@NautArch Tough to say exactly with the open table. Last week was the first one and we had a pally, rogue, and wizard. I'm working with two other players to roll up a ranger and (probably) bard, respectively.
(Not that I'm regretting the switch - I can reassure players who boggle at having 12 classes to choose from more easily than I can explain how to spend 150 character points. :P )
@SirTechSpec I'm not familiar with 5e enough to say, but the only edition I ever felt like I could do that in was 4e--and even then it required a LOT of work.
I mean, I think I'm safe in cranking up the difficulty, considering how easily they cruised through HotDQ (I accounted for having 6 players where I could, but didn't really realize until recently that I also needed to account for the rest thing, especially since I was removing fights to make the game go faster.)
There weren't a lot of levers I could pull to fine-tune the difficulties; it was roflstomp or cakewalk, often differently for different PCs in the same party.
@Shalvenay The core concept is very simple: roll 3d6 and try to get less than your target number (usually your skill, plus or minus modifiers.) So actually playing is fairly easy.
The trick is character creation, which, as in Linux, brings complexity with its flexibility.
@Shalvenay If you literally don't know where to start, I suggest GURPS Lite. It will show you the basics.
Heck, if you're around in the evenings GMT-5 (like now or a little earlier) and have a camera and mike (or smartphone), I could take you through a quick adventure sometime.
Here's how I introduced my players to it for the first GURPS game I ran here: docs.google.com/document/d/… Probably longer than it needs to be, but I do talk about why different things are important a fair amount.
That game was 3e, not the current 4e, but that really doesn't change anything but the numbers as far as this is concerned.
The daring scoundrels of Roll20 Presents take on #BladesInTheDark by @EvilHatOfficial at #Roll20CON - One Night in… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/874039351721607168
@SirTechSpec I can roll with a variety of fantasy settings and some speculative/SF stuff, not so much supers or post-apocalyptic though (too many holes for a modern setting IMO)
The Void: This black card Spells disaster. Your soul is drawn from your body and contained in an object in a place of the DM's choice. One or more powerful beings guard the place. While your soul is trapped in this way, your body is Incapacitated. A wish spell can't restore your soul, but the spell reveals the location of the object that holds it. You draw no more cards.
@Shalvenay It's the only way I can communicate with my dread masters that exist in the hollow spaces at the edge of human consciousness. They sing to me and in return grant me strange powers of drunken Mario Kart
New house rule: Anyone who knocks a glass of grain alcohol from the current DM's hands before they take a sip, without damaging play implements, is awarded Inspiration
That's not a game category I have a lot of experience in, what with one of my regulars being a Skype head.
But @JuneShores has a lot of good thoughts about games with interpersonal themes that go out of their way to avoid physical conflict as a primary competence mode.
(And then there's expeditions with Bea as your captain. She is a cruel and merciless goddess and only death can slake her lust)
(She gives 10 campaign & gets permanent bonuses whenever you finish a boss off Aggressive)
(So her Crews end up as these really fighty serial killers looking to find as many bosses/expedition as possible so their leader can REAP THE SOULS OF THE LIVING)
I don't follow these things. I have played maybe four computer games in the last 12 months? Undertale, Crusader Kings 2, Rim World, King of Dragon Pass, Armello, oh, and bits of Darkest Dungeon because I wanted to see how it compares to Torchbearer. So, 5-and-a-half, actually. That means that random grabbing games in sales isn't worth it for me. Strong recommendations, however, may get me to playing.
My players were in a Hunger Games like situation where they had to collect tokens from other competing players, and their plan eventually involved them disguising one of their team as the competition organizer and convincing other groups that thanks to mysterious deaths (one of their team simply lay on the ground in order to help sell it), the competition was cancelled, so please hand over your tokens and make your way to the East side of the island where you will be taken home.
The really stupid thing is that it worked, right up until the point where other competitors needed escorting to the East side of the island. At which point, they caused an explosion and legged it with the bag of tokens.
The really funny part is that they were trying to impersonate a half-Orc woman, so naturally, they dressed up the PC half-Orc male in drag. It was only afterwards that our Bard remembered she could cast Disguise Self.
Wonderfully tactile #medieval die aching to be thrown in one of the >600 dice #games known from the period.… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/873809911435718656
@godskook Well, ignoring the irritating may be good for your overall happiness, but you may miss an opportunity to learn something or even help someone else if you simply ignore those that don't fit with your worldview (either in opinion or friendliness)
I have perceived I would get angry only because I hear and understand what irritating people say. If I can ignore them or treat what they say as what I can't understand, like a foreign language, I wouldn't get angry at all.
No, some people are just so irrational or unintelligent that I feel they words just irritating.
for example, some people just take money as the highest value and say those disciplines which can't lead to make money is useless. If you by chance love such a discipline, often hearing these people looking down on that discipline irritates you much if you can't ignore it.
@CaptainBohemian Unfortunately, that particular way of looking at life /career is not uncommon - nor is it necessarily wrong. Understanding that when choosing a career some may be more difficult to sustain a certain lifestyle or actually find a job that pays should be considered. Life is not sunshine and roses and trade-offs should be understood before decisions are made. Looking at the problem from "Money is everything" is just as valid as "Money isn't everything.'
The novel series got too mean-spirited for my taste after a while, but the first few books were fun.
I don't think the setting translates well to Fate style RPGs, but it's not a problem if you ignore some of the series spoilers about the higher-up workings of the supernatural world.
@NautArch It's rare that I drink much at all. Especially now that I have a kid. But once in a blue moon, when the only venue the party could pick up was a bar...
It's also got some of the usual gender/race blind spots that come with most genre fiction, and which I have less patience with if I also have to deal with an emotional gorefest.
I'm sorry, "occasional"? Deus ex machina is the only reason that his ridiculously contrived suffering hasn't caused the end of reality as we know it on multiple occasions, because Armageddon hangs in the delicate balance between spoiler--a balance which can be pushed either way by seemingly minor unrelated events, and would have been many times if it weren't for the author orchestrating otherwise. That's about where I dropped the series.
And this is also why the higher-level lore of the setting is anathema to Fate-style gaming: Fate needs PCs to be able to enact paradigm shifts without accidentally ending life as we know it.
how much has WoTC kept lore between editions? I'd lke to answer the undercommon question, but I don't really know enough about lore to say something that was in 3rd edition remains the same.
my problem with assuming that positive energy does not harm undead are all the rules that state "as undead" but do not specifically say they are hurt by positive energy, those also will assume that they are not hurt and will get healed.
a year ago positive/negative energy rules were unplayable if you decided to stick to RAW. They errated them so now it is only very clumsy
if you only apply different effects only when it is stated so (and not as soon as you seen the words "positive energy" and "undead"), you don't care to know if that precise effect is positive energy or just holy light from the sky/the power of nature/whatever.
Yeah but on energy body we have a precedence, it says: you can transform your body into pure life energy. Life energy is defined as originated from the positive energy plane.
About the corruptions: Stain: You are healed by negative energy and harmed by positive energy as if you were an undead creature. This means your behavior against positive energy doesnt change, as a living creature positive energy could hurt you already.
the discussion here is because it is not written in the rules that positive energy (usually generated by healing spells) harms undead. There are healing spells that says they harm undead, but not any text saying that positive energy does.
@AnneAunyme i did check several threads on paizo's forum about that issue and decided to not include it on my answer because there is no official answer (afaik) about positive energy vs undead.
the basic idea being life is positive energy based and unlife is negative energy based, so you get healed by the corresponding energy type and damaged by the opposite energy type
yeah.
there's things like that, little but significant mechanical gaps left in.
@ShadowKras I recall there's the positive energy elemental which heals you when it hits you, gives you temporary HP when you're fully healed, and makes you explode horribly if your total (normal + temporary) HP exceeds double your ordinary maximum HP.
But then there's no mention that the positive energy plane does that specifically, or anything other than the positive energy elemental.
> However, a creature must make a DC 20 Fortitude save each round that its temporary hit points exceed its normal hit point total. Failing the saving throw results in the creature exploding in a riot of energy, which kills it.
There's a line from invader zim I wish was available on youtube, in which someone's warning another person in dramatic voice that their head will explode
You channel positive energy to cure 1d8 points of damage + 1 point per caster level (maximum +25) on each selected creature. Like other cure spells, mass cure light wounds deals damage to undead in its area rather than curing them. Each affected undead may attempt a Will save for half damage.
In a recent game session (where I am a player), the GM tried to do a "cutscene" but there seemed to be some communication issues. Apparently, prior to this, the GM and one of the other players had planned a scripted sequence: the BBEG appears unexpectedly and achieves their plan, but this triggers a magic deal that the player's PC had made, and stops the BBEG.
But what actually happened is that all of the PCs (including my own) weren't aware that this was meant to be pre-scripted, and started interfering when the BBEG appeared. The result was a total mess and we basically had to OOG retcon our actions so that the event would go as planned.
So yes, there is a way. You tell the players there is a pre-scripted BBEG scene and one of the players made a deal to stop him and you want the game to not be about the BBEG but about the magic deal and resulting fallout. If the players excitedly agree, you can proceed. Otherwise it's a railroaded, hamfisted GM-as-god situation.
@NautArch That's what it seemed like. The BBEG appeared, became god, and started rebuilding the universe. But then there was a moment where the BBEG looks at the other PC and is like "No, impossible, what have you done, blah blah". Then some bizarre magic stuff happened, and an NPC appeared and killed (?) the BBEG.
In other words, either you take the reins of the class and convince them that you have something important to say, or they won't let you explain it at all.
@Adam thats a valid option!
If you say "the bad guy shows up" and pause, every single player will roll initiative.
@MikeQ If I was the DM here, I'd have done a narrative explanation for what was happening. Without a request to roll initiative or anything else, the events unfold as narration by the DM. Just like when a DM narrates a scene before battle. Same thing, but something epic happens instead of rolling initiative.
@MikeQ I really don't think there is a way to. I think the best way to handle this situation would've just been for the DM to say "no, this is happening, you can't do anything"
@MikeQ, by ignoring their actions, by giving it a pause so they can talk (they are excited afterall) then continue your narrative. By asking them to wait a second, you are explaining what their characters see, etc.
But all depends on you and the deal you have done with your players. Some GMs will politely ask "guys, only make your actions when i call your turn" or "dont interrupt me while im explaining, please".
At best, you can have every player become trapped by some magic (high level hold person, Dominate Creature Spells, etc) so that the players are paralyzed and are forced to watch in game.
I'd leave that game. No offense to you. But that isn't fun. You've taken away the only thing in the game I have control over, my character, just for a cool scene from a book or novel.
@Adam what you just described on that last phrase, you described on the previous one you gave as a suggestion: paralizing the entire group removes the only thing in the game you have control over, your character.
But if you're going to do it, you should at least have an in game excuse for why the characters can do nothing. Instead of de-rezzing them for the duration of the cutscene
@ShadowKras It's exactly this. THere's no combat/initiative/player turns because the DM is narrating the scene. Would you demand to roll initiative before the DM finishes their description of what's going on?
Personally, I don't like the heavy-handed "make a save that you can't pass." This is DM exposition. Let the DM do their thing, there's a reason for it!
@Yuuki If every player in the game is okay with that, then go for it. The problem comes in if you have players like me who are diametrically opposed to such a thing.
I mean, we dont know how did this cutscene go. Did the GM completely remove your autonomy to act? As if, said what your character did instead of asking you?
1) was it like sephiroth killing aerith? or 2) a speech before the final battle?
@Adam I dunno, I feel like there's a lot of lost storytelling opportunity when players feel like the DM is obligated to allow them to stop any BBEG at any point in the game.
And the main reason I don't like them is that it breaks the suspension of disbelief. If you give me an in game reason why my PC can't do anything, or why all their attempts fail, I wouldn't mind as much. If the DM starts telling me what my player does for me, or says "no, you can't do that! I've planned out this scene for months and I won't break from the script" then I get furious
@ShadowKras Nope, we were all able to do things, since we were out of combat. It was more of a conversation between the BBEG and the PC who had made the secret deal.
@MikeQ They're not acting because there's been no call to action. The DM is setting a scene and interrupting because YOU want to do something isn't...nice.
Another heavy-handed option is to ask everyone to roll initiative, but DM puts his card first. Players don't know modifiers, and they may have had a +20 to their initiative roll because of this set-up.
when you realize the BBEG is ignoring you to have a conversation, you might feel powerless, which is the same result as if you were paralyzed in the first place. So there is no easy way to solve this.
@ShadowKras The problem with that is that the other players tried to kill the PC (who had made the secret deal), thinking that they and the BBEG were in cahoots.
@Yuuki If done improperly, I am. Obviously there are caveats based on context. And in a certain situation with a great DM, I'm sure it could work. But the why is so important
@MikeQ Why did the DM allow player actions if he was doing narrative. I think that seems to be the bigger problem. He allowed things to happen he wasn't yet ready to have happen (apologies for the male gender assumption.)
@Yuuki For example, unwinnable battles because the party made a bunch of bad choices that ultimately led to that situation is an example of verisimilitude and consequence. Unwinnable battles because the DM has an NPC that they really really want to play and show everyone else how cool they are and how they can save/destroy the party with a thought is a waste of my time and, I think, anti-fun.
@Adam What about unwinnable battle not because of party bad decisions but because it really needs to be illustrated that you're up against the odds and there's something emotional about a last stand?
this BBEG was a god? He could have let you guys identify him as such. Whenever they attacked the player, they would get some kind of divine intervention preventing him from being harmed.
@Yuuki Depends on how you put it together. If you dropped me as a lvl 3 fighter against Primus and said "you're up against the odds" I'd be pretty annoyed. I can't answer that without more contex into how that situation was set up.
Like in mainstream war movies, there always seems to be that "last stand" set piece where the characters are picked off one by one, each of them pulling off sacrificial heroic acts that while ultimately futile are still emotionally moving.
@GreySage my problem with that kind of question is that they tend to recieve several different answers, none are correct or wrong per se, but will have different ways to handle the issue based on personal experience.
@Yuuki These set pieces require a good campaign with depth and emotional investment on my end that, if I just don't feel, are wasted. These deep connections, I think, are formed by having this situation be a result of realistic consequences to the actions that the PCs are involved in. If those feelings are there, then I could see myself having fun with it.
But if they aren't there, it falls flat and has almost the exact opposite effect where instead of thinking "that was awesome and satisfying" I think "That was ridiculous and cheap"
@GreySage @ShadowKras - It's a "Should" question right now, and the question seems to expect that people will say yes and justify it. (e.g. "I kind of feel like things may be getting toxic? I dunno...")
I may have not been clear enough in that I'm diametrically opposed to DMs saying "No, this is happening, get over it" for a selfish reason. Not that I'm opposed to unwinnable battles or feeble attempts because of a plausible and satisfying in game reason
@MikeQ I honestly think that all the details in the question are pretty much useless. Without knowing the people all we can provide are general suggestions, and while those suggestion are valuable and useful, could be provided to a question that literally consisted of the sentence "How can we politely get rid of a DM" and nothing else
I'm trying to think of a way to say "hey, this question has a place on the site, but you'll get a bit more help from Chat" without implying that the question isn't a good place to look for that answer
