Options

## Posts

• Options
Registered User regular
Elddrik wrote: »
DarkPrimus wrote: »
joshgotro wrote: »
Goblin is worth x. You fought six goblins.

XP= 6x

Divide 6x by n, n= number of pc.

5E has some "fun" with this, in that:
1. For encounter building, add up the XP Threshold value for each PC from the XP Thresholds by Character Level table
2. Add up the XP value of each monster in the encounter, using the XP value in its stat block.
3. IF the encounter has more than one monster, multiply the XP total of the monsters according to the Encounter Multipliers table
4. UNLESS the monster's "challenge rating is significantly below the average challenge rating of the other monsters in the group"
5. UNLESS "you think the weak monsters significantly contribute to the difficulty of the encounter"
6. UNLESS your party is less than three characters, then use the next highest multiplier from the Encounter Multipliers table
7. OR your party is more than five characters, then use the next lowest multiplier from the Encounter Multipliers table
8. BUT if your encounter is split into multiple waves, then each wave should be calculated as a separate encounter
9. HOWEVER if a single wave's adjusted XP value is higher than one third of the party's expected XP total for the adventuring day, then the wave will be harder than the calculations indicate
10. FURTHERMORE, if one side of the encounter has an advantage or a setback, the encounter will be easier or harder relative to that situation, with advantages and setbacks cancelling each other out as appropriate
11. THEN, when all the fighting is done, flip ahead five chapters in the DMG to finally learn that you should throw all that math away and just divide the base XP total of the monsters by how many PCs were in the fight when awarding XP

I hate to sound like a broken record, but wow, 4e really did all this so much better, didn't it? It had numbers provided based on what level your party was and how many party members were playing, and you then you took that number and added monsters until the experience point total of the monsters more or less equaled the recommended encounter number from the book.

Now, obviously, there's more nuance to encounter-creation than just "do the numbers line up" but that's why 4e also had monsters labeled with different nomenclature to indicate the sort of role they were to serve in the encounter, much like how PC classes were sub-divided based on if they were big HP sponges, DPS glass cannons, crowd-control debuffers, etc. And wouldn't you know it, the encounter building notes also recommended what sort of compositions of these different monster types made for generally interesting encounters!

The 3E and 4E encounter-building system are, to the best of my recollection, mathematically identical.

They just changed the way it was presented, making it an XP budget instead of a CR/EL calculation. The encounter budget method was a better way to present it, but it wasn't a ground-shaking change or anything.

4E gave advice based on the role of monsters, 5E gives advice and tries to make math changes based on terrain and being outnumbered; it's a reaction to how important action economy was in 4E/5E.

I don't think the 5E encounter building works especially well, but it was a good thing to try and came from good intent.

I think the other issue is that 4e had monster levels instead of directly using HD and then some scaling factors based on type for + hit/hp/saves and other stuff. I can't recall if the encounter systems were effectively different but the components that fed into the systems had some pretty large differences that made a big impact in the quality of the final output.

Yeah the underlying math and system assumptions between 3E and 4E monster and encounter design are quite different.

In 3E, one CR1 creature is supposed to be a challenge for 4 level 1 PCs (leaving aside how a level 1 PC is a CR1 creature, meaning a CR1 creature is an even challenge for four of itself, but then each one of those is an even level challenge for four more, and so on). In 4E, PCs and enemies are built using distinctly different sets of rules and math, and one Level 1 creature is supposed to be a challenge for one Level 1 PC, but they are not supposed to be equivalent.

This kind of makes sense, as a "challenging" encounter is supposed to expend 25% of a parties resources. For a typical 4 person 1st level party, a 1st level pc is a quarter of their resources...
Also you can fit 4E monster design math on a business card, which I don't think can be done in 3.X or 5E.

I don't think you can fit the 3E types on a business card along with their accompanying BAB/Fort/Reflex/Will/HD/Skill points. That's before you get into anything like "expected" damage/lvl.

Nod. Get treat. PSN: Quippish
• Options
Registered User regular
So, as BROCK JOHNSON, SWOLEMASTER EXTRAORDINAIRE, WIZARD OF THE FLEXING, when a Vampire tries to throw a crossover SUV at you, what do you do?

Fucking volleyball spike the crossover SUV into that Vampire's friend.

with his math professor friend still inside the SUV. My character. Takin an AWFUL LOT OF BASHING but it's so worth it.

• Options
Registered User regular
Also you can fit 4E monster design math on a business card, which I don't think can be done in 3.X or 5E.

You can't in 3.X, but you can in 5E.

http://blogofholding.com/?p=7338

• Options
Registered User regular

This kind of makes sense, as a "challenging" encounter is supposed to expend 25% of a parties resources. For a typical 4 person 1st level party, a 1st level pc is a quarter of their resources

But then each one of those PCs, being CR1 creatures themselves, should be expected to expend 100% of that CR1 monster's resources. So by the time it would expend 25% of the party's resources, it should have been killed four times.

• Options
Registered User regular
Elddrik wrote: »
Also you can fit 4E monster design math on a business card, which I don't think can be done in 3.X or 5E.

You can't in 3.X, but you can in 5E.

http://blogofholding.com/?p=7338

Ah nice, that'll be good to have "in my pocket" as it were. Also very telling that the basics of how they got it to fit on a card are "Don't follow the DMG, it's not actually what the monsters use and the whole process doesn't even do anything worthwhile."

• Options
Frequently not in boats. Registered User regular
Elddrik wrote: »
Also you can fit 4E monster design math on a business card, which I don't think can be done in 3.X or 5E.

You can't in 3.X, but you can in 5E.

http://blogofholding.com/?p=7338

Ah nice, that'll be good to have "in my pocket" as it were. Also very telling that the basics of how they got it to fit on a card are "Don't follow the DMG, it's not actually what the monsters use and the whole process doesn't even do anything worthwhile."

5e is explicitly written that you as the DM can and should house rule shit all you want

• Options
Registered User regular
PiptheFair wrote: »
Elddrik wrote: »
Also you can fit 4E monster design math on a business card, which I don't think can be done in 3.X or 5E.

You can't in 3.X, but you can in 5E.

http://blogofholding.com/?p=7338

Ah nice, that'll be good to have "in my pocket" as it were. Also very telling that the basics of how they got it to fit on a card are "Don't follow the DMG, it's not actually what the monsters use and the whole process doesn't even do anything worthwhile."

5e is explicitly written that you as the DM can and should house rule shit all you want

5E's crutch of "rulings not rules" is one thing, but this isn't that. In the process of analyzing 5E monster construction, the author of that blogofholding article found that "the DMG monster-creation guidelines don’t work as expected, monster design formulae have stayed stable from book to book, and many of the complexities of the official monster-design process don’t significantly affect its outcome."

In this case, it's not a matter of "house ruling shit all you want", it's that the designers of the game don't even use their own rules. Said another way, they know that the rules in the DMG for making monsters are not what they actually use to make monsters, but they printed and sold them anyway.

• Options
Registered User regular

This kind of makes sense, as a "challenging" encounter is supposed to expend 25% of a parties resources. For a typical 4 person 1st level party, a 1st level pc is a quarter of their resources

But then each one of those PCs, being CR1 creatures themselves, should be expected to expend 100% of that CR1 monster's resources. So by the time it would expend 25% of the party's resources, it should have been killed four times.

Not following.

Party of 4 versus 1: This is a challenging encounter and should take about 25% of the Party of 4's resources. (If the 1 is a raging great axe wielding barbarian then good chance all 25% of those resources come out of one PC, by them dying.)

Party of 1 versus 4: This is more than 4 levels higher than party level and the DMG basically says they lose.

This is one of the worst examples for the 3.5 system because it is all about action economy imbalance. I don't think 3.5's system is good, just that this thought example sort of works. In place the encounter is fucking horrible because in play the fight is either utterly pointless or a showcase for the spikiness of damage ending a PC.

Nod. Get treat. PSN: Quippish
• Options
Registered User regular
PiptheFair wrote: »
Elddrik wrote: »
Also you can fit 4E monster design math on a business card, which I don't think can be done in 3.X or 5E.

You can't in 3.X, but you can in 5E.

http://blogofholding.com/?p=7338

Ah nice, that'll be good to have "in my pocket" as it were. Also very telling that the basics of how they got it to fit on a card are "Don't follow the DMG, it's not actually what the monsters use and the whole process doesn't even do anything worthwhile."

5e is explicitly written that you as the DM can and should house rule shit all you want

5E's crutch of "rulings not rules" is one thing, but this isn't that. In the process of analyzing 5E monster construction, the author of that blogofholding article found that "the DMG monster-creation guidelines don’t work as expected, monster design formulae have stayed stable from book to book, and many of the complexities of the official monster-design process don’t significantly affect its outcome."

In this case, it's not a matter of "house ruling shit all you want", it's that the designers of the game don't even use their own rules. Said another way, they know that the rules in the DMG for making monsters are not what they actually use to make monsters, but they printed and sold them anyway.

I don't think it's quite as nefarious as you're implying here.

It's true that the MM monsters don't perfectly follow the DMG rules. They were built from the beginning with the DMG rules, but they were then adjusted through playtesting. However, there wasn't time in the development cycle to then reverse-engineer a new set of rules that would come up with the playtest-adjusted monster stats.

The DMG rules are a starting point for a full and complete build. The card is a reverse-engineered hack that gets you pretty close to what the playtest-adjusted monsters ended up being. If you just want to slap something that's good enough down on the table, the card will get you there faster; if you want to really build out a monster for publication, the DMG rules are where you should start.

(Although personally, when designing monsters, I use my spreadsheet of monster stats, which includes the relevant stats for every monster in the MM, as a starting point. But it always requires adjustments and tweaks, not just a pure formula. Any game where you can use just a pure formula and never need to change it for any reason has boring monster design. Even 4E didn't go quite that far, and I do personally believe that 4E's monster design was too rigid to be as interesting as it could have been.)

• Options
Registered User regular
edited January 2021
Honestly I've cheated a lot with my monster design by just taking abilities I like from creatures I otherwise don't plan to use and sticking them as add-ons to existing creatures (like giving the chitine the ettercap's web garrote, or even translating the chasme's proboscis attack into a limited-use ranged "piercing gaze" attack for a cyclops).

Hexmage-PA on
• Options
Registered User regular
I've got a player in the group who handles the session summaries, and they've gotten more elaborate each time. I'm honestly flattered that he cares so much.

• Options
Registered User regular

This kind of makes sense, as a "challenging" encounter is supposed to expend 25% of a parties resources. For a typical 4 person 1st level party, a 1st level pc is a quarter of their resources

But then each one of those PCs, being CR1 creatures themselves, should be expected to expend 100% of that CR1 monster's resources. So by the time it would expend 25% of the party's resources, it should have been killed four times.

Not following.

Party of 4 versus 1: This is a challenging encounter and should take about 25% of the Party of 4's resources. (If the 1 is a raging great axe wielding barbarian then good chance all 25% of those resources come out of one PC, by them dying.)

Party of 1 versus 4: This is more than 4 levels higher than party level and the DMG basically says they lose.

This is one of the worst examples for the 3.5 system because it is all about action economy imbalance. I don't think 3.5's system is good, just that this thought example sort of works. In place the encounter is fucking horrible because in play the fight is either utterly pointless or a showcase for the spikiness of damage ending a PC.

Thank you for talking this out with me, it's helping me put into words what I actually don't like about it. I guess the core of it is that an even CR creature will never actually be a challenge for a party of 4. It bugs me to no end that the encounter design system is based on something that is categorically bad design and doesn't actually work. One CR1 creature should be a challenge for one CR1 creature, not four. Or, even better, PCs should not use the CR system at all.

• Options
RAGE vympyvvhyc vyctyvyRegistered User regular
Ooooo, my new gelatinous cube dice I kickstarted arrived! They're even bigger than I thought! 2" cubes so they can be used on standard 1" grid maps, and there's enough of them I can stack em to make a 4" cube for a giant cube. Also got some smaller 1" cubes. Here's some pics in the spoiler, with 3 regular dice for scale

• Options
Here we may reign secure, and in my choice, To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered User regular
I love those

• Options
Registered User regular

This kind of makes sense, as a "challenging" encounter is supposed to expend 25% of a parties resources. For a typical 4 person 1st level party, a 1st level pc is a quarter of their resources

But then each one of those PCs, being CR1 creatures themselves, should be expected to expend 100% of that CR1 monster's resources. So by the time it would expend 25% of the party's resources, it should have been killed four times.

Not following.

Party of 4 versus 1: This is a challenging encounter and should take about 25% of the Party of 4's resources. (If the 1 is a raging great axe wielding barbarian then good chance all 25% of those resources come out of one PC, by them dying.)

Party of 1 versus 4: This is more than 4 levels higher than party level and the DMG basically says they lose.

This is one of the worst examples for the 3.5 system because it is all about action economy imbalance. I don't think 3.5's system is good, just that this thought example sort of works. In place the encounter is fucking horrible because in play the fight is either utterly pointless or a showcase for the spikiness of damage ending a PC.

Thank you for talking this out with me, it's helping me put into words what I actually don't like about it. I guess the core of it is that an even CR creature will never actually be a challenge for a party of 4. It bugs me to no end that the encounter design system is based on something that is categorically bad design and doesn't actually work. One CR1 creature should be a challenge for one CR1 creature, not four. Or, even better, PCs should not use the CR system at all.

Class levels are really funky with regards to CR. I think it's possible to throw together a CR 13 creature that can cast gate? Been awhile but I think that was possible. Also IIRC giant could become absolutely terrifying for their CRs because they could add so many class levels as non-associated.

Nod. Get treat. PSN: Quippish
• Options
Registered User regular
edited January 2021
I've found CR is helpful at low levels but nearly useless the higher you go, because by that point there's many different possible combinations of PC builds with varying effectiveness in different situations.

However, that's by no means unique to D&D. I've played several of the Etrian Odyssey video games, for example, where your party's overall build can be the difference between a fight being impossibly hard or manageable depending on how well each character's abilities synergize with each other or counter enemy abilities.

Hexmage-PA on
• Options
It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
My next VtM session is on Monday. It's going to be mostly a downtime session, I think. It'll be their first night free.

• Options
GNU Terry Pratchett Registered User regular
The 4th Ed Monster Manuals also had lists of monsters by level and alphabetically, each monster had example encounters to demonstrate how they would be found in the wild, and tiers of knowledge that characters would know about each monster for various DCs of either Nature or Dungeoneering checks

Plus their spells were all in their stat blocks so you didn't need to keep flicking back through the PHB to check how all their spells worked

Honestly, comparing the two editions, I'm getting angry now that they threw all of that out - last night I had the option to learn Polymorph when we levelled up, but I decided against it because I couldn't be arsed to work out what beasts of CR5 or below would be available to us as a party

[Muffled sounds of gorilla violence]
• Options
Registered User regular
edited January 2021
The 4th Ed Monster Manuals also had lists of monsters by level and alphabetically, each monster had example encounters to demonstrate how they would be found in the wild, and tiers of knowledge that characters would know about each monster for various DCs of either Nature or Dungeoneering checks

Plus their spells were all in their stat blocks so you didn't need to keep flicking back through the PHB to check how all their spells worked

Honestly, comparing the two editions, I'm getting angry now that they threw all of that out - last night I had the option to learn Polymorph when we levelled up, but I decided against it because I couldn't be arsed to work out what beasts of CR5 or below would be available to us as a party

I just went ahead and purchased the various spell and monster cards for quick reference (although the caveat with the spell cards is that, for some reason, spells with wordier descriptions sometimes don't have the whole thing and refer you to the page number in the book, undermining the point of the card in the first place).

Also, here's a list of all Polymorph options with explanations as to whether they make a good choice or not: Practical Guide to Polymorph. Unfortunately, it seems like the vast majority of beast forms are weak in terms of combat effectiveness, though that at least narrows down the options for what is actually worth using quite a bit. Pretty much the only good combat beast forms are the mammoth, giant ape, and t-rex, and all three of those are above CR 5.

A good rule of thumb is to search on Google to see if someone else has already done the work for you or made a tool to make things simpler before doing it yourself. Given how popular D&D 5E is there are a lot of online resources. Even Instagram and Pinterest have a ton of D&D 5E homebrew content (I don't use things on there like new subclasses, but magic items, monsters, and DMing tools like loot tables, monster harvesting tables, and random RP aides are all good resources).

Hexmage-PA on
• Options
GNU Terry Pratchett Registered User regular
I ended up learning Freedom of Movement instead, as it was from a Warlock Invocation and my patron is just trying to give me as many ways to get out of trouble at possible, but thanks for the link - it will be useful for future reference and I may learn Polymorph later

[Muffled sounds of gorilla violence]
• Options
Deviled Egg The Land of REAL CHILIRegistered User regular
Talking about 4E. Anyone have all the books and also want to make as much money as I'm willing to pay for them?

• Options
Sleepy Registered User regular
edited January 2021
The 4th Ed Monster Manuals also had lists of monsters by level and alphabetically, each monster had example encounters to demonstrate how they would be found in the wild, and tiers of knowledge that characters would know about each monster for various DCs of either Nature or Dungeoneering checks

Plus their spells were all in their stat blocks so you didn't need to keep flicking back through the PHB to check how all their spells worked

Honestly, comparing the two editions, I'm getting angry now that they threw all of that out - last night I had the option to learn Polymorph when we levelled up, but I decided against it because I couldn't be arsed to work out what beasts of CR5 or below would be available to us as a party

...so basically the anti-4th backlash was so bad they couldn't do anything remotely the same, even the good ideas that shouldn't have been controversial at all? Next you'll tell me there's no table of contents.

Polaritie on
Steam: Polaritie
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
• Options
Registered User regular
joshgotro wrote: »
Talking about 4E. Anyone have all the books and also want to make as much money as I'm willing to pay for them?

I have almost everything... well okay I don't have most of the big published adventures but I do have a big stack of D&D Encounters adventures (the modules they made for GMs to run at game stores on their D&D night) to make up for that.

*sigh* I've actually been thinking about taking them off my bookshelf because they occupy an entire shelf and that space should be taken up by, er, other roleplaying books I have and feel like looking at more often even though I ain't going to be playing any of them any time soon probably.

• Options
RAGE vympyvvhyc vyctyvyRegistered User regular
I had all the core 4e books and all the Dark Sun books, but somebody fucked off with them and I don't know who or to where. It's been years and I still get livid when I think about it

• Options
Registered User regular
Polaritie wrote: »
The 4th Ed Monster Manuals also had lists of monsters by level and alphabetically, each monster had example encounters to demonstrate how they would be found in the wild, and tiers of knowledge that characters would know about each monster for various DCs of either Nature or Dungeoneering checks

Plus their spells were all in their stat blocks so you didn't need to keep flicking back through the PHB to check how all their spells worked

Honestly, comparing the two editions, I'm getting angry now that they threw all of that out - last night I had the option to learn Polymorph when we levelled up, but I decided against it because I couldn't be arsed to work out what beasts of CR5 or below would be available to us as a party

...so basically the anti-4th backlash was so bad they couldn't do anything remotely the same, even the good ideas that shouldn't have been controversial at all? Next you'll tell me there's no table of contents.

It was so bad that Monte Cook pretended to "invent" passive skill checks, even though Taking 10 existed before 4E.

• Options
I spend too much time on the Internet Registered User regular
joshgotro wrote: »
Talking about 4E. Anyone have all the books and also want to make as much money as I'm willing to pay for them?

If you don't mind PDF they are all up on DriveThroughRPG or DMGuild or one of those sites, forget which.

Steam ID: Webguy20
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
• Options
Registered User regular
Who dares face their fellow gladiators in mortal combat!? In a play by post D&D tournament? Starting in a couples days I guess?

• Options
RAGE vympyvvhyc vyctyvyRegistered User regular
I bought MÖRK BORG last night. They also sent me a pdf of the book, and it looks very cool. Going to try and convince my group to play it as a one-shot sometime. I am very much enjoying it's doom metal aesthetic

• Options
Registered User regular
Darmak wrote: »
I bought MÖRK BORG last night. They also sent me a pdf of the book, and it looks very cool. Going to try and convince my group to play it as a one-shot sometime. I am very much enjoying it's doom metal aesthetic

what is dis...? You had me at doom metal tbh

• Options
RAGE vympyvvhyc vyctyvyRegistered User regular
Uriel wrote: »
Darmak wrote: »
I bought MÖRK BORG last night. They also sent me a pdf of the book, and it looks very cool. Going to try and convince my group to play it as a one-shot sometime. I am very much enjoying it's doom metal aesthetic

what is dis...? You had me at doom metal tbh

Rules light RPG, kinda like a doom metal-themed version of OD&D. Here's a pretty good review: https://thirdcoastreview.com/2020/09/24/ttrpg-review-mork-borg/

• Options
Registered User regular
edited January 2021
So the Game Grumps have introduced me to Danganronpa through their Let's Play of it, and now I desperately want to include at least one Danganronpa-style trial in my D&D campaign where people just stand around in a circle and accuse each other of a murder while a powerful villain who most likely knows exactly who the murderer is, how they did it, and why they did it watches on (while communicating to others exclusively through telepathy, making them more foreboding and mysterious).

Luckily I already had a mysterious murder take place, and such a scenario would give me an excuse to bring back NPCs the party has previously met and introduce ones the party has only heard about. Now I just need to design it so that there's a chance the party can actually figure out the correct answer, but make it so failing to do so still opens up future avenues of exploration.

BTW, even before I decided I wanted to do this I previously established that the central hub area is blanketed by the following Private Sanctum effects:
• Sensors created by Divination Spells can't appear inside the protected area or pass through the barrier at its perimeter.
• Creatures in the area can't be targeted by Divination Spells.
• Nothing can Teleport into or out of the warded area.
• Planar Travel is blocked within the warded area.

Plus the corpse not only had it's jaw bone removed, but was immolated down to the skeleton, so Speak with Dead is no help.

Hexmage-PA on
• Options
Registered User regular
Hexmage-PA wrote: »
So the Game Grumps have introduced me to Danganronpa through their Let's Play of it, and now I desperately want to include at least one Danganronpa-style trial in my D&D campaign where people just stand around in a circle and accuse each other of a murder while a powerful villain who most likely knows exactly who the murderer is, how they did it, and why they did it watches on (while communicating to others exclusively through telepathy, making them more foreboding and mysterious).

Luckily I already had a mysterious murder take place, and such a scenario would give me an excuse to bring back NPCs the party has previously met and introduce ones the party has only heard about. Now I just need to design it so that there's a chance the party can actually figure out the correct answer, but make it so failing to do so still opens up future avenues of exploration.

BTW, even before I decided I wanted to do this I previously established that the central hub area is blanketed by the following Private Sanctum effects:
• Sensors created by Divination Spells can't appear inside the protected area or pass through the barrier at its perimeter.
• Creatures in the area can't be targeted by Divination Spells.
• Nothing can Teleport into or out of the warded area.
• Planar Travel is blocked within the warded area.

Plus the corpse not only had it's jaw bone removed, but was immolated down to the skeleton, so Speak with Dead is no help.

Just a random thought, not my best: Maybe nearby there could be a dead rodent near the scene of the crime, and a mix of Speak with Dead and Animal Handling will get it to reveal a few clues, but it can’t communicate enough to give it away.

• Options
Registered User regular
Hexmage-PA wrote: »
So the Game Grumps have introduced me to Danganronpa through their Let's Play of it, and now I desperately want to include at least one Danganronpa-style trial in my D&D campaign where people just stand around in a circle and accuse each other of a murder while a powerful villain who most likely knows exactly who the murderer is, how they did it, and why they did it watches on (while communicating to others exclusively through telepathy, making them more foreboding and mysterious).

Luckily I already had a mysterious murder take place, and such a scenario would give me an excuse to bring back NPCs the party has previously met and introduce ones the party has only heard about. Now I just need to design it so that there's a chance the party can actually figure out the correct answer, but make it so failing to do so still opens up future avenues of exploration.

BTW, even before I decided I wanted to do this I previously established that the central hub area is blanketed by the following Private Sanctum effects:
• Sensors created by Divination Spells can't appear inside the protected area or pass through the barrier at its perimeter.
• Creatures in the area can't be targeted by Divination Spells.
• Nothing can Teleport into or out of the warded area.
• Planar Travel is blocked within the warded area.

Plus the corpse not only had it's jaw bone removed, but was immolated down to the skeleton, so Speak with Dead is no help.

Just make sure everyone summarizes and repeats things as often as possible, and include plenty of flashbacks to things that just happened moments before.

• Options
Sleepy Registered User regular
Add more clues than you think you need, because people WILL go off on the wrong path even if there's a giant flashing neon sign.

Steam: Polaritie
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
• Options
Frequently not in boats. Registered User regular
Polaritie wrote: »
Add more clues than you think you need, because people WILL go off on the wrong path even if there's a giant flashing neon sign.

They will also think the sign is cursed and destroy it

• Options
Registered User regular
Polaritie wrote: »
Add more clues than you think you need, because people WILL go off on the wrong path even if there's a giant flashing neon sign.

One of the players did surprise me a bit last session by suddenly deciding to make an Insight check on a character that has something to do with it. I played it cool, but inwardly I was thinking "wait, what made them suspicious??? I need to be more careful!"

• Options
The reason all your software is brokenRegistered User regular
Less careful. If you want a perfect mystery write a book. Assume your players are gonna need some lampshades hung.

Better to be too obvious and let the players be right than for the game to stall.

Book - Royal road - Free! Seraphim === TTRPG - Wuxia - Free! Seln Alora
• Options
Registered User regular
Darmak wrote: »
Uriel wrote: »
Darmak wrote: »
I bought MÖRK BORG last night. They also sent me a pdf of the book, and it looks very cool. Going to try and convince my group to play it as a one-shot sometime. I am very much enjoying it's doom metal aesthetic

what is dis...? You had me at doom metal tbh

Rules light RPG, kinda like a doom metal-themed version of OD&D. Here's a pretty good review: https://thirdcoastreview.com/2020/09/24/ttrpg-review-mork-borg/

This sounds cool and that book looks sweet

• Options
Registered User regular
Just a last drive for my duel to the death in D&D event:

Join if you wanna, heckle later if you watch the short lives of the gladiators unfold.

• Options
Tiny Bat Registered User regular
I've kind of stopped caring about my pathfinder 2 game and I don't know what to do about it.

I like my character in concept but I have no idea how to play her. This came to a peak months ago when the party was removed from everyone's memory including her husband and children, and instead of a big emotional moment when she met her husband and he didn't recognize her I couldn't think of anything to do or say and instead did nothing then we moved on. It should have been a defining moment of her character but instead it was just a missed opportunity and the other players stepped in to do their more interesting roleplays instead to fill the space.

And that's been the theme for the entire game. After that point I lost any investment in the setting because I don't know how to roleplay so why bother caring, which just makes me even worse at playing the character and it compounds steadily. But i've stayed in the game because there's only four of us and it would be hard for them to play the game without me even if i'm not really contributing anything.

It's gotten worse though. I've always had trouble remembering what happened previous sessions even the last week, but now i'm barely able to focus on what's happening in the session as it's happening.

The thing I look forward to most each week is for it to be 10pm when the session ends so there's the longest amount of time before I have to do it again.

But they all really enjoy the game and I don't want to ruin that by leaving, even if I don't understand how my presence helps in the first place.

This discussion has been closed.