DRD1812's page

It's been a little while since I ran my last "The Hangover" session. The basic premise is that the party wakes up hungover and cannot remember what they did last night. The session is all about piecing together the events of the previous evening. Usually they have to find a missing item or partymate (who conveniently had scheduling issues that week).

I describe the setup in further detail over here. My question is this though: What are the most implausible shenanigans for a party of Pathfinders on a drinking binge? I could use a bit of help with the brainstorm.

Didn't you start a thread about pretty much the same topic two months ago?

Crap. So I did. My notes are out of order. :/

I'm looking for opinions on “the first level experience.” I’ve run into lots of hot takes about "first level is boring" and "all my games start at higher level" over the years. So here's my question: Should third level be the new first level? Or is there some other way to solve the twin problems of "extremely-fragile low-level mages" and "boring low-level play?" And if there is value to be found in start at 1st, what is it?

(Comic for illustrative purposes.)

I'm not an especially visual person. So when it comes time to describe a character's appearance, I often rely on the stat block rather than my own creativity.

"He's a dwarf in medium armor."

"She's an elf with a bow and a magical cloak."

Do you try to avoid confusion by using character art? Or do you prefer to let literary description + the mind’s eye do all the work? Is there a good rule of thumb for figuring out how the happy medium between "vague description" and "overkill?"

(Comic for illustrative purposes.)

One of my own calls that I second guess in retrospect was using "wind wall" to direct a "cloud kill" back at the players.

If you take cloud kill's advice and reference "fog cloud," you can reference text about how wind "disperses the fog in 1 round." But I thought that it would be clever play if a PC tried to do it, so why not the NPCs? The only trouble is that, since I'm the arbiter of what 'makes sense' in the world, it's awfully easy to look like you're favoring the bad guys / going for a "gotcha."

What level is the party/Paladin?

Party just hit Level 18 of the megadungeon, and are hovering around APL 17.

I quite like DeathlessOne's idea about 'no fraternization' until the year and a day is up.

Combine that with Mightypion's idea about the magical monster friendgroup who "hate to see their friend cruelly bound by a heartless paladin" and I think we've got a good plot.

Not quite sure how what level of critters to bring in though. Straight skill challenges always get a big silly when you're dealing with high-level play. The modifiers are so goofy-large that I have trouble keeping things reasonable.

I know what you're thinking. "Not another friggin' horny bard thread!" This is a good-faith question though. It actually came up at my table.

Here's the TLDR: A brass dragon had been trapped for centuries in a magical prison. Desperate for freedom, she tried to trick the party in swapping places with her. In the form of a half-elf, she begged the party's paladin to just -- pretty please -- step onto the suspicious dais.

"Alrighty then," said the paladin. "As long as you don't turn out to be some kind of creature that forces me to look on helplessly while you attack my friends, I guess I'll do it. Because I'm a paladin. And I believe in helping people. In fact, I can even imagine a scenario where I would still want to help someone even if they'd been less than honest with me up to that point."

Dude basically guilted the good (but slightly mad) dragon into admitting her ruse. The party managed to do a bit of problem-solving, and actually got the dragon out of prison. In gratitude, Calleosis (aka Callie) the dragon volunteered to serve the party for a year and a day. And because she was one of those "gregarious and whimsical" brass dragons, I thought it would be a good idea to give her a sense of humor.

"She returns to her half-elf form," I improvised, not wanting to give them a literal dragon cohort. "Only she's wearing a servant's livery this time."

"You mean, like, a maid outfit?" joked one of my other players.

I ran with it. And now I find myself trying to figure out what courtship would look like between this selfless paladin and his secretly-a-dragon maid.

The situation is ridiculous enough to have me stymied. What kind of plot developments would you spin out of this setup? I certainly don't want it to get weird, but I do want to support this paladin's chosen narrative. Any help with romantic comedy plots? It's a bit outside my wheelhouse in terms of genre.

DRD1812,

If you're willing to extend the established relationship between characters with the panache class feature (scroll down to the "Grit and Panache" section) and grit users to the Gunslinger's optional Daring Act rule (scroll down to right before Alternate Capstones), then the Swashbuckler can perform a "daring act" to regain panache:

That was driving me crazy! I remember reading the "daring act" rule a million years ago, but I thought it had been errata'd out of Swashbuckler. Turns out I was looking in the wrong class.

I can picture that optional rule falling flat at some tables, but I think it will play OK with my group. Cheers!

Now you're just going to make me cry... stay friends with the folks you gamed with. Make a point to have a beer or a coffee or something. Enjoy the friends you made along the way.

Now you're going to make ME cry. My paladin was my best man. We're all having our annual Secret Santa part this Friday. Tonight is group craft night on the Discord. They're good people, and they're the reason I think it's best to play with your friends.

I'm coming to the end of a long-running campaign. I'm talking 10+ years IRL of adventuring through a mega-dungeon. I've thought about writing up all the session summaries and turning that into a leather-bound volume for each of my players, but the cost (both in time and money) is prohibitive.

So help a gamer out. What's the best way you've found to memorialize your adventures?

(Comic for illustrative purposes.)

Is there any merit to relying on your allies for this biz? For example, if you've got a necromancer in the party, riding around on a skeletal wooly mammoth howdah seems like a viable option with slightly less feat investment.

Standing in the backfield while unloading shot after shot into the baddies is an appealing combat style. As an archer you’ll be full-attacking long before the dumb brute with the pointy metal stick closes to melee, meaning that you basically get a free turn just for rolling initiative. Of course, that assumes you’re fighting on a featureless plane. If you’ve ever plucked a bowstring, fletched an arrow, or shot into melee, you know just how rarely that’s the case. That in turn makes mobility really friggin’ important for an archer.

So here's my question to the board: What’s the best way to get around the battlefield as an archer? Do you go the mounted route? Buy a flying carpet? Get your Barbarian to play Master Blaster with you? Gimme all your best battlefield taxis!

(Comic related.)

You're a small-sized hero.

You just found a magic weapon / magic armor.

Your GM refuses to adapt the module to make any of this crap useful to your character because your GM is a colossal jerk butt. (And also possibly because the world doesn't revolved around you.)

What are the bet ways to resize equipment to fit your li'l dude?

(Comic for illustrative purposes.)

Pathfinder can get complicated. Familiarizing yourself with rules subsystems, antagonists' special abilities, and 3D dungeon layouts can all take time and effort. And yet, fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants GMing is a rewarding exercise in improv and wacky hijinks.

So here's my question to the board. Do you think Pathfinder lends itself to a pantsing style? Are there any tricks or resources that help to make making-it-up-as-you-go-along easier? Or conversely, is Pathfinder straight up better when you put in some minimal level of prep time?

(Comic related.)

So here's how it happened in my game. After our wizard cast his feeblemind on the assassin, the dude stabbed the hostage just like he'd threatened.

When the smoke cleared, the duchess (and her one remaining hit point) demanded an explanation. “What in the hells is the matter with you? I could have been killed!”

“Meh,” said the wizard. “We’ve got breath of life as backup. You wouldn’t have been killed for long.”

That's a fully rules-legal take, but it doesn't strike me as a very satisfying one. Is there a good way to make the old "human shield" shtick an actually-challenging challenge? How would you design this trope in your games?

(Comic for illustrative purposes.)

2) everyone plays a Vigilante and no one knows another's secret, leading to a farcical comedy of mistaken identities and silly antics.

I've seen the Glass Cannon guys use that to good effect over in the "side quest side sesh" podcast. That seems like the "natural" state of play for the class, and it honestly makes me wonder if it's even possible to play it straight.

I love me some vigilante dual identity. So much so that I've been known to hand it out as part of a homebrew "amateur vigilante" feat. It does tend to raise thorny questions though.

How far will you go to preserve your secrets? How central will secret identities be to the game? And perhaps most importantly, is the vigilante player on the same page as their GM?

So here's my question for the GMs of the board. When you introduce secret identities, how do you go about making sure that the player is getting everything they want from the trope? How do you structure a campaign to keep it from becoming silly? (e.g. Why doesn't the party recognize Clark Kent?)

Comic for illustrative purposes.

I miss those games. I miss that level of trust you're talking about DO. I don't know why all my players these days are so cynical and jaded they think every GM is a killer GM, or they think PF1 is just a tactical simulation, nothing more.

Might be time to break in a new group of first-timers. I found the opportunity to do that recently, and it's been crazy refreshing to see "that was so fan, I can't wait to play again!" after some simple clue-hunting and NPC interaction.

You’ve prepped the adventure, and your GM game face is on. Your quest hooks are laid like bait in a bear trap. You’ve got bandits waiting in the woods. Deadly peril is prepared to spring from the darkness in A3 (the Old Mill) and B1 (Collapsed Passage). Excitement and danger are hovering just around the bend, and all the players have to do is walk out that door. But then:

“Come on, guys. Let’s faff about in town all session.”

“I’m going to talk to an inn keeper for several hours!”

It's tempting to shrug and give it the old "so long as they're having fun." Ain't nobody want a railroad after all. But my tables tend to split between a hurry-up-and-get-to-the-next-thing and I-love-side-questing.

Therefore, my question to the board is this: When is it wisest to tap the breaks on the "main quest" and let the party linger? When is it best to nudge them forward with Chandler's Law? ("When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.") And how do you split the difference at your own tables?

(Comic for illustrative purposes.)

I've got a new campaign coming up this summer, and I'll be playing my first divine caster in ages. I'm have trouble wrapping my head around proselytizing in Golarion though.

When it comes to representing a polytheistic society, do you tend to favor state religions and devoted theocracies? If so, would a cleric get in trouble with the authorities for recruiting for her own deity? Or does your game world adopt more of a laissez-faire attitude? The existence of Hellknights suggests evil deities are cool as long as you aren't out there sacrificing people. But I'm genuinely unsure of the extent to which those faiths are tolerated when they become "active" rather than just passively existing.

(Comic for illustrative purposes.)

Off the top of my head, it's probably my current character's outfit. I took the trait rich parents. I then used most of my starting gold to buy a slew of masterwork tools and kits. The single biggest ticket item(s) though, are my clothes, which had to total either 150 or 250 gp.

Heh. I suppose that counts in the "as a percentage of total wealth" column.

Fun story about the 75 gp noble's outfit. It was a Crimson Throne gestalt campaign, and my two players were excited to play out the "gutter trash to hero" trope. When they got their first big score, they both immediately shelled out for the most ostentatious tailored suits they could afford. They even got their awakened poodle cohort a jeweled collar. They immediately went for a stroll in the city's rich quarter, then lost their s!&+ when I flipped around the laptop to remind them of the clip from Dumb & Dumber.

What is the most extravagant, expensive, and not-very-useful-in-combat purchase you've character has ever made? Was it a permanent spell effect? Funding for a new orphanage? A partial stake in a small business?

(Comic for illustrative purposes.)

This is a problem that I think of as “The Forest of Doom.” You’ve probably heard of it. Rumors of that fell wood abound in all the inns and ale houses of the kingdom.

“To set foot within the Forest of Doom is death!”

“That’s a cursed place, and no mistake! Those who venture beneath its boughs are never seen again.”

“I’ve head that even that shadow of the trees can kill. Beware, adventurer. Beware the Forest of Doom!”

Meanwhile my players are sitting there like, "Holy s~#+ you guys! I bet there’s all kinds of treasure in there!" That’s because all those fun, fluffy rumors are typical quest text. NPCs are expected to play up the dangers of local dungeons, making players feel like a big damn heroes when they stride boldly forth. But if the Forest of Doom is in fact a straight-up death trap, and if it’s a DC 25 save to avoid insta-death every round you’re in there, then we’ve got a set of competing expectations at play.

Ideally, players show proper caution. The respond appropriately to the dire warnings. They note the dead woodland creatures that ring the edges of the Forest of Doom, and realize from context clues that, “Oh. This isn’t a proper dungeon. It’s a setting element meant to show us that the ancient Hex War left an indelible scar on the land. Let’s maybe not go in there.”

You want to keep flavor on the one hand, but you also want to convey expectations on the other. So here's my question for the board: If you’re a GM, have you even been surprised when your players ignored all your dire warnings and did the “obviously stupid thing?” And in retrospect, was there any way to warn them more clearly?

(Comic for illustrative purposes.)

You use a jail? I annihilate them down to crimson dust particles in a burst of cosmic fire. Perform or be obliterated.

You see? If you treat your PCs with kid gloves, they won't treat consequences seriously.

there is a game mechanic built for this actually, you could have been a target of this ritual.

i was made aware of it thanks to this thread

Ha! That's hilarious. This trope is common enough that there's a specific mechanic for it.

I like that there's a built-in plot hook of "smash the maguffin" with that one.

PCScipio wrote:

Past 1st lvl, I always buy cold iron ammunition instead of regular.

There's no reason to buy regular arrows even at first level if stone is an option, since stone arrows do as much damage as regular arrows and are only 25 copper per 20.

Well sure. But then the other rangers make fun of you for not having designer arrows.

Main weapon of choice

+1 adaptive composite (+0) longbow
20-60 cold iron arrows with alchemical silver weapon blanch applied
sling, quarterstaff, and/or club at low levels
morningstar
adamantine heavy pick
daggers and/or handaxes to double as tools

I was wondering if I'd see weapon blanch in here. They always struck me as taking too much time to apply in the midst of combat, but I quite like the ammunition trick. Way smarter than buying actual adamantine arrows.

Folks like to talk about the "batman wizard" who has a contingency scroll for ever situation. What about melee dudes though? Getting disarmed sucks, and so does getting neutered due to DR.

So supposing that you're a well-prepared fighter: What do you put in the old golf bag of holding? And since wealth-by-level is always a concern, what's the most economical way to cover all your bases? When you’re building up your arsenal, what tools do you positively, absolutely have to have in your toolbox? What threats are too esoteric to warrant prepping for? And perhaps most telling: what is your current melee dude carrying?

Comic for illustrative purposes.

Suppose you've got a monster cohort. Your sparkle pony might be a "magical beast," but it's got human-level intelligence, languages known, and the personality of a pampered noble. For all intents and purposes (aside from a share of the loot), this is another member of the party. The problem is that they still look like an animal.

So here's my question. How do you help a non-humanoid feel like people? If you're on an incognito mission, the indignity of a stable for your unicorn or a bowl of offal for your blink dog might be acceptable. But when there are no beds for young dragons in ye olde inn, how can a PC go about placating their picky monster-bro?

Comic for illustrative purposes.

-1 perception per 10 feet.

-x perception per door/wall
-x perception from making their own noise.

100 feet down the hall behind a door while talking in a group is like -25 perception. When you're level 2 npc with 10 wisdom it's impossible to make the check.

The DC to hear the sounds of battle is -10.

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/perception/

Under these conditions (100 feet down a hall behind a door), a group of 4 goblins with a -1 to Perception still have a ~68% chance to hear combat at the gates.

The issues isn't overhearing conversation during the initial approach. The issue is reinforcements converging from the rest of dungeon as soon as the first combat breaks out.

This is a problem as old as dungeons, and it’s one that every GM has to figure out. How do you justify battling your way through a dungeon without fighting every inhabitant all at once? Why don’t the monsters seem to notice the sounds of slaughter emanating from the next room?

Typical answers include:

-- The monsters are selfish, and don't care about their comrades.
-- Infighting is common in this lair, so a bit of scrapping isn't cause for alarm.
-- Sounds carry strangely in the dungeon.
-- My guys do respond intelligently! I have cascading guard stations here, here, and here. Doesn't everyone?
-- I suspend my disbelief and play the damn game.

I’m betting you all have your own methods for this one. So as an exercise in better dungeon-building, share your rationale! (And, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that “dungeons don’t make sense which is why I don’t use them” is a less-than-useful answer.) All clear? Ready? Go!

(Comic for illustrative purposes.)

Adopted: Tusked. Lol.

I've always wanted to run a fighter/sorcerer gestalt build I call “Kitsune-Kitsune.” It involves beating your opponents to death with all nine of your very-fluffy tails. Because Kitsune-Kitsune was raised by a tribe of kobolds, she gets the tail terror feat. And through a liberal application of magical tail, she gets a lot of natural attacks along with a lot of spell-like abilities. Is it legal? Probably not. Fight me. :P

My go-to example for this sort of mechanic is the ever-popular Wayang Spellhunter. If you've ever piloted a magus, youj're probably familiar.

Wayang Spellhunter

Source Dragon Empires Primer pg. 14
Category Region
Requirement(s) Minata
You grew up on one of the wayang-populated islands of Minata, and your use of magic while hunting has been a boon to you. Select a spell of 3rd level or below. When you use this spell with a metamagic feat, it uses up a spell slot one level lower than it normally would.

Is it game breaking to ignore that region prerequisite and let players take this kind of ability willy-nilly? Or is the restriction a necessary part of game balance? What if you're playing in a non-Golarion setting?

(Comic for illustrative purposes.)

I poorly ran Kingmaker a while ago, which has extensive downtime opportunities for the party. And while, if I was to run Kingmaker again, I would never dedicate a whole session to kingdom building ever again. That is, quite literally, doing taxes... and is best handled through emails between sessions.

It honestly makes me wonder if you could make it fly as "prompts for and improvised encounter."

Like, if you did a round of downtime, then created an actual scene / encounter out of the results, it might feel a bit more like the normal course of play than that ultra-crunch addon system.

Do you not have another web comic link to illustrate the above point?

In point of fact, this one expresses my feelings nicely.

OP: you started this discussion last year:

https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43286?The-Phoenix-Down-Problem#1

Well crap in a hat. I really ought to take better notes. :/

We're getting to the end-game of my mega-dungeon at the moment, so it's on my mind again as my players still have that un-used wish item. I'm beginning to fret that it's going to deus-ex the finale.

I’ve been there. You’ve been there. We’ve all been there. The party has got the perfect item for the job, but it’s a single-use potion/scroll/whatever, and there’s no way you’re sacrificing your precious for commonplace purposes.

I think of this as the "phoenix downs" problem, referencing the trope of Final Fantasy players ending their playthrough with a trove of never-used resurrection items.

My question to the board: As a GM, how can you encourage stingy players to actually use all those fun one-shot items? Are there additional incentives that can help tight-fisted players loosen their grip on a potion hoard, or is this a spot where GMs should remain hands-off and let players do what they do?

(Comic for illustrative purposes.)

I wouldn't really worry about what 1d4chan.org thinks.

It's just a convenient example of the mindset.

Where I've personally encountered it was a Ravenloft game over in 5e. It was my father-in-law's group, and he absolutely loathed the idea of "you're trapped by the magic fog and can't leave." He's more sensitive to railroading than most, so even though the GM on that one went out of his way to tailor the campaign, he still felt as if he were being forced down a narrow path.

In other words, even though it was a well-executed campaign, he let the notion of being in an AP ruin the experience for him. This thread is more-or-less a direct response to that experience.

A GM who doesn't read and study adventures written by other people is neglecting one of the best resources out there to self-improve.

Great line, James! I do a bit of 3rd party stuff over at Adventure a Week, and I always like to say that 1st party adventures are a great way to understand how designers imagine their game to look like in practice.

Even if I plan to transition into homebrew, you better believe that I'm reading the adventures when I encounter a new system. It's one of the best ways to grok gameplay quickly.

Certain preconceptions seem to follow APs. The introductory explanation from 1d4chan serves as a good example. There we learn that modules are, “An accessory to games that companies sell for a gamemaster without the time or creativity to make their own adventure.”

You guys already know that gatekeeping is force for evil. That bit isn’t news. What’s more worrying to me is the next line in the 1d4chan entry: “A module contains a premade adventure the GM should be able to run for his group with minimal modifications.” More than the condescension, it’s this fundamental misunderstanding that bothers.

Let me be clear: you absolutely can run an AP “with minimal modifications.” You can also read quest text at your players verbatim using your best Ben Stein impression. These practices are how you wind up with a community that thinks of modules as GMing for dummies.

If you’re really giving it your all though, and if you’re embellishing and tailoring the adventure to your players, then you’re operating at a level of creativity every bit as valid as a homebrewed game. Rather than devoting your energy to worldbuilding or plot-crafting, those hours go toward fleshing out NPCs, incorporating player-specific subplots, or adding side-quests to the mix. That level of agency is exactly how you bring players into a game world, and it’s just as easy to do in modules as in homebrew.

So here's my question to the board: Have you ever run into that "modules are dumb" mindset in the wild? How do you respond to it?

(Comic for illustrative purposes.)

for a "diva" to exist, they need an audience. Do you see your fellow players and GM as passive observers there to heap praise on you?

This hobby brings folks together to actively spend their time creating a mutually enjoyable experience. They're not an audience, they're your peers, your equals.

On the contrary. In the performative situation of an RPG, the guy across the table from you is your co-performer AND your audience. The key is figuring out when to switch frames, come forward into the spotlight, or to recede into the background.

As a case in point, imagine a GM grinning across her screen, watching as the players battle back and forth (all in character!) without her having to lift a finger. During these RP-intensive moments, the GM becomes an audience for her players' performance.

A little light reading on the subject of RPG-as-performance:

https://www.amazon.com/Fantasy-Role-Playing-Game-New-Performing/dp/07864081 54

Ah, yes, first we must define our terms. We seem to have differing instinctual definitions of what a "Diva" is, exactly...

The GMG is interesting in that it describes almost all of these "archetypes" as potentially problematic, but not necessarily so. In my mind, a diva type player is all about being the center of attention. That's great if your group needs a bit of momentum to help break them out of moments of passivity, but it's less good when people feel like their on characters are being overshadowed.

You know the "problem player" archetypes that Paizo calls out in the GM Guide? One of them hits a little close home.

I identify as a diva. There’s nothing I like better than chewing some in-character scenery, adopting accents, and waxing eloquent about my extremely-interesting backstory. But as a self-acknowledged spotlight hog, I've had to come to grips with the idea of being part of an ensemble. So on the off chance that this is useful to any fellow divas out there, here's what I've learned over the years.

When you’re a natural diva, there’s a risk of becoming “the protagonist” rather than “a protagonist.” And if the other players feel like you’re overshadowing the rest of the cast, it’s on you to be proactive about the situation. In that regard, my favorite tactic is to check in with my party members from time to time: “What are you hoping to do with your character? Is there anything my guy can do to help set up a cool moment?”

You see, I think that there’s a little bit of GM in every player. The common wisdom is that it’s the GM’s job to manage the group and make sure everyone is having a good time. But I think that it’s the mark of a good player to shoulder a little bit of that load as well. You’re not just there to have fun. You’re there to help everyone else at the table have fun as well. That means playing foil to other PCs, standing out of the way when it’s time for someone else’s special moment, and in general helping your more introverted castmates to shine.

Not everybody thinks of RPGs in terms of performance, and it is by no means a requirement to game. But if you are the kind of gamer that likes to go for the Oscar, it pays to remember that RPGs are a group effort. Let your pals take center-stage from time to time, and your own performance will be stronger for it.

(Comic for illustrative purposes.)

What I try to do is remind my players that you don't need guaranteed success in order to contribute to a scene.

I may be pouncing a little too hard on a specific word, but the usage of "scene" here makes me wonder if there's a style difference at play. When players are "useless and get discouraged," is it maybe because they feel like they can't be the one to solve the problem? In other words, we GMs want them to contribute dramatically, but they want to contribute mechanically.

Have you ever seen a player give up and disengage? I've seen it happen in my own games when incorporeal foes resist weapon damage, golems prove immune to magic, or alchemists straight up run out of bombs.

The response I'm trying to avoid is, "I guess I can't do anything. I delay." At that point, the discouraged player checks out of the adventure.

As a GM, how do you help such players understand that there are other way to contribute? I mean, even if it’s a less-effective-than-usual option like setting up a flank, using aid another, or attempting an RP gambit like taunting the enemy, it's got to be more effecting than twiddling your thumbs and glowering at your mini!

(Comic for illustrative purposes.)

It was a tough session. Your plucky band of merry muderhobos nearly cleared the Crypt of the Trap-o-Mancer, but that last flight of poisoned arrows was one trap too many. Bob’s bard bled out within sight of the exit. There was much weeping, a somber burial scene, and the traditional looting of the corpse.

So there you are a week later, happily prepping your session notes when a MyFace notification pops up. And in a raspy voice from beyond the grave, Bob’s bard whispers those fateful words: “Wait! I had cover!”

In the wider world of gaming, there are certain phrases that cover this situation. “You took your hand off the piece!” and “A card laid is a card played!” both spring to mind. If the initiative has moved on through another couple of turns, and especially if the session ended yesterweek, the natural response is to shrug your shoulders and say, “That sucks, but it already happened.” The other option is to declare a full retcon, but breaking the integrity of the game world always rankles. That leaves us with the other other option, which generally lies in the land of narrative shenanigans, e.g. “You wake up in a pinewood box. Roll to attack the coffin lid.”

So here’s my question for the board: In your opinion, what’s best practice here? Is there a statute of limitations on fixing rules errors after the fact? Adjusting a few errant hit points might not be a big deal, but saying that Bob’s bard’s funeral never happened is a bit of stretch. How would you handle it if you missed a rule, the PC died, and now you’ve got to figure out some way to move forward?

Comic for illustrative purposes.

"DM, what are the societal/cultural norms for this creature and have I ever heard of a creature like this choosing the path of good?"

"They're like 99.9% evil...but some do choose to be good instead."

I feel like this is the default. The orc presented in the bestiary is CE, but it is a "typical orc" on Golarion. Exceptions are explicitly allowed.

It makes me curious if there are any exceptions to that default: these creatures are always [alignment] 100% of the time.

Let's talk about untrustworthy allies and backstabbing henchmen. This mess generally follows the pattern of 1) party meets creepy critter; 2) party falls for creepy critter’s sob story; 3) party decides to invite said monstrosity to tag along.

“Oh don’t worry,” they’ll say. “We’ll keep a close eye on them.”

But then the inevitable happens. The second that the drow / adorable goblin / succubus-with-a-heart-of-gold gets half a chance, it’s all maniacal cackling and long live the king.

Where do you guys come down on this one? Are evil monsters generally irredeemable, or are they just a pat on the head and a job offer away from fighting for the good guys? And if you do go for the redemption arc, how much work should the party expect to put in to redeem a captive baddy?

(Comic for illustrative purposes.)

The quest giver could give the quest in whatever style best fit that NPC, then I as a DM handed them a laminated quest. That they got to put onto their magnetic board under main or side quest.

I'd heard about GMs doing quest bulletin boards, but not an ongoing quest trackers like this. My knee-jerk reaction is to turn up my nose and go, "Ugh. Video game tropes! Not on my tabletop!" But really, I bet this would do an amazing job of focusing players and getting everyone to stay on task.

When it comes to handing out quests, there’s a tightrope that GMs walk between clarity and characterful exposition. The back and forth of letting players know what's expected without sounding like World of Warcraft quest text can be difficult.

“Bring me XYZ and I shall reward you with ## gold” might be easy to write, but it isn’t all that interesting. Therefore, I'm looking for a little perspective from all the GMs out there. What's the best way to deliver "the quest" without sounding forced?

Comic for illustrative purposes.