@nwp I'm a medium-experienced GM, and I rarely houserule. In fact, I never houserule. I do implement houserules that the table's all agreed upon, though.
yeah -- my usual thing with houserules is having to houserule to deal with how the setting-at-hand works, not because I'm after a particular mechanical thingymabob
@DaaaahWhoosh can I offer one way of thinking about your "to-hit advantage" vs. "damage advantage" which might make the answers you got make intuitive sense? Think about the expected benefit of rolling another die and getting to choose, vs. die size. Given the size of the die on a hit-roll, the benefit you can get from being able to choose from between two is just so much bigger than the benefit from being able to choose from between two (relatively small) damage dice.
@nitsua60 As a somewhat-experienced DM, I only have one houserule - no flying races. Even that one I didn't have until the players proved it was necessary.
Sure, but I guess I see selecting which parts of the game to use as a different exercise than changing how some parts of the game work. It's a sliding scale, though.
Random anecdote: Last night, while fighting a boss who was immune to magic and had almost wiped out the party, I hit a dice explosion (on a d10, no less) 3x in a row. The cheers were deafening.
I felt a little sheepish when the GM revealed that he was on 4 health at the time, and my 43 damage hit was in fact more than twice his starting health, but it was still a great moment.
@nitsua60 I enjoyed playing (& later, running) it in 3.5e. It apparently didn't make much impact on my wife the first time through, as she didn't remember playing it before...
@Shalvenay heeello! Things are not bad. A bit strange. My DW campaign was suspended besauce one of the playeres was busy. Then another went to vacation. And now we're almost ready to continue, but one of the players feels that he want to leave group. Sad. How're yours?
I may or may not have a dice buying obsession, too... but that's a different story.
@NautArch It is a remarkable improvement in play speed. If you miss, you ignore them. If you hit, you don't waste the time of a second pass shuffling through your pile to find the right dice.
@T.J.L. So do I, but it seems to be a long-forming habit. (I, personally, will roll multiple attacks with advantage and sneak attack and damage and superiority die all at once. Gladly.)
@Szega Can't say I'm familiar with either of those. It's not applicable to certain systems, depending on the die mechanics work. If you need to know how well you hit before you can determine damage, it doesn't work. Of course... I try to avoid systems like that. I think oWoD used to take like... four different rolls (Attack, Evade, Damage, Soak) for one attack or something ridiculous like that.
@Szega I use that for dramatic effect... Describing mighty blows that an opponent gets a shield in place just in time for if it's close, or making a mess of huge swaths of scenery if it's really wide.
@Szega Players should be aware that character failure does happen. In my experience, some of the best stories come from character failure. A character who succeeds all the time bores me.
And the change can be awesome. If you're a druid-type caster, failing to control your magic might give you antlers, or super scent abilities, or the ability to talk to plants.
@NautArch - :3 The whole idea, and I believe it is literally stated in the PH, is that "you've just spent a lot of time screwing over the player to your left, now it is time for them to get revenge"
But if you don't take the time to remember who you are and revert the changes before they pile up too much, you lose your sense of self and get consumed by the source of magic. Permanently.
In Cthulhu Dark, you're always going to succeed at what you're trying to do unless someone specifically calls for a failure chance (and even then you'll probably succeed)... you roll to see how well you succeed. Low outcomes may be technically a success but make the situation worse; high enough outcomes may expose you to sanity-shredding experiences you didn't anticipate.
@NautArch -- (un)fortunately there is no real "guide" that says "This is exactly how you should play the Computer. Therefore it is up to interpretation. Not that it really matters because many, myself included, would argue that rule books are more like "here is how we, the authors, think you should do this thing".
That "guaranteed success" concept sets CD apart from most other Mythos games: when you fail because of the dice in, say, Call of Cthulhu, you didn't fail because the unspeakable cosmic truths you were facing were too much for you to handle. You failed because of the randomizer.
@NautArch -- THAT aspect of the game seems unfortunate :( Paranoia is supposed to be stupid, goofy and fun (aka comedic stress relief). Or at least that is always how I've played it.
Cthulhu Dark sounds awesome :) I just don't have enough of a dedicated gaming group to get ONE thing going let alone more than one.
@BanjoFox Happily, CD is a free game with one page of rules, one page of optional rules, and one page of GM scenario-building guidance, designed for one-shot sessions with no prep on the part of the players.
@BanjoFox Well, I think it might be more the player being frustrated that he has to kiss the DMs arse to get XP (do what I say, report others, get rewarded) and feelings about our main D&D game.
@BanjoFox yeah, after multiple days of travel, we get to the town we're heading for to find the hidden brother of the king (who is the true king) to continue on our quest to save the kingdom. Upon arrival, we see a small Drake walking the streets and our Barbarian proceeds to grapple it. Which angers the gnome owners who then send the Barbarian and another party member through Hell and then kick us out.
@NautArch Ah, yes. That's the other reason I like playing episodic campaigns that we can put down and pick up as we like; when my group wants to do silly stupid slapstick, we pull out Great Ork Gods or Long Live the King of Monsters and play that instead of inserting a Big-Lipped Alligator Moment into our Bubblegumshoe story.
@BanjoFox yeah, that's pretty much what the barbarian said. I had asked the DM if we knew they were evil or not and he said no, they're not. I have no idea why he did what he did, but we're kinda screwed now.
When he went to grapple, I tried to stop him and DM give him disadvantage on the roll.
then the DM clearly got very upset and I offered to try and Persuade the gnomes that we're sorry and that we're good people. He said "you can try, but I've just taken two characters out (on their way through hell), and I"m happy to TPK if that's what you want"
@BanjoFox that's a good term. But this was very surprising coming from this guy. He'd been escalating for a while and I honestly thought it was something between him and the DM (he has a sentient sword with a bloodlust that is a maguffin that outs the true king). I thought the sword was 'turning him' but the DM was so pissed that it clearly wasn't that .
@NautArch I had a conflict like that in one of my old games. We were supposed to be these rebel fighters helping to take down the evil wizard empire. but when we got to the capital city, one of the party members decided to just randomly kill a guy. I assume because he got bored
@nwp yeah, especially when another cahracter is trying to circumvent the conflict. I considered going straight PvP with the player, but that's not something we've ever done in the game and I didn't want to introduce it.
@BanjoFox If drakes aren't evil in the world the characters are from, it's a little gauche to TPK because of a player's assumption that the DM didn't bother to correct.
@nwp Not seriously for sure. I've definitely had moments joking with my players saying things like "You level 5 dudes ready to fight a lich today?" or stuff like that.
I learned a LOOOOOONG time ago even before I started GMing, Players are guaranteed to go off script and ruin what would otherwise be a well constructed plan at some point during the session/campaign. Trying to reign them in and give them tunnel vision only makes everyone more frustrated.
@BanjoFox There's a difference between "players going off the rails" and "players making assumptions based on common tropes that don't hold for the world they're playing in".
@Miniman - My hope was to use Drakes = evil as an example of something which may not always be true. If you wouldn't go kicking in doors in your neighborhood because its wrong/illegal what makes it okay in game :)
If I saw a monster in my neighborhood minding its own business, which is my interpretation of the scene, I would wait to see what happened. I try not to presume guilt or innocence based on previous biases. That is solely my opinion and not something that I would force upon anyone else.
@nwp - You are absolutely correct. I suppose I was using that (poor?) analogy as a way of saying that actions, even in game, may have unfortunate consequences.
General query: I'm trying to find a question that deals with seriously conflicting character interests in the party, and how to resolve them short of PvP - do any of the mods or more experienced people on rpg have any good questions they can point me to? Otherwise I can ask one (I've searched "irreconcilable differences" but haven't found anything)
@B.S.Morganstein I'd spend a day or two doing some long-form browsing in the social, group-dynamics, and problem-players tags. Sort by votes, and read a dozen or so in each.
@nitsua60 yeah, that makes sense. That's why I'm thinking of changing the system to just add a die to the damage roll (without dropping the lowest): it provides extra damage but with less chance to hit, so it ends up coming out just about evenly.
@B.S.Morganstein In short, though, I think you'll find that most of the good answers boil down to "talk it out." In gaming groups, like in marriages, I've found that it's much less important to arrive at a right answer than it is to arrive at an answer, together.
@A.B. So, about a year ago I started actually mentioning/admitting, in public, that I've played D&D. I've now got more games available to me than I have time to play in/run. I live in a town of 2-3K people, and we regularly run three, sometimes four, tables a night. (All from this town.)
@A.B. You could try your workplace, see if anybody there wants to play. If there are any comic/game stores near you, they might have Adventurer's League games, or open table nights where you can meet people.
@nitsua60 people are always asking the hard questions. I figure I'll take a read through the PHB again and see where it might work. But you make a good point, I have no idea what I'd do for disadvantage
d8-d8+str for that longsword attack... =) It'd actually accrue to the player's benefit if you floor the result at a non-negative number. Not gonna *feel* that way, but the maths work out.
Subtracting a die I suspect will actually be better than stock disadvantage, since the difference will likely be "I do a little less damage with my attack" versus "I do no damage with my attack, and I don't hit"
@BanjoFox It really was a great game night until the very end when the Barbarian went off the rails completely. There were two additional fights where we could have avoided killing someone but he was "in a rage" and just sliced them up as they begged for mercy.
If it wasn't for the fact that I'm doubling the next-best answer on the question about how to handle a player who calls for a rolls the DM "should" be calling for, I'd feel very alone about the idea that the DM should welcome such a call when that call is something he deems appropriate to call there.
@Miniman I mean, the last town we went in was overrun by evil and that may have been part of his assumption. But given the DM's reaction, I don't think we were supposed to fight these guys.
@Adam this seemingly the Pet of a gnome who sent some folks through hell after they messed with it (well, the barbarian grappled it, but the sorcerer gave them the finger, too)
@NautArch -- I feel that the DM, and players?, may benefit from the DM saying "Are you SURE you want to do that?" as a way of suggesting to hold off :)
@godskook - I am told that about a lot of popular/cult movies that others rave about, have yet to actually follow through
@BanjoFox it's possible that he did- but I don't think so. I also asked to stop him and that only imparted disadvantage instead of an attack roll by me. EVen the followup of, "can i talk to these gnomes and try to persuade them we're good guys" got shot down.
@NautArch Sounds like an evil dude, so I wouldn't be surprised if his pet happened to be evil too. Still, that doesn't change the fact that the situation escalated very quickly in a not exactly fun way
@Adam yeah, but then normal initiative would begin if that was the case. DM was really pissed when this happened and said we were supposed to find out where to go from these guys.
Hopefully things cool down for next session and we can do a mea culpa. GIve up some equipment to return us to good favor or something is likely going to help resolve it.
Actually, that could be an interesting campaign consequence. The Gnome shifts all of you to the nine hells, and you all have to search all over to find a way to get back home. But that would only work if tensions weren't so high
@godskook Not alone: I'm always happy to have an assist at the table. (Though I've never been in a situation where I felt like it was "second-guessing" or "usupring" rather than "lending a helping hand/ear.")
@NautArch @godskook Just an update on my group: after last night's session I had a great talk with the DM one on one about the state of the group, the different playstyles of each person, and how to resolve some of the ongoing issues. Conversation was non-confrontational, using examples from what has happened over previous weeks, and ultimately it went really well, and I'm looking forward to what the future holds!
Even after a rocky session last night I think the future is bright
@nitsua60 I've had both that and a well-intentioned player who was clueless about 3.5's ruleset, and so I had to stop him because he kept making wrong calls. But I've also had players make perfectly good calls.
@Szega Yeah, a player saying "I'm going to roll Persuasion on that goblin-boss" is perhaps my biggest pet peeve. But I've found that smoothing out since I've been much more intentional about trying to engage players' proficient skills (I've got a sheet with all the characters' class, skills, languages, backgrounds on it in front of me when we play) and have engaged the players in why I've got that sheet ("I'm actively looking for places to call on these things...")
@BanjoFox Just a little grid that mostly exists for me to have a place to make notes. But listing those things--that they've RAW got less agency in--and telling them I've got them listed and why seems to have made a big difference.
So, for instance, you can pick Infernal as a language your character knows. But you've got extremely limited ability to make that come up in play. (As compared to, for instance, picking fire bolt as your cantrip, which you can shoot off literally any time you'd like, appropriate or not.)
@godskook - I can certainly appreciate players wanting to help one another, however that only makes sense (to me) in the context of suggesting "hey maybe try this"
@nitsua60 If I agree with the player that the roll should be called there, I don't have a problem with him calling for the roll. If I don't agree, even if only situationally, I'll say something and escalate/resolve as appropriate.
@godskook I think I'm with you on all of that. I just actively try to head off the players' impulse to ever call for the roll. (By liberally throwing out there both "always succeed" and "impossible" situations, and by making it clear I'm looking for places where their skills could be relevant and so dialing down the "need" to call for one's own rolls.)
@nitsua60 I also leverage player rolls to inform the added fluff of a scene. One of my players' favorite scenes is when they made a check to ride gryphons in a situation where they coudl've taken 10. The PC who was local blew his roll and was tied to his saddle while the team's newest member rolled a nat 20, and started doing *TRICKS* while flying his mount.
They still talk about it, and its utterly irrelevant to everything.
Someone (recently on mainsite, I think) put something really well. What I create as GM isn't "the story." What the players do at the table with what I create isn't "the story." "The story" is what we all laugh about weeks/months/years later when talking about the session.
By that measure, @godskook, sounds like you're doing a good job creating stories =)
@Miniman @SevenSidedDie given enkryptor is just looking for editions in this question, I'd request you take a look at my comment(s) and reconsider the hold.
@nitsua60 I bring it up because I can't remember who called for that ride check, and it certainly and easily could've not been me(the scene was unimportant and transitional). Had I taken your position on calling for checks, I might've missed what turned into a memorable moment, in order to claim "authority" over it being "my" job to call for the checks.
@godskook That's not a bad point. And I may be coming across as more-restrictive than I try to be at the table. For instance, I'm often prompting my players for intent if I'm not really "getting" what's going on in the RP. (And I'm happy to have a player third-person it: "$character will spend a minute or two chatting with the shopkeeper trying to gain some insight as to what makes them tick.")
@godskook I think in that case, this GM would prefer someone ask "Hey GM, do you want a ride check or does everything go fine?" Leaves the door open for GM to accept or reject without being rude, especially in cases where the GM really wants to keep the pace at a certain level (i.e. we have an hour of the session left and you need to get through one encounter that you're en-route for so I can get a twist in)
@Delioth oh, in a perfect world, I'd prefer that phrasing, but I don't really see much value to break the session's flow to fix it in cases where I have no greater disagreement to deal with than "who called for the roll and how he phrased it". I also generally find that people don't particularly like being told how to phrase what they want to say, so another 'cost' against which I weigh my interference.
Most of the memorable moments I can recall would also have never existed had different decisions been made. The root of the OP is that someones toes felt as though they were being stepped on.
Much interpretation of this conversation is that it is primarily based on personal gaming style preferences :)
@BanjoFox and if that someone's toes are actually being stepped on, my answer is to have a conversation about it. My cautionary is to step back, and evaluate as the person who's toes are involved, "are my toes really being stepped on or am I possibly over-reacting in this case".
@godskook I guess we must just play in vastly different groups; we rotate GM's so everyone has mad respect for whoever is GMing and just defaults to this phrasing. Either way, it's something that would probably be discussed outside of table-time.
@BanjoFox I think that's a large part of the differing views on the topic - personal style and what everyone's individual groups do (mine always ask if GM wants the roll by default, some other groups apparently don't)
@BanjoFox That really doesn't change my position, though. It establishes a needed point of my position(that the PC is trying to help the game, not hurt it), but the fact that the DM has tried and failed to solve the "issue" doesn't change the fact that there might not have been an issue in the first place.
"These questions", asked by different people, are Can sub-races breed and produce half-subraces? and Which are races, and which are species?, closed as "opinion based" and "unclear what you're asking".
Honestly, I have no idea, how can it be "unclear".
In every particular setting there are fini...
@Adam yeah, that's what I found to. It seems like we've screwed up our campaign again and the DM isn't open to problem solving the issue but only in what we do instead. I asked specifically about whether or not we should introduce PvP, as I specifically decided against attacking my party member because that had never been done at the table. His response was "Kill him for all I care". So,yeah.
@godskook yeah the dm is back in vindictive mode. Just gonna roll with it and see where it takes us. If it's end of campaign, I'm ready for the next with a new dm
@NautArch Paranoia is famous for wholesale executing characters at the slightest provocation. One common trick is to play the Soviet March in the background just *barely* loud enough for people to hear, and as soon as someone references its existence in any way, they are summarily executed for listening to Communist propaganda.
@Papayaman1000 hahaha - our DM was playing music by Anvil and turning it up when something happens (I received some interference and lost a moxie point at one point)
Seriously, there are entire articles filled with ways to passably execute a PC. This is why I recommend a new GM NEVER start with Paranoia -- it's intentionally built around a "GM vs Players" mentality, for the lulz.
I especially love how meta it can get -- the system's rules are considered Ultraviolet clearance. Even knowing about Ultraviolet clearance is reason to be executed. Referencing knowledge of the rules is reason to be executed. It's low-ey encouraged for players to read the rules in secret. This is both hilariously thematically appropriate, and makes the authors more money, because now even non-prospective GMs will buy the book.
@NautArch Ah. The direction I feared quite a bit more.
I wish every Paranoia product came with a huge disclaimer that says "THIS IS NOT A NORMAL RPG. DO NOT TREAT IT AS IF ITS PRINCIPLES SHOULD BE APPLIED TO OTHER SYSTEMS."
Perhaps even use it as a way to prevent the mentality in other systems. "Hey, your main goal OUTSIDE of this system shouldn't be to kill the whole party; however, this system is perfect for getting that out of your system."
@Papayaman1000 The degree to which Paranoia does it is obviously too harsh, but my understanding, from talking to various people, is that having a turn-over rate even as high as 1 character per month is perfectly fine in a D&D game. Not normal, but fine.
@godskook Right. I'm the kind of DM where I'll stretch "are you sure" further than it really should be, but if a player does something that gets their character killed, then I won't Deus-Ex 'em back to life.
@godskook (Depending on how often you meet up - 1 PC/month might be fine if you meet weekly, it's pretty darn good if you meed more often, but it's pretty bad if you meet monthly)
Also, I don't feel like PC turnover has much bearing on GM vs. Player mentality - it could be that the PC's just like doing stupid stuff (Hey, we're level 2 now. We can totally take that dragon!); also, PC turnover could be very high as a known thing (Guys, we're playing in a deadly world for adventurers. Prepare yourselves) where it's an agreed-upon facet of the game the table's playing.
@GreySage I'm looking at a detailed list on my profile that's displaying the downvotes seperately , and my answer(source of upvotes) is not getting downvoted, so its definitely not the answer's downvotes getting rolled in.
On another note, site does some really cool stuff with visualizations. Also, the graph of reputation (godskook's) shows the line of where the rep-cap is (and I'm guessing the rep-cap does some weird stuff with how it's implemented)
@NautArch Hrm... no? I generally think of clones as reasonably disposable anyways :) I once had a game where I went through an entire 6-pack of clones in less than 30 minutes. After that it became a challenge LOL
Regarding GM v. Players in Paranoia.... it is supposed to be done in a FUN/Redonkulous way so that the whole point is to try and outdo one another. Including PvP
"These questions", asked by different people, are Can sub-races breed and produce half-subraces? and Which are races, and which are species?, closed as "opinion based" and "unclear what you're asking".
Honestly, I have no idea, how can it be "unclear".
In every particular setting there are fini...
