The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Roleplaying Games] The Reason Your Steam Backlog Is So Long

1121315171827

Posts

  • AuralynxAuralynx Super-Classy Crow On Silk!Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Denada wrote: »
    The answer to "should I buy dice?" is always yes.

    I think you mean "roll to find out"

    Nah, you roll to find out the properties of the dice, vis-a-vis curses and such.

    0zfegkyoor3b.png

    ElvenshaeMrVyngaard
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    Auralynx wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Denada wrote: »
    The answer to "should I buy dice?" is always yes.

    I think you mean "roll to find out"

    Nah, you roll to find out the properties of the dice, vis-a-vis curses and such.

    I mean, whether or not you choose to roll to see if the dice are cursed or blessed or whatever before buying them... that just depends on the person.

    gCnfF8U.jpg
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
  • TomantaTomanta Registered User regular
    Aww geez, now I want to put together tables to determine the properties of a die. A different table for each based on the number of sides.

  • AuralynxAuralynx Super-Classy Crow On Silk!Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Auralynx wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Denada wrote: »
    The answer to "should I buy dice?" is always yes.

    I think you mean "roll to find out"

    Nah, you roll to find out the properties of the dice, vis-a-vis curses and such.

    I mean, whether or not you choose to roll to see if the dice are cursed or blessed or whatever before buying them... that just depends on the person.

    Also your FLGS' policy on drinking crushed pearl-infused wine and owl feathers.

    0zfegkyoor3b.png

    ElvenshaeMrVyngaard
  • SteelhawkSteelhawk Registered User regular
    Denada wrote: »
    The answer to "should I buy dice?" is always yes.

    Fine. I know in my heart of hearts that this is the correct answer. sigh.

    I'll pop into FLGS today and pick up a set of dice. They better have them in stock, dang it, or I'm going to just use the app!

    crimsoncoyoteDenada
  • AthenorAthenor Who needs lions when you have a battlecruiser? Registered User regular
    Steelhawk wrote: »
    Denada wrote: »
    The answer to "should I buy dice?" is always yes.

    Fine. I know in my heart of hearts that this is the correct answer. sigh.

    I'll pop into FLGS today and pick up a set of dice. They better have them in stock, dang it, or I'm going to just use the app!

    I was going to recommend waiting until the Genesys dice are out, but I don't think anyone has confirmed they have the same odds as SW, and they wouldn't include the force dice or destiny points.

    iLaXVZ7.png
    Steam & NNID - Athenor // 3DS: 3883-5283-0471
    "Brevity is the soul of getting your shit read." - Tube
    I'm blogging about my experiences purging my toy collection... read about it here!
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    Athenor wrote: »
    Steelhawk wrote: »
    Denada wrote: »
    The answer to "should I buy dice?" is always yes.

    Fine. I know in my heart of hearts that this is the correct answer. sigh.

    I'll pop into FLGS today and pick up a set of dice. They better have them in stock, dang it, or I'm going to just use the app!

    I was going to recommend waiting until the Genesys dice are out, but I don't think anyone has confirmed they have the same odds as SW, and they wouldn't include the force dice or destiny points.

    I'll be shocked if Genesys doesn't have some sort of "Karma"/"Luck"/"Magic" dice that aren't functionally identical to the Force Dice.

    OptimusZedArdentBrodyjdarksunMrVyngaardZomroOats
  • AthenorAthenor Who needs lions when you have a battlecruiser? Registered User regular
    Athenor wrote: »
    Steelhawk wrote: »
    Denada wrote: »
    The answer to "should I buy dice?" is always yes.

    Fine. I know in my heart of hearts that this is the correct answer. sigh.

    I'll pop into FLGS today and pick up a set of dice. They better have them in stock, dang it, or I'm going to just use the app!

    I was going to recommend waiting until the Genesys dice are out, but I don't think anyone has confirmed they have the same odds as SW, and they wouldn't include the force dice or destiny points.

    I'll be shocked if Genesys doesn't have some sort of "Karma"/"Luck"/"Magic" dice that aren't functionally identical to the Force Dice.

    I thought the same too, but they've announced the dice pack and the image doesn't include the force dice. Now, interestingly, it doesn't replace the force with another challenge dice (in the SW dice packs, you get 2 yellow d12s, 1 red d12, and 1 white d12), and the price is still $15...

    Then again, it is a CG mockup...

    iLaXVZ7.png
    Steam & NNID - Athenor // 3DS: 3883-5283-0471
    "Brevity is the soul of getting your shit read." - Tube
    I'm blogging about my experiences purging my toy collection... read about it here!
  • BrodyBrody Cabot CoveRegistered User regular
    Auralynx wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Auralynx wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Denada wrote: »
    The answer to "should I buy dice?" is always yes.

    I think you mean "roll to find out"

    Nah, you roll to find out the properties of the dice, vis-a-vis curses and such.

    I mean, whether or not you choose to roll to see if the dice are cursed or blessed or whatever before buying them... that just depends on the person.

    Also your FLGS' policy on drinking crushed pearl-infused wine and owl feathers.

    Skip the crushing, just drops those pearls into vinegar. Sure it tastes awful, but flavor is for poor people.

  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    Brody wrote: »
    Auralynx wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Auralynx wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Denada wrote: »
    The answer to "should I buy dice?" is always yes.

    I think you mean "roll to find out"

    Nah, you roll to find out the properties of the dice, vis-a-vis curses and such.

    I mean, whether or not you choose to roll to see if the dice are cursed or blessed or whatever before buying them... that just depends on the person.

    Also your FLGS' policy on drinking crushed pearl-infused wine and owl feathers.

    Skip the crushing, just drops those pearls into vinegar. Sure it tastes awful, but flavor is for poor people.

    The pearls being crushed is a signifier of wealth, though! It takes a lot of hard work to do that, so if you have it already crushed, that means you could afford someone to do it for you.

    gCnfF8U.jpg
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
  • ArdentArdent Registered User regular
    My FLGS objected to chicken entrails on their tables, but they were ok with cheese.

    Steam ID | Origin ID: ArdentX | Uplay ID: theardent | Battle.net: Ardent#11476
  • Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    Unknown Armies is an incredible game. If it helps, the 2nd edition core is a perfectly cromulent acquisition and it's remarkably complete. For third edition, you only need the first two books; the third is really just the first real supplement.

    PMAvers
  • ArdentArdent Registered User regular
    So, a friend recently came to me seeking some advice on running a game. His question wasn't terribly complex but my answer surprised me a bit.

    So, he asked: what do you focus on more, world building or constructing set pieces?
    How to answer that question really depends a lot on which you consider to be which, and since it's easier to define a smaller set I opted to outline what I consider set pieces to be.

    Set pieces are designed events within the game where players are given (hopefully significant) choices, the opportunity to advance their characters, and for those characters to be exposed to risk (typically involuntarily).

    I think that speaks a lot to my philosophy on running games, which is that both the players and the GM should be aware when characters can be at risk. It isn't unfair, per se, to hold characters at risk without the players being aware those characters are at risk (and intrigue-heavy games basically guarantee this will happen at some point), but ideally the players will understand the risk inherent in getting involved in realm politics. But what does this actually mean? Well, it means that if you are going to ambush the characters' party with immediately hostile intent, you ask for initiative rolls. If the intent isn't immediately hostile, you hold off on those initiative rolls. If you're going to throw a series of puzzles at them that are potentially lethal, you should foreshadow that with some spooky skeletons (without making them roll to notice). Most importantly, if a character is about to do something likely to end poorly, double-check with the player that they're certain on the course of action. Don't try to remove their agency or anything, but make sure they understand the stakes.

    I should note that as a player I don't get upset by other philosophies on running games. But I'm also probably on Sir Dan Failure #43 at this point in my gaming career, so the stakes of character death don't seem so high.

    So we successfully defined set pieces and then I gave the worst possible answer: it depends. Before you boo, bear with me, because I qualified this. It depends on whether you can count on the group to fill in gaps in information about the setting (usually on the fly). Some groups are totally great at this (my 13th Age Group has basically constructed a variant setting by talking about cultural mores of elves and humans) and some are totally awful at it (any group involving drunk me playing).

    So now having defined both set pieces and the kind of group that can do its own world building, I noted that just because most of the groups I've run for have done fine with me just designing set pieces for them to run up against, doesn't mean I haven't done world building of my own. I have four settings I've done serious world building on because I write (mostly short) stories in those settings. This is an artifact of trying to tell a story without anyone telling you "that's dumb, nobody would do that, and here's why: [world building]" so you have to just handle these things as they arise. Plus, these settings effectively have metaplot because every time I finish a story something has happened that will change the world.

    Which left us with a result of "most of the time you focus on building good set pieces to challenge the group with" and "if you want to do world building you should because you're supposed to have fun too."

    Then I realized that you have to caveat again for intrigue games, which necessarily require world building to establish the stakes for the intrigue.

    Total nuance nuisance.

    Steam ID | Origin ID: ArdentX | Uplay ID: theardent | Battle.net: Ardent#11476
    ArcanisTheImpotentwebguy20JustTeecrimsoncoyoteadmanbElvenshae
  • CarnarvonCarnarvon Registered User regular
    Ugh, I hate world building. The buy in required to create a real, interesting, non-trope world simply requires too much effort the vast majority of people. Dozens of times I've put down 3000 words on detailing gods, landscapes, history, kingdoms, politics, notable people, local customs, laws and folkways, and everything else. The only people who read that shit are other DMs, who have had their own Magnum Opus cast into the dirt, wishing their fellow man does not suffer the same fate.

    I would say, don't waste too much time on world building. Try to figure out what is relevant to your group, what they're likely to encounter, how they're likely to act, and build around their possible actions. Don't cast a wide net; construct a tool that does exactly what you want it to do. Anything that the players don't interact with is, essentially, just fiction writing you've done for yourself.

    Don't put secret doors in your dungeons if your players don't look for secret doors. If you want your players to look for secret doors, you have to engineer a situation that reveals to them the existence of secret doors, that they could look for them, and that it's in their interest to do so. Otherwise you've spent time and energy creating unusable content instead of making existing content more interesting and dynamic.

    Hahnsoo1ElvenshaeMcKidAuralynxRainfall
  • ArdentArdent Registered User regular
    Carnarvon wrote: »
    Ugh, I hate world building. The buy in required to create a real, interesting, non-trope world simply requires too much effort the vast majority of people.
    I don't disagree, but world building can also be very rewarding.
    Carnarvon wrote: »
    Dozens of times I've put down 3000 words on detailing gods, landscapes, history, kingdoms, politics, notable people, local customs, laws and folkways, and everything else. The only people who read that shit are other DMs, who have had their own Magnum Opus cast into the dirt, wishing their fellow man does not suffer the same fate.
    The Actors and the Watchers typically read them, in my experience. Sometimes the others do when you pepper them with important information.
    Carnarvon wrote: »
    I would say, don't waste too much time on world building. Try to figure out what is relevant to your group, what they're likely to encounter, how they're likely to act, and build around their possible actions. Don't cast a wide net; construct a tool that does exactly what you want it to do. Anything that the players don't interact with is, essentially, just fiction writing you've done for yourself.
    Well, sure, prioritize! But also a lot of world building is self-gratification and you should understand the difference between that and the things your players need to know/need to be more than cardboard cutouts.
    Carnarvon wrote: »
    Don't put secret doors in your dungeons if your players don't look for secret doors. If you want your players to look for secret doors, you have to engineer a situation that reveals to them the existence of secret doors, that they could look for them, and that it's in their interest to do so. Otherwise you've spent time and energy creating unusable content instead of making existing content more interesting and dynamic.
    Yeah but that's just Chekhov's Gun. Solid advice for running a game in general.

    Steam ID | Origin ID: ArdentX | Uplay ID: theardent | Battle.net: Ardent#11476
  • admanbadmanb the bored genie Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Don't plan for your players to engage with your world-building as an extracurricular. Use it to guide the factions, cities, background events, dungeons, random encounters, and all the other garbage your players actually run into.

    The danger of world-building is that when you do without your players direct or indirect involvement you can mess up an image they had of the world.

    destroyah87ElvenshaeSteelhawkAlbino Bunny
  • DenadaDenada Registered User regular
    My latest round of world-building (and the first in quite a while, as I haven't run anything for a bit) was working with my daughters to create Corgistan, a city where humans and puppy-folk live in harmony. We figured out that this city is on the frontier (and they got to learn what a frontier is), and that humans and puppies often form adventuring teams that people hire to solve problems and fight monsters.

    Also as it turns out, 4E works just fine for kids if you take it step-by-step, and omg it's so good for practicing math. And a bunch of other stuff too.

    ElvenshaeadmanbOptimusZedSteelhawkArdentdestroyah87FuselageBrodyDarkPrimusRhesus PositiveMuddypawsRainfallwebguy20RingoLord PalingtoncrimsoncoyoteAustinP0027
  • admanbadmanb the bored genie Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Denada wrote: »
    My latest round of world-building (and the first in quite a while, as I haven't run anything for a bit) was working with my daughters to create Corgistan, a city where humans and puppy-folk live in harmony. We figured out that this city is on the frontier (and they got to learn what a frontier is), and that humans and puppies often form adventuring teams that people hire to solve problems and fight monsters.

    This is Monster Hunter. You made Monster Hunter with puppies instead of cats.

    (This sounds awesome. Childhood creativity is the best).

    Denadadestroyah87BrodyAlbino BunnyRainfallwebguy20MrVyngaardcrimsoncoyote
  • DenadaDenada Registered User regular
    admanb wrote: »
    Denada wrote: »
    My latest round of world-building (and the first in quite a while, as I haven't run anything for a bit) was working with my daughters to create Corgistan, a city where humans and puppy-folk live in harmony. We figured out that this city is on the frontier (and they got to learn what a frontier is), and that humans and puppies often form adventuring teams that people hire to solve problems and fight monsters.

    This is Monster Hunter. You made Monster Hunter with puppies instead of cats.

    (This sounds awesome. Childhood creativity is the best).

    I've never played Monster Hunter, but awesome!

    Also playing with these kids is really highlighting for me why some tropes are tropes. They've never heard of a guild or a guild house, but they decided that some adventuring teams live in big mansions together so that they can train together and get their jobs in one place and so on.

    They've never seen any media like Lord of the Rings or other fantasy stuff, but my oldest daughter's first finishing move was to chop a goblin in half with her giant axe. My youngest daughter's first finishing move was to throw a dagger into a goblin's back as it was trying to run away, then to casually walk up to the corpse, pull out the dagger, wipe it off, then put it in the sheath on her back. This was literally the first time they have ever described killing an imaginary creature and they did it in two of the most iconic ways, without ever having seen those things before.

    I'm pretty sure before long they're going to walk away from an explosion without looking back at it.

    admanbSteelhawkdestroyah87CarnarvonElvenshaeTheRoadVirusBrodyInfidelDarkPrimusJacobyRainfallDracomicroncrimsoncoyote
  • CarnarvonCarnarvon Registered User regular
    Ardent wrote: »
    Carnarvon wrote: »
    Don't put secret doors in your dungeons if your players don't look for secret doors. If you want your players to look for secret doors, you have to engineer a situation that reveals to them the existence of secret doors, that they could look for them, and that it's in their interest to do so. Otherwise you've spent time and energy creating unusable content instead of making existing content more interesting and dynamic.
    Yeah but that's just Chekhov's Gun. Solid advice for running a game in general.

    Chekhov's Gun is putting a strange medallion in the pocket of a NPC and never bringing it up again.

    Putting secret doors that you know your players won't look for is just you jerking it in a corner at home saying "If only they had played the game the way they're supposed to play it, THEN they'd have the item that gives them the 100% secret best ending!". Or "Look at how smart I am, making a puzzle with no clues! I'm a master at my craft".

    As @admanb says, world building is important in guiding your thoughts and campaign structure. It's also something that can be enjoyable and inspiring for your campaign. What you should avoid is designing a hidden elven city that can only find if they put in the Konami code backwards. Don't bother doing 500 years of GoT-esque world history if it's not going to be central to your players decision making. Don't make 500 years of history central to the campaign unless you have some way to relating it to the players through gameplay.

    Giving your players the option of trusting Ser Righteous Dude or the fair lady Bitter McLiesalot is not a meaningful choice unless the players understand the metaplot surrounding it. If you gate the metaplot knowledge to a DCwhatever History check that they have to prompt themselves, then they're likely to choose at random, making the choice not meaningful. If you reveal over the campaign that the McLiesalots have a history of opportunistic backstabbing, and that the Dudes are broke and in poor standing after a failed crusade, then the choice becomes meaningful. Likewise, don't craft a third path that only reveals itself if the players pulled the green lever counter-clockwise in the first dungeon.

    To sum up, avoid the trap of masturbatory world building. Spend twice as much time on integrating your world building as you do on writing the world itself.

    ElvenshaeOatsMrVyngaard
  • Foolish ChaosFoolish Chaos Registered User regular
    I've got a GM question I'm not very confident in asking, but I'll give it a go:

    If your players come up with a plan, and you see an obvious logical flaw, should you say something? Or should you just let it play out honestly and hope they learn from it?

    I don't want to step on their toes. But I also don't want to see them fail over and over again. Especially because, I mean, its gotta at least be partially my fault. How they perceive environment and consequence is going to be through my words; if they think they can get away with something its probably because I gave them precedent, right?

  • OatsOats Registered User regular
    Let them play it out.

    If they state something false that their character ought to know is true which is critical to the plan, you can correct the fact ("some part in the back of your mind knows that elves don't sleep", etc).

    What system are you playing?

    jdarksunTheRoadVirusDevoutlyApatheticOptimusZedArdentwebguy20Anialoscrimsoncoyote
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    I've got a GM question I'm not very confident in asking, but I'll give it a go:

    If your players come up with a plan, and you see an obvious logical flaw, should you say something? Or should you just let it play out honestly and hope they learn from it?

    I don't want to step on their toes. But I also don't want to see them fail over and over again. Especially because, I mean, its gotta at least be partially my fault. How they perceive environment and consequence is going to be through my words; if they think they can get away with something its probably because I gave them precedent, right?

    Sometimes players come up with a plan that they don't realize is flawed because they haven't comprehended all the information you gave them, or they misunderstood it, or you might not even have told them something you are aware of, that should be obvious to their characters, but hasn't been stated yet.

    If players propose to do something that I think they would realize, in-character, is a bad idea, I will let them know via additional description of the situation why maybe it's not a good idea. This is, of course, after opening with the phrase "Are you sure?"

    That said, sometimes players will still insist that they think it's a good idea. If it's a really crazy idea, that actually has a chance of success, then let them try and succeed at it. If they fail, they will have been aware that it was a high-risk attempt with low odds of success. If they succeed, well, then it's all the better.

    What you should never do is have players make a roll when you believe that there is no possible way for them to succeed. As the saying goes, "It doesn't matter if you roll a 20 throwing a sharp stick at the elder dragon, the sharp stick isn't going to hurt the Elder Dragon." Do this too much, though, and you run the risk of players feeling like they're being railroaded and/or that they have no real say in how situations unfold. Really, a good GM should try to say "No" as little as possible - ideally never, but ideals are hard to achieve.

    gCnfF8U.jpg
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
  • WACriminalWACriminal Dying Is Easy, Young Man Living Is HarderRegistered User regular
    Side question, inspired by Foolish Chaos's question: Would it be out of line to ask for a Wisdom or Intelligence roll in that situation, and on a successful roll point out the flaw to them?

  • OatsOats Registered User regular
    Generally speaking, I wouldn't.

    Either their background and experiences thus far would have instructed them, at which point I'd say "wait, you're an experienced second-story man, so you recognise this type of security system to be long on traps and short on alarms" or they don't have applicable knowledge.

    Albino BunnyElvenshaeArdent
  • CarnarvonCarnarvon Registered User regular
    Imagine your players say: "Hey gang, let's go rally the commoners to siege the castle!"

    Now, in your mind, the castle is Minas Tirith, an almost impenetrable fortress replete with trained archers on parapets, boiling oil, rock traps, and thousands of soldiers. In their mind, the castle might just be a fortified outpost. If you didn't specifically go over the defendable characteristics of the castle, the players might not have information that their characters would obviously have, like how you couldn't possibly take Minas Tirith with 50 peasants. In this situation, yeah, tell them that it's a fucking fortress and their characters wouldn't believe that they'd have a chance.

    I had an intrigue game where a thief had stolen a portrait from a noble; a portrait that had information they needed on the back of it. The thief had been caught and tied to a chair by an NPC. The thief broke out before the players got there, and they had a fun rooftop chase. The proceeded to capture the thief, tie her to a chair, and interrogate her.

    After the interrogation was complete, they left her in the room. Tied to the chair. With no guard.

    Me: "So, you're going to leave her in there and go to sleep?"

    Player: "Yep."

    Me: "She's tied to the chair still, right? By the window?"

    Player: "Yeah, we'll leave her there and figure out what to do with her in the morning."

    Me: "Okie-doke!"

    Guess what happened.

    Ringocrimsoncoyote
  • TomantaTomanta Registered User regular
    I have a player who often comes up with unusual strategies. I love her to death for it but I usually have to clarify some consequences she is not thinking of, but I always try to make it clear I am not discouraging her from taking that action.

  • AspectVoidAspectVoid Registered User regular
    When I DM, if my players have a massive flaw in their plan that's based on knowledge the characters have but the players forgot, I will remind them of said knowledge. If they still miss the flaw in their plan, then its on them.

    PSN|AspectVoid
    DarkPrimus
  • Albino BunnyAlbino Bunny A Storyteller Registered User regular
    At that point I basically consider it GM choice as to which is the most interesting outcome. If the plan's going to lead to neat stuff happening let them be foolish. If it's just going to be 'oh yeah, that glaring flaw fucked it up a whole bunch' it's probably worth at least pointing it out to them.

    destroyah87Rhesus PositiveRingo
  • ArdentArdent Registered User regular
    I've got a GM question I'm not very confident in asking, but I'll give it a go:

    If your players come up with a plan, and you see an obvious logical flaw, should you say something? Or should you just let it play out honestly and hope they learn from it?

    I don't want to step on their toes. But I also don't want to see them fail over and over again. Especially because, I mean, its gotta at least be partially my fault. How they perceive environment and consequence is going to be through my words; if they think they can get away with something its probably because I gave them precedent, right?
    The qualifier is if their character would know they're making a mistake. I mean, if someone is playing a highly competent strategist, they're not going to decide a direct assault is the best option for taking a castle. They're just not.

    However, flawed plans are flawed and dealing with the consequences of enacting a flawed plan is basically a free plot hook for you.

    Players (and characters by extension) will learn from their mistakes. Or they won't. Either way you're not going to benefit nearly as much from telling them they've erred.

    Steam ID | Origin ID: ArdentX | Uplay ID: theardent | Battle.net: Ardent#11476
    AuralynxCarnarvon
  • RendRend Registered User regular
    The "that plan won't work, because elves don't sleep" example is perfect because there's basically no chance the character wouldn't know that. It doesn't make sense for the character to execute a plan they know is nonsense. If the character doesn't know what makes it a bad plan, you don't tell them.

    destroyah87AuralynxDarkPrimusElvenshaeRainfallFoolish ChaosCarnarvonAnialosMrVyngaardcrimsoncoyote
  • Foolish ChaosFoolish Chaos Registered User regular
    edited July 21
    It's good because its like the knowledge equivalent to feeding dogs chocolate. Everyone knows that's bad, and if you don't know that you should be reminded.

    For other, less obvious player vs character knowledge, I dunno. In some ways I kind of like letting the players figure it out for themselves rather than me just telling them the best path, just because their character specs towards it. Its a different story if they ask about it specifically/ are more pro-active about playing towards their strengths. If that makes sense. I'm fine telling the guy with Knowledge (Warfare) a weakness in the enemy army if he makes a roll/ specifically seeks it out, but I don't really want to correct him if he assumes a different path.

    I think I just need to work on some subtle hints when stuff starts going awry.
    Oats wrote: »
    Let them play it out.

    If they state something false that their character ought to know is true which is critical to the plan, you can correct the fact ("some part in the back of your mind knows that elves don't sleep", etc).

    What system are you playing?

    This is for Blades in the Dark. The game actually has some neat rules about how to handle your character knowing stuff you don't, but it wasn't really applicable.

    Foolish Chaos on
  • DenadaDenada Registered User regular
    I think when there's a question of whether or not a character might know something a player doesn't (or a player knows something the character might not) is exactly the right time to bring dice into it.

    Don't fight a land war in Asia? Everyone knows that. Just tell them.

    Don't go up against a Sicilian when death is on the line? Might call for a skill check.

    ElvenshaeToxDevoutlyApatheticwebguy20RainfallA Dabble Of TheloniusZomro
  • OatsOats Registered User regular
    It's good because its like the knowledge equivalent to feeding dogs chocolate. Everyone knows that's bad, and if you don't know that you should be reminded.

    For other, less obvious player vs character knowledge, I dunno. In some ways I kind of like letting the players figure it out for themselves rather than me just telling them the best path, just because their character specs towards it. Its a different story if they ask about it specifically/ are more pro-active about playing towards their strengths. If that makes sense. I'm fine telling the guy with Knowledge (Warfare) a weakness in the enemy army if he makes a roll/ specifically seeks it out, but I don't really want to correct him if he assumes a different path.

    I think I just need to work on some subtle hints when stuff starts going awry.
    Oats wrote: »
    Let them play it out.

    If they state something false that their character ought to know is true which is critical to the plan, you can correct the fact ("some part in the back of your mind knows that elves don't sleep", etc).

    What system are you playing?

    This is for Blades in the Dark. The game actually has some neat rules about how to handle your character knowing stuff you don't, but it wasn't really applicable.

    For Blades, 100% let them execute a plan half cocked. If they want to go loud and assault the Sparkwrights or Leviathan Hunters, let them.

    Bring it up as you adjudicate the engagement roll. They definitely get the +1D for it being a daring plan. Do ensure that they don't overplan, though. Planning is for characters, players just make the decision of choosing the type of plan, the detail, and their load.

    Show them the barrel of the gun, ask them what they do. Then shoot them repeatedly. Characters in Blades are real hard to kill, especially if they're Bravos.

    Even better, there's no reason the Bluecoats wouldn't just chain up someone with level 3 harm and throw them in jail.

    McKidTheRoadVirus
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    If I stopped our blades crew every time a plan was clearly unworkable from my perspective, we might as well spend that time playing Monopoly instead.

    The old saying about never underestimating the ability of players to find some way to succeed is more true in blades than just about any game I've ever run.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
    McKidAuralynxTheRoadVirus
  • McKidMcKid Registered User regular
    In Blades, your players WILL make half-assed irrealist plans because they will lead to desperate actions, which give XP. The system is working !

    TheRoadVirus
  • jdarksunjdarksun Scion of Chaos Registered User regular
    McKid wrote: »
    In Blades, your players WILL make half-assed irrealist plans because they will lead to desperate actions, which give XP. The system is working !
    I defended version a blunderbuss by sticking dynamite in the barrel. It's a great system.

    TheRoadVirus
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    jdarksun wrote: »
    McKid wrote: »
    In Blades, your players WILL make half-assed irrealist plans because they will lead to desperate actions, which give XP. The system is working !
    I defended version a blunderbuss by sticking dynamite in the barrel. It's a great system.

    I actually struggle to come up with an actual roll you've made that didn't involve explosives in some way.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
    TheRoadVirus
  • DenadaDenada Registered User regular
    Geth, roll 6#4d6k3 for My character died.
    Geth, roll 6#4d6k3 for My GM lets us do this twice.

    My character died:
    6#4d6k3 6 # 14 [4d6k3=[6, 5, 3], 1] 14 [4d6k3=[6, 5, 3], 1] 10 [4d6k3=[6, 2, 2], 1] 10 [4d6k3=[5, 3, 2], 1] 10 [4d6k3=[4, 3, 3], 2] 10 [4d6k3=[5, 4, 1], 1]
    My GM lets us do this twice:
    6#4d6k3 6 # 15 [4d6k3=[6, 5, 4], 2] 14 [4d6k3=[6, 5, 3], 3] 13 [4d6k3=[6, 5, 2], 1] 17 [4d6k3=[6, 6, 5], 3] 14 [4d6k3=[5, 5, 4], 1] 8 [4d6k3=[4, 3, 1], 1]

  • SteelhawkSteelhawk Registered User regular
    That rolling twice thing really worked out for you that time!

    DenadaDarkPrimusdiscriderTheRoadVirusjdarksunRainfallElvenshaeTox
Sign In or Register to comment.