once outside combat, it turned out he ran some absurd distance (1-3 miles I think) ran into another monster which would have killed him...had he not prayed to his god, who then showed up and killed the monster.

    Dude was crazy lucky.

  • Options
    Donovan PuppyfuckerDonovan Puppyfucker A dagger in the dark is worth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered User regular
    Dubh wrote: »
    my own complaint about shadowrun is that there isn't a playable race of lizardy folk

    I think lizard people are rad
    Dubh wrote: »
    I think lizard people are rad

    Illuminati confirmed!

  • Options
    Der Waffle MousDer Waffle Mous Blame this on the misfortune of your birth. New Yark, New Yark.Registered User regular
    edited January 2015
    gtrmp wrote: »
    Stilts wrote: »
    It seems that Pathfinder--like 3.5--often vastly underestimates how challenging some of its creatures are.

    The Challenge Rating system in its various incarnations is more or less useless in practice, yeah. As the person who inevitably ends up GMing, the fact that 5e directly ported over the 3e/PF CR system as-is was one of the biggest marks against it.

    Among other things, moving away from 4e's "you can fit the standardized monster math on a business card" design was pretty much where 5e lost me completely.

    Der Waffle Mous on
    Steam PSN: DerWaffleMous Origin: DerWaffleMous Bnet: DerWaffle#1682
  • Options
    AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    gtrmp wrote: »
    Stilts wrote: »
    It seems that Pathfinder--like 3.5--often vastly underestimates how challenging some of its creatures are.

    The Challenge Rating system in its various incarnations is more or less useless in practice, yeah. As the person who inevitably ends up GMing, the fact that 5e directly ported over the 3e/PF CR system as-is was one of the biggest marks against it.

    Among other things, moving away from 4e's "you can fit the standardized monster math on a business card" design was pretty much where 5e lost me completely.

    I love how someone analysed the majority of low CR monsters (coincidentally, where 5e is also the most absolute whacky with broken monsters in the game) and found of the 33 (or so, I can't remember off the top of my head) only 2 or maybe 3 had a CR that resembled what the maths wizards used in the book actually was supposed to be in their creation. Some of them were well off like some CR 2 monsters only being worth CR 1/4 and so on. It's one of the reasons I think Wizards maths is worthless and don't use it either for making encounters or making new monsters. My games have been running infinitely better since I abandoned any of wizards ideas for either encounter design or monster design....

    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • Options
    FyndirFyndir Registered User regular
    To go back a bit to people talking about roleplaying.

    I frequently cause party / character problems (and probably annoy everyone including my GM) by almost entirely refusing to metagame, at least on a conscious level, it is all about what my character wants / would do, and it is pretty much the entire reason I burned through multiple characters in our last game while everyone else had one.

    I don't recommend it as a playstyle, it can be incredibly frustrating if the makeup of the party isn't pretty much perfectly aligned, I just don't know how to play at all seriously otherwise.

  • Options
    JohnHamJohnHam Registered User regular
    Stilts wrote: »
    Its an offical adventure line!

    I saw the official stat line and thought, "Oh, uh, wow, that doesn't seem right for a CR 6 creature?" and fudged the rules so the natural and unarmed attacks of Neotoma's Eidolon and John Hamm's monk would be considered "good" for the purposes of getting past the DR 10.

    Otherwise it would take fucking forever to kill that thing.

    Also, the succubus they were fighting had the exact same resistances and immunities, so I just ignored those. The succubus was powerful enough as it was.

    You know what the succubus didn't have a resistance to? Ropes.

    signature.png

  • Options
    DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    JohnHam wrote: »
    Stilts wrote: »
    Its an offical adventure line!

    I saw the official stat line and thought, "Oh, uh, wow, that doesn't seem right for a CR 6 creature?" and fudged the rules so the natural and unarmed attacks of Neotoma's Eidolon and John Hamm's monk would be considered "good" for the purposes of getting past the DR 10.

    Otherwise it would take fucking forever to kill that thing.

    Also, the succubus they were fighting had the exact same resistances and immunities, so I just ignored those. The succubus was powerful enough as it was.

    You know what the succubus didn't have a resistance to? Ropes.

    Maybe she was just into bondage

  • Options
    RawrBearRawrBear Registered User regular
    Hey, secret kobold world government thread. Sup'

  • Options
    Crimson KingCrimson King Registered User regular
    two of you are nazis can't just be a wwII-themed mafia, easy as that would be

    anyway that would only work with however many people you need in mafia to have two mafias

    i am going to say it's a game where you are all attendees at an aryan brotherhood convention that has been so heavily infiltrated by the fbi that only two of you are actually nazis

    and then it just becomes a competition to see how well all of you can pretend to be wait no. no. this is a bad idea for a game

  • Options
    DoobhDoobh She/Her, Ace Pan/Bisexual 8-) What's up, bootlickers?Registered User regular
    one person is the Godwin

    who can use their special argumentative powers to determine who the Real Hitler is

    Miss me? Find me on:

    Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
    Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
  • Options
    HunteraHuntera Rude Boy Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    JohnHam wrote: »
    Stilts wrote: »
    Its an offical adventure line!

    I saw the official stat line and thought, "Oh, uh, wow, that doesn't seem right for a CR 6 creature?" and fudged the rules so the natural and unarmed attacks of Neotoma's Eidolon and John Hamm's monk would be considered "good" for the purposes of getting past the DR 10.

    Otherwise it would take fucking forever to kill that thing.

    Also, the succubus they were fighting had the exact same resistances and immunities, so I just ignored those. The succubus was powerful enough as it was.

    You know what the succubus didn't have a resistance to? Ropes.

    Maybe she was just into bondage

    yeah if anything she probably had a weakness to ropes

  • Options
    StraightziStraightzi Here we may reign secure, and in my choice, To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered User regular
    two of you are nazis can't just be a wwII-themed mafia, easy as that would be

    anyway that would only work with however many people you need in mafia to have two mafias

    i am going to say it's a game where you are all attendees at an aryan brotherhood convention that has been so heavily infiltrated by the fbi that only two of you are actually nazis

    and then it just becomes a competition to see how well all of you can pretend to be wait no. no. this is a bad idea for a game

    I was thinking pretty much the same thing.

    Only mine was set in WW2, and only two people were actual believers in the tenets of National Socialism.

    Everyone else was just following orders.

  • Options
    AnzekayAnzekay Registered User regular
    I don't think I've ever used the typical encounter/monster design rules in any RPG I've played. I've either used entirely premade adventures, or made my own entirely from scratch to fit the party I'm running a game for as perfectly as possible.

    It actually took quite a while before I found out there were rules for doing that sort of thing, but I never really felt they were particularly helpful because of how generalised they were. So I never used them.

    Still pretty happy with the decision, frankly. A bit more work, usually pays off.

  • Options
    DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    Dubh wrote: »
    one person is the Godwin

    who can use their special argumentative powers to determine who the Real Hitler is

    But if Godwin guesses wrong, game over.

  • Options
    RiemannLivesRiemannLives Registered User regular
    Im going to be playing pathfinder soon

    Give me your dumbest character

    Well, start with a wisdom stat of 1.

    Then have their intelligence stat also be 1.

    While you're at it, make their charisma a 1 as well.

    Dexterity? 1.

    Now, Strength and Constitution?

    MAX THOSE FUCKERS OUT

    Then, make them a magic user.
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Anzekay wrote: »
    Jesus those are some awful ability score rolls

    I don't know if that's a 14, a 15, or a 19 for Int.

    It's a 15, with a very vertical 5. And the way I see it, having kind of terrible stats is his penance for making me hassle busy Internet Celebrities.

    Also, I still haven't rigged up a 5e Bullywug racial package, so one or two of those will go up a little.

    those actually are not at all terrible stats for that method of rolling

    on average only one in every six characters will have even a single score of 18 using that method

    having a 15 at all is better than average

    Attacked by tweeeeeeees!
  • Options
    poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    Fyndir wrote: »
    To go back a bit to people talking about roleplaying.

    I frequently cause party / character problems (and probably annoy everyone including my GM) by almost entirely refusing to metagame, at least on a conscious level, it is all about what my character wants / would do, and it is pretty much the entire reason I burned through multiple characters in our last game while everyone else had one.

    I don't recommend it as a playstyle, it can be incredibly frustrating if the makeup of the party isn't pretty much perfectly aligned, I just don't know how to play at all seriously otherwise.

    Could you give some examples? Because I think I do the same, but most of my characters are not idiots, they're capable, dangerous adventurers. And on both sides of the screen, I make sure the PCs are allies or friends, not just murderhobos. So doing what my character would do is usually things like shooting orcs in the head, or running away because there are too many orcs. Doesn't get me killed or anyone annoyed.

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • Options
    ThomamelasThomamelas Only one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered User regular
    edited January 2015
    Fyndir wrote: »
    To go back a bit to people talking about roleplaying.

    I frequently cause party / character problems (and probably annoy everyone including my GM) by almost entirely refusing to metagame, at least on a conscious level, it is all about what my character wants / would do, and it is pretty much the entire reason I burned through multiple characters in our last game while everyone else had one.

    I don't recommend it as a playstyle, it can be incredibly frustrating if the makeup of the party isn't pretty much perfectly aligned, I just don't know how to play at all seriously otherwise.

    Some of it is discussion and knowing what the group is likely to do and doing some design of your character so that you can aim them at things that may likely be part of the groups long term goals.

    Thomamelas on
  • Options
    PlatyPlaty Registered User regular
    When we played DayZ, Fyndir used to roleplay a preacher who'd make people pray for deliverance by pressing a shotgun barrel to the back of their heads

    Then he'd pull the trigger

  • Options
    RingoRingo He/Him a distinct lack of substanceRegistered User regular
    I'm currently reevaluating where I am exactly on the whole "doing what your character would do" thing at this moment, due to being caught in some drama over another PC's playstyle as well as my own. However, I generally lean towards "Do what makes for an entertaining game" and thus I really like this article: http://lookrobot.co.uk/2013/06/23/stanislavski-vs-brecht-in-tabletop-roleplaying/

    Sterica wrote: »
    I know my last visit to my grandpa on his deathbed was to find out how the whole Nazi werewolf thing turned out.
    Edcrab's Exigency RPG
  • Options
    Der Waffle MousDer Waffle Mous Blame this on the misfortune of your birth. New Yark, New Yark.Registered User regular
    I kinda tend towards being really accommodating towards the rest of the group when I play characters.

    But often I'll settle on a way I'm playing my character and feel like I can't deviate from it if I'm feeling dissatisfied myself.

    Occasionally its because I can't really progress them past their initial gimmick. Sometimes its like my character in that aborted Mage game where her pacifism and general inability to deal with being awakened was actually becoming a disruption.

    Steam PSN: DerWaffleMous Origin: DerWaffleMous Bnet: DerWaffle#1682
  • Options
    poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    Ringo wrote: »
    I'm currently reevaluating where I am exactly on the whole "doing what your character would do" thing at this moment, due to being caught in some drama over another PC's playstyle as well as my own. However, I generally lean towards "Do what makes for an entertaining game" and thus I really like this article: http://lookrobot.co.uk/2013/06/23/stanislavski-vs-brecht-in-tabletop-roleplaying/

    That's an excellent article.

    @Fyndir‌

    What do you think?

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • Options
    DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited January 2015
    I think as long as everyone is enjoying the game, people should play their characters as they like. You can get into heated arguments, in-character, but as long as everyone is enjoying the game, it's fine.

    The moment someone else stops having fun because of how someone else is playing their character, however, that person needs to examine why someone has stopped having fun, and if it's such a great idea to keep playing their character that way.

    EDIT:
    That article does make a good point that once you've played some NPCs (in other words, ran a game for players) you get a better appreciation for how to include people and not step on others toes.

    DarkPrimus on
  • Options
    PiptheFairPiptheFair Frequently not in boats. Registered User regular
    Melding wrote: »
    Meeps, did you eat six apples with him?

    No Mom i swear!

    cause you know that's how it happened in super mario world?

    get it?

    Meeps isn't a very good kobold name.

    FUCKING EXCUSE ME????
    http://dota2.gamepedia.com/Meepo

  • Options
    Duke 2.0Duke 2.0 Time Trash Cat Registered User regular
    In 2015, Jreengus occurs

    VRXwDW7.png
  • Options
    FyndirFyndir Registered User regular
    poshniallo wrote: »
    Could you give some examples?

    We were playing a "goodish" campaign, theoretically no evil PCs, not strictly Good-only but with an emphasis in that direction, some simplified (and half remembered) events follow.
    My first character was a Rogue more concerned with acquiring interesting things and being charitable (specifically freeing slaves and helping them get started as free people) than acquiring vast wealth for himself, while he didn't fit badly as such with the party overall, there was an element of avarice to some of the party that he found troubling, and the amount of insane magical bullshit they ran into every session was disconcerting, and led to them being out in the wilds/wastes for an extended period to deal with some of it, almost entirely preventing his personal goals. He ended up running away from the party after he got split into two people (who were both him) and similar magical nonsense.

    Second character was a good aligned paladin who was driven insane by circumstances of the adventure combined with the stress of trying to justify some actions of the party, including consorting with demons, devils, and having a super-evil NPC following and assisting them for some time. After quite a while this culminated in the evil NPC murdering some pretty innocent NPCs out of hand and the party doing little about this act, and from the character perspective seeming not to really care, a few will saves failures later an all out assault was launched on the evil NPC, which other PCs prevented using magic bubble/shielding to contain the paladin, some talking later and the NPC left with other NPCs theoretically under arrest, but obviously (at least to the paladin) feigning arrest in order to massacre the fort/castle from the inside and consume souls / have fun. The rest of the party waved off these objections and insisted on travelling on, paladin reluctantly went with them, some other things happened involving being hit by some AoE / missed spells (I think) and a portal to one of the deeper Hells, and basically IC misunderstandings, but the character had to leave, to his eyes the party was turning deeper and deeper towards evil, and he couldn't stop them alone for now.
    poshniallo wrote: »
    Ringo wrote: »
    I'm currently reevaluating where I am exactly on the whole "doing what your character would do" thing at this moment, due to being caught in some drama over another PC's playstyle as well as my own. However, I generally lean towards "Do what makes for an entertaining game" and thus I really like this article: http://lookrobot.co.uk/2013/06/23/stanislavski-vs-brecht-in-tabletop-roleplaying/

    That's an excellent article.

    Fyndir‌

    What do you think?

    There's a level of metagame involved that reads to me like it includes changing when and where characters exist in the world based on what serves the story better, even retroactively. Specifically looking at the thief/cleric example for that. That would actively annoy me if players did that, your character moved from X to Y, changing your mind after the fact and saying that they never actually did that is not ok IMO.*

    On a really basic level I disagree with the premise, your character should be a living thinking emotional being independent of you, you are there to tell a story yes, but it's the story of that character and the adventures THEY get into, not the story of how you and your friends rolled dice for five hours. You are only relevant to the equation as an engine, the computer to the program.

    Your mind, your way of thinking naturally influences the character, and that's great, but your job IMO is to delve into the character you are playing and let them make the decisions. "Think of the story" is a great motto, but apply it to the character not to you.

  • Options
    poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited January 2015
    Fyndir wrote: »
    poshniallo wrote: »
    Could you give some examples?

    We were playing a "goodish" campaign, theoretically no evil PCs, not strictly Good-only but with an emphasis in that direction, some simplified (and half remembered) events follow.
    My first character was a Rogue more concerned with acquiring interesting things and being charitable (specifically freeing slaves and helping them get started as free people) than acquiring vast wealth for himself, while he didn't fit badly as such with the party overall, there was an element of avarice to some of the party that he found troubling, and the amount of insane magical bullshit they ran into every session was disconcerting, and led to them being out in the wilds/wastes for an extended period to deal with some of it, almost entirely preventing his personal goals. He ended up running away from the party after he got split into two people (who were both him) and similar magical nonsense.

    Second character was a good aligned paladin who was driven insane by circumstances of the adventure combined with the stress of trying to justify some actions of the party, including consorting with demons, devils, and having a super-evil NPC following and assisting them for some time. After quite a while this culminated in the evil NPC murdering some pretty innocent NPCs out of hand and the party doing little about this act, and from the character perspective seeming not to really care, a few will saves failures later an all out assault was launched on the evil NPC, which other PCs prevented using magic bubble/shielding to contain the paladin, some talking later and the NPC left with other NPCs theoretically under arrest, but obviously (at least to the paladin) feigning arrest in order to massacre the fort/castle from the inside and consume souls / have fun. The rest of the party waved off these objections and insisted on travelling on, paladin reluctantly went with them, some other things happened involving being hit by some AoE / missed spells (I think) and a portal to one of the deeper Hells, and basically IC misunderstandings, but the character had to leave, to his eyes the party was turning deeper and deeper towards evil, and he couldn't stop them alone for now.
    poshniallo wrote: »
    Ringo wrote: »
    I'm currently reevaluating where I am exactly on the whole "doing what your character would do" thing at this moment, due to being caught in some drama over another PC's playstyle as well as my own. However, I generally lean towards "Do what makes for an entertaining game" and thus I really like this article: http://lookrobot.co.uk/2013/06/23/stanislavski-vs-brecht-in-tabletop-roleplaying/

    That's an excellent article.

    Fyndir‌

    What do you think?

    There's a level of metagame involved that reads to me like it includes changing when and where characters exist in the world based on what serves the story better, even retroactively. Specifically looking at the thief/cleric example for that. That would actively annoy me if players did that, your character moved from X to Y, changing your mind after the fact and saying that they never actually did that is not ok IMO.*

    On a really basic level I disagree with the premise, your character should be a living thinking emotional being independent of you, you are there to tell a story yes, but it's the story of that character and the adventures THEY get into, not the story of how you and your friends rolled dice for five hours. You are only relevant to the equation as an engine, the computer to the program.

    Your mind, your way of thinking naturally influences the character, and that's great, but your job IMO is to delve into the character you are playing and let them make the decisions. "Think of the story" is a great motto, but apply it to the character not to you.

    That is exactly what the article is against - the method acting approach. It explains why better than I could.

    Plus it doesn't sound like you care whether the other people around you in this social activity are enjoying themselves? They are real, unlike your character, who is NOT actually a living thinking emotional being independent of you.

    poshniallo on
    I figure I could take a bear.
  • Options
    gtrmpgtrmp Registered User regular
    PiptheFair wrote: »
    Melding wrote: »
    Meeps, did you eat six apples with him?

    No Mom i swear!

    cause you know that's how it happened in super mario world?

    get it?

    Meeps isn't a very good kobold name.

    FUCKING EXCUSE ME????
    http://dota2.gamepedia.com/Meepo

    610_088190_92.jpg

  • Options
    BucketmanBucketman Call me SkraggRegistered User regular
    I was pleasantly surprised by my group this week. Its 2 people who've never played before and 1 who did for like 4 sessions. We have: Fallorn Blackthorn, Human Druid from a land of germanic horrors like vampires and such who is on the search for river pirates who kidnapped her friends, Varus Shattercone the half-elf rogue who was abondoned as a baby at traveling show where he was raised to be an acrobat and is seeking vengence after someone murdered his whole troupe, and Seris Wraithstorm a elf barbarian who comes from a long line of wizards but her father was cursed after crossing a very powerful witch so that he would often explode into great bursts of anger and to kill someone he loves in his lifetime. This cursed passed to her and she is looking for a way to reverse the curse.

    I'm really pumped they all got so into it.

  • Options
    Captain UltraCaptain Ultra low resolution pictures of birds Registered User regular
    whoa, I have never heard, nor thought that 3.5/Pathfinder monsters were overly-powerful for their CR. Though, I guess, I've only ever played with huge parties (5-8 PCs)

    Anyways, my 5e gnome fighter died last week, which basically convinced the rest of the party that their mission was actually a purposeful suicide mission to get rid of them, so they abandoned their posts and are going to become bandits. (Apparently the DM didn't really have any specific story plans and just kind of wanted to see what we would get up to, which is why he's allowing this.) Anyways, one guy decided his character wouldn't go along with this, but he also decided that he wasn't really fond of his current character, so he's rolling a new half-orc cleric to replace his old elf cleric. I decided on being a half-elf warlock, and we both decided independently of each other to play women. Someone asked if we were going to know each other, and I blurted out that we were half-sisters.

    One problem I forgot is that unless my character's like 20 years older than his, my character's going to be a child... which I'm just gonna roll with. I just can't decide if my warlock's going to be creepy-goth child, or bubbly Disney Princess who just happened to have made a deal with an archdevil.

  • Options
    DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    whoa, I have never heard, nor thought that 3.5/Pathfinder monsters were overly-powerful for their CR. Though, I guess, I've only ever played with huge parties (5-8 PCs)

    In general, run straight out of the MM they usually aren't. There were a couple in 3.5, (Athach comes to mind) that were a bit tougher than they should be but not really absurdly so.

    No, things go a bit wobbly in 3.5 when you start adding templates. Let's take a Huge Shark! He's CR 4, a big old bag of hitpoints but not great AC and does alright damage with his single attack. Now let's make him a Half Fiend Shark! He's CR 6, increases HP by about 20%, +3 to AC, +2 to hit and damage, and uh, another two attacks from claws now and DR and uh SR of 20 (14+ roll to do anything magic him!). Oh, well he can also Unholy Blight? He can make a DC 16 poison for 1d10 con from spell likes to make his opening round suck? Well...

    That is a hell of a +2 CR.

    Then we start advancing monsters. Let's take our Shark. Let's say he's an even bigger meaner shark. We find out that 3 more HD would be a +1 to CR. Fine. Excellent. So he hits a litter more often, adds 20ish hp. All is well and good and CR 5.

    Oh wait, our template gives stuff based on HD doesn't it? Let's see he gets....Blasphemy at caster level 13. Also a +1 CR on top. So our shark is now CR 8. With a spell that will flat out kill any 8th level non-evil person within 40 feet of it.

    Class levels get even worse, pretty sure it's entirely possible to bring in Gate spells at the tween levels of CR but don't feel like remembering just how.

    To sum up: They sorta generally worked unless you were actually asking them for guidance with difficult things, then they didn't.

    Nod. Get treat. PSN: Quippish
  • Options
    Captain UltraCaptain Ultra low resolution pictures of birds Registered User regular
    ahh, thats where I was fucking up. My experience DMing is that running stuff just out of the MM or Bestiary actually were a bit low to actually be a challenge. (I remember thinking that Monster Manual 1 monsters were really underpowered, and used to have examples of CR 4 monsters from it that had nothing that better than a CR 1 or 2 monster from later books) I never mixed really mixed class levels on stuff that had racial hit dice, and I only used really simple templates.

  • Options
    FyndirFyndir Registered User regular
    poshniallo wrote: »
    Fyndir wrote: »
    poshniallo wrote: »
    Could you give some examples?

    We were playing a "goodish" campaign, theoretically no evil PCs, not strictly Good-only but with an emphasis in that direction, some simplified (and half remembered) events follow.
    My first character was a Rogue more concerned with acquiring interesting things and being charitable (specifically freeing slaves and helping them get started as free people) than acquiring vast wealth for himself, while he didn't fit badly as such with the party overall, there was an element of avarice to some of the party that he found troubling, and the amount of insane magical bullshit they ran into every session was disconcerting, and led to them being out in the wilds/wastes for an extended period to deal with some of it, almost entirely preventing his personal goals. He ended up running away from the party after he got split into two people (who were both him) and similar magical nonsense.

    Second character was a good aligned paladin who was driven insane by circumstances of the adventure combined with the stress of trying to justify some actions of the party, including consorting with demons, devils, and having a super-evil NPC following and assisting them for some time. After quite a while this culminated in the evil NPC murdering some pretty innocent NPCs out of hand and the party doing little about this act, and from the character perspective seeming not to really care, a few will saves failures later an all out assault was launched on the evil NPC, which other PCs prevented using magic bubble/shielding to contain the paladin, some talking later and the NPC left with other NPCs theoretically under arrest, but obviously (at least to the paladin) feigning arrest in order to massacre the fort/castle from the inside and consume souls / have fun. The rest of the party waved off these objections and insisted on travelling on, paladin reluctantly went with them, some other things happened involving being hit by some AoE / missed spells (I think) and a portal to one of the deeper Hells, and basically IC misunderstandings, but the character had to leave, to his eyes the party was turning deeper and deeper towards evil, and he couldn't stop them alone for now.
    poshniallo wrote: »
    Ringo wrote: »
    I'm currently reevaluating where I am exactly on the whole "doing what your character would do" thing at this moment, due to being caught in some drama over another PC's playstyle as well as my own. However, I generally lean towards "Do what makes for an entertaining game" and thus I really like this article: http://lookrobot.co.uk/2013/06/23/stanislavski-vs-brecht-in-tabletop-roleplaying/

    That's an excellent article.

    Fyndir‌

    What do you think?

    There's a level of metagame involved that reads to me like it includes changing when and where characters exist in the world based on what serves the story better, even retroactively. Specifically looking at the thief/cleric example for that. That would actively annoy me if players did that, your character moved from X to Y, changing your mind after the fact and saying that they never actually did that is not ok IMO.*

    On a really basic level I disagree with the premise, your character should be a living thinking emotional being independent of you, you are there to tell a story yes, but it's the story of that character and the adventures THEY get into, not the story of how you and your friends rolled dice for five hours. You are only relevant to the equation as an engine, the computer to the program.

    Your mind, your way of thinking naturally influences the character, and that's great, but your job IMO is to delve into the character you are playing and let them make the decisions. "Think of the story" is a great motto, but apply it to the character not to you.

    That is exactly what the article is against - the method acting approach. It explains why better than I could.

    Plus it doesn't sound like you care whether the other people around you in this social activity are enjoying themselves? They are real, unlike your character, who is NOT actually a living thinking emotional being independent of you.

    Yes, I am aware of what the article said, and I disagree with it, like I said?

    I'm not sure where you get that assumption from.

  • Options
    StraightziStraightzi Here we may reign secure, and in my choice, To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered User regular
    I see it as an act of splitting the difference:

    If nobody is enjoying the game because your character is a dick, then maybe you should stop playing a dick character.

    But you also shouldn't have a group that works together as characters because you work together as players, in my opinion. Because that's hella boring. I like my games to have full fledged people as characters, people who don't always agree with one another (even if their players can look down from above and see the "correct" path). I think that's kind of the essence of roleplaying.

    Here's my fun story on this one:

    I had a character once, Dusty Brown, who was designed to be a super easygoing character. This was the campaign after I had played my egotistical changeling dick (private and otherwise), and I wanted to knock it back. He grew up with all of the other player characters, was a stable boy turned cavalry soldier, and he was defined by three character traits:

    1. Dusty loved his horse, Rose.
    2. Dusty was weak around women.
    3. Dusty would do anything to protect his friends.

    That was it. He would go along with the rest of the party, in accordance with rule 3, unless it violated rule 1 or rule 2.

    Anyways, there came a time that the party needed to travel across the continent. We were playing Eberron, so we had two options- take a lightning rail, or Dusty could outfit the entire party with horses and we could ride across the continent. The lightning rail was faster, but didn't allow horses.

    And I refused to budge.

    And the rest of the party decided to let Dusty ride across the continent on his own, while they took the lightning rail. He was ambushed by a lion, which nearly killed Rose in its opening attack. The DM let me choose to run away, or try to kill the lion. I think you can guess what happened. Dusty died (well not really, but everyone thought he did for quite some time) and I made a new character.

    That's only half of the story I want to tell though.

    The new character I made was a douchebag. He was a vain, foppish soulknife who earnestly believed he was better than everyone else. He insisted on everyone addressing him by his full name and title. But he joined the party, for some reason. And the first fight we got in, he rushed into a melee before everyone else, yelling at them to cover him.

    They didn't.

    It was my second character death in two sessions, which kind of sucked.

    But it was a great story.

    And that's what RPGs should give you.

  • Options
    StraightziStraightzi Here we may reign secure, and in my choice, To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered User regular
    I went through three and a half more characters in that campaign (one died pretty much before he did anything- he was a monk the party recruited, and then we switched to 4E and he died in a train crash and was replaced by a wizard). My following characters were a lot less douchey, in an effort to fit in with the rest of the party, although they were a huge dick to one of them (said halfling wizard), and when they tried to resurrect him he refused.

    And then eventually, Dusty, who was still alive and now a high ranking officer in the army, and had been following along the party's progress as an occasionally helpful, occasionally antagonistic figure, came back to me for the end of the campaign (sans horse, obviously). Which was really nice.

  • Options
    RingoRingo He/Him a distinct lack of substanceRegistered User regular
    I like having a diverse cast of characters who don't always get along. My favorite game right now is all about teenage drama and how we manage the fallout of that drama. But one of the characters in that game got her feelings hurt and now runs off scene every time either of the two PCs she's mad at are present.

    Which, being that this is a group game, and it plays out based on the interactions of said group, makes her leave like 80% of the time. Her player basically sat out last session without doing anything. But she is totally committed to playing her character the way her character feels. She's even said to me "The characters should really just sit down and talk. But I don't see that happening." and it drives me nuts, because the only thing stopping that from happening is her refusal to let it happen.

    So, yeah. I guess I just don't see how that's very much fun at all. Maybe it is for her? All it does is frustrate me, though.

    Sterica wrote: »
    I know my last visit to my grandpa on his deathbed was to find out how the whole Nazi werewolf thing turned out.
    Edcrab's Exigency RPG
  • Options
    StraightziStraightzi Here we may reign secure, and in my choice, To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered User regular
    edited January 2015
    Now I'm just recalling my insane character death toll for that game

    Dusty mk I, the scout
    Brent, the douchebag soulknife
    The dwarven drunken master monk who died off camera
    A halfling illusionist I don't remember the name of
    Bear, the dwarf ranger (with his animal companion, Hans the Bear)
    A half-orc airship pirate who I don't remember the name of either
    Dusty mk II, the warlord

    And then Dusty died again during the final fight but we like saved the world or whatever so everyone got a wish granted and after like three players wishing for total dumb bullshit one of them got me raised

    That's over about 14 levels

    One other person had a character die/get replaced, I believe

    Straightzi on
  • Options
    Fire TruckFire Truck I love my SELFRegistered User regular
    The most important bit of roleplaying trivia about your character to keep in mind is definitely their relationships and links to the other party members. As a player, you are telling your character's story, yes, but more importantly you should be helping to tell the group's story.

    If your character's independent role and story are taking precedence over the group's collective one, it is not great. If you don't have an independent role and story, it is not ideal, but it still works in the context of the game.

  • Options
    InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    I got to listen in on the most incredible game of Call of Cthulhu the other day.

    My brother is pretty busy these days, so he figured he would GM some adventures that he had done before for our friends who hadn't played them the first time, to cut down on his workload. Unfortunately I had already played all of his adventures, so, I had to sit it out. So, everyone comes over, I say hi to the four players, and then excuse myself upstairs to go play videogames while they have fun.

    About an hour later I hear someone shout from downstairs "No way, I can't go to prison man!" Of course, I had to go downstairs and see what was what.

    So, apparently, after getting the opening spiel about there being a terrible haunted house where all sorts of murders and weird things had taken place the investigators decided to go there directly. The GM suggested maybe asking around, talking to the police, going to the library? Nah they say, they want to do some onsite investigation. So they go, early on one player friends some journals and decides they will be really important to read, but no one wants to leave to read them, so she leaves on her own. They split the party and keep pushing on. They hear all sorts of crazy noises happening in a room upstairs, and go up to it. One of them walks right in. Things... occur and the one that walks in gets catapulted out of a window and almost dies. They feel a mind control attempt fail. They don't leave. They GO INTO THE ROOM. The guy with the sawed off shotgun blacks out, and when he comes to the other player is dead at his feet and he has a smoking shotgun in his hands. He just murdered his friend. The players flee the house.

    This is where the exclamation I heard earlier came from. Suddenly the entire campaign shifts gears, the mythos no longer matters. Everything becomes about making the murder that just happened look like a suicide so they can avoid jail time. One of the players is a pilot, figures he can fly them all to Canada. The players concoct a plan to sneak back into the house in the dead of night, and position the corpse and the shotgun to make it look like a suicide and run. They manage to do so. Now they return, to the player, back at the hotel, with the journal, who missed ALL of this. One player is trembling, one player looks half dead. The journal player insists they go to a hospital to treat the wounds. They can't go to the hospital! They might get stuck there, from the police. Journalist insists the hospital, gets them into a car. While they are driving the other two players strong arm her, take control of the car, drive to the airport, tell her what is going on, convince her that the police would find her guilty too (good persuade rolls), and they all get on a plane to Canada, thus ending the campaign.

    I love Call of Cthulhu.

  • Options
    DaMoonRulzDaMoonRulz Mare ImbriumRegistered User regular
    Do they not realize they could just be extradited? Also, what type of plane was he flying?

    3basnids3lf9.jpg




  • Options
    InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    Just some small prop plane, turned out to not really matter too much as the cops ended up buying that it was a suicide.

This discussion has been closed.