Search Posts
It also says you can't speak. Does this mean a human polymorphed into an elf cannot speak? The polymorph spell turns the target into a beast: The new form can be any beast whose challenge rating is equal to or less than the target's (or the target's level, if it doesn't have a challenge rating).
I wouldn't allow it. If subtle spell was intended to override the "can't cast spells" limitation of polymorph, it would explicitly say so.
But the chance of some catastrophe destroying the amulet approaches 100% as you get closer to infinity. Until you add in magic, then the chance goes down really low.
Hi all, Has anyone had any experience with this archetype from Unearthed Arcana: Waterborne Adventures? I have a player using this one right now, seems quite good. It can be read on page three and four of this pdf: http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/UA_Waterborne_v3.pdf Thanks in advance for any feedback.
Another_Mage has ignore scripts in their profile. Thanks for this. I'll definitely be trying it out.
That's fair, but then it doesn't seem to mesh well with the idea of starting occupations - where you have a career before the start of the campaign at level 1. I'll take your word for it, as I said, I'm not incredibly familiar with d20 Modern. From a non-system specific standpoint, I would say if you can be a "Doctor" at level one, then I would imagine a level 1 doctor to be the equivalent of someone that just got their M.D. I.e., someone about to enter their residency to continue their training. Same with a "Military" occupation - that's an incredibly broad label. It could be someone that went through a military prep school. The point being that a modern soldier, having finished their training and as competent/certified to handle a variety of weapons, is not going to be a level 1 character. Your expectation of what a soldier should know based on your real life experience may not match well with the game designers.
And if there was an organized group or groups that represented atheists that were pushing these values, lobbying for these values, spreading these values to their members that meet every Sunday, you'd have a point. The difference is, atheism isn't a religion. Atheists aren't an organized group with a hierarchy, rules and regulations for being an atheist, etc.
Ah well. Maybe if I realign my expectations and try to rebuild a character that is better suited towards a novice, I'll enjoy it more. That or get a group that all wants to start at a higher level. I think its important in most game systems to keep level 1 as a novice. It seems that there is a certain segment of players that want their characters to be accomplished heroes at level 1, regardless of the system used. I think this is why a lot of the complaints about "my character concept doesn't work in this system, therefore the system is bad" falls flat. Its a difference of expectations between the player and the system.
The premise was, if I remember correctly, to take an ordinary guy/gal from our modern world who most likely isn't trained in anything and then level them up to a point where they're now a Somebody. It's dumb but not entirely unlike 5e's "beginners" stage of 1st and 2nd level. That sounds like a really good idea. I can't speak to the execution, as I didn't play more than a handful of sessions of d20 Modern, but starting off as a nobody and becoming a somebody is exactly what I'd hope for in a leveling up system.
So let me summarize. Group bandied about the idea of a high level game even though they have little to no experience with high level games. One player suggests multiple limitations, group/GM agree to some but not all of the limitations player suggested. Player uses content that he previously suggested limiting and blew up the game, making it fun for no one. Player takes offense that other players/GM are now instituting more limitations. Or in other words, Player knows more about the game than the other players/GM and didn't like when the other players/GM didn't accept that. Player decides to take the "I'll show them" strategy to try to force the other players into accepting that Player knows more than they do. This has low self-esteem written all over it.
Hi, I have been noticing lately that there are certain sections of the site that have a lot of advertisements for RPG products. Sometimes these are ads from the creator of the product, other times they are reviews of a product encouraging people to buy them. Are there any rules regarding where these advertisements are allowed to appear?
I read somewhere (maybe even on these boards) that when a dominant power group looses some privilege or power over a minority group(s), it is perceived like oppression. With the shifting demographics and ideologies in America, a lot of this is going to be felt in the next couple decades. My hope is that things don't get out of control as history has shown it to happen numerous times in the past. Definitely true. When 90% of things are going a group's way, and then there is a law change which reduces it to 85%, the group complains often and loudly about that lost 5%. They don't stop to think about all of the groups out there that only have 15% of things going their way.
I agree with this from personal experience, but if most of my experience with atheists were the folks who make a stink about it on the internet, I'd expect us to be, at best, demeaning toward people of faith. People who deride religion as being related to a "made-up sky fairy" to paraphrase what I have seen wouldn't be expected to play nice at church mixers. Just another example of the worst elements being the ones that are memorable or noticeable. There are obnoxious members of all groups, that's a given. As far as militant atheists, a lot of their aggressive style comes from frustration. You can only tell people that words from an ancient selectively edited book don't constitute proof so many times before copping an attitude.
As for prayer in school, I feel your pain. I live in the Midwest and one school some of my nieces attend started REQUIRING all students to recite Muslim prayers each morning... It created a storm of angry parents many of whom are now pulling their children out of that school. The schools response as far as I understand it is: "We need to be inclusive of other religions. So ONLY Muslim prayers will be said." Unless this is a private religious school, I find that highly unlikely. Care to share the name of the school? This is the kind of thing that would be top news among some of the anti-religion groups I follow, and I haven't heard a peep.
I also really enjoy the simplicity of 5e - it moves the focus away from building a character to playing a character. That being said, I think there is often a difference of opinion of what a level one character represents. When you look back at the origins of D&D, a level 1 character was incredibly fragile and had basically no special abilities. Level one was meant to represent just starting out on a career as an adventurer. Throughout the editions, level one has become bloated to the point that a level one character is now far more powerful than the average person in the world. Even considering that, space colonial marine might still be beyond level one. Lastly - house rules and or making your own system are always options, and often times going through such an exercise will teach you about things that work and things that don't work.
I would definitely take the lich deal. I can think of a few people who I'd be slinging spells at shortly after.
Which ones are they listening to or watching? The two that I can recall by name are Critical Role and Acquisitions Inc. Never watched streamed games, have no interest in them, never met another player new to the game or not who was either, so I can't say I've noticed this in the slightest. Thanks for the feedback.
Hello all, I've noticed a trend with 5e in which a lot of the players that are new are being introduced to the hobby by way of watching recorded / livestreamed games. The expectations that these new players and DMs seem to have is far different from what I am used to. The two expectations that stand out to me are high production values and a fairly railroaded type of game. Has anyone else noticed this or have any experience with the impact of these type of games on the player base?
Storytelling is a big part of it. Being able to be creative is also great. Being a GM is often like having a captive audience to listen to your weird ideas. Also fun for me is passing on the tradition. Not just gaming, which is important, but a particular style of gaming that seems to be vanishing.
As I'm almost always the GM, preparing for the next session is time-consuming and can feel like work at times. That said, I usually enjoy it.
Of course, some players don't want the GM to add to or create their backstory for them. I know personally that if the GM tried to add things to one of my character's backstories, I wouldn't like it.
I don't think playing online changes anything in this regard - there's generally a lot of disruption in campaigns even with f2f games. The main difference being that when you play f2f, often times you are already friends with the other players, and as such, you have more reasons than gaming to keep in touch. If you're looking for a multi-year commitment, expect to be disappointed regularly.
When I played PF, I skimmed them. So many of the rules were carry overs from 3.5 that reading everything cover to cover seemed like a waste.
Most of the time, I prefer playing in games that put a focus on role-playing, and as such, I seek out those kind of games and those kind of players. Players that don't fit are replaced. Eventually I have a good group of players and everything works out well.
Well, to each their own. I found my INTJ profile to be very accurate. I've taken the same one on three different occasions (spread out over a few years) and have always come up INTJ. Besides, I don't think that the descriptors do anything harmful. Some people read them and find them very fitting, others don't think so. I've used the personality test with co-workers and read the section about interacting with their personality types and have found it very helpful.
Ya see I'd agree, except they were players with little or no experience with the game. So they didn't have enough to figure out which stat generation method liked or not, and only really had hearsay to go off of. I'm not sure exactly what this means. Someone suggested rolling, the group said sounds fun, they rolled, then they said they didn't like it? You say these players had little or no experience - where did the idea of "my scores aren't as high as Bob's, I want a re-roll" come from? Hope you don't think I'm interrogating you, I am geniuinely curious.
Your group of players with little or no experience had balance concerns with players having different stats? If the group thought different stats = balance concern, why did they decide to roll in the first place? My point is, not all players are munchkins who only care about themselves. I agree, and furthermore I never used the word "munchkin", which is generally associated with cheating. I'm not suggesting these type of actions indicate a cheater. I'm suggesting they indicate a complainer.
Woo, a fellow INTJ! I'm also an INTJ - I'd guess INTJ's are well-represented in the gamer community. If others want to know what INTJ is, here's a good link: INTJ Description
I had a group which favored random rolls at first, due to a very strong "purist" and RP-first mentality we had in the group. They disliked pointbuy as they saw it as encouraging munchkin-ism. Gradually though, they grew to dislike randomly rolled stats as with the way they'd roll we'd too often have to reroll else they'd have a grossly overpowered or underpowered character, and party stats varied too wildly to allow for reasonable scaling of difficulty. It just stopped feeling random with all the rerolls, it felt like we were faking it. I am always surprised when I hear stories like this. This is how this reads to me:
While every group should pick whatever stat generation method that works best for them, it continues to shock me that people don't point a finger at the attitude of a player that agrees to roll for stats but then complains when they roll low. In my experience, this attitude will cause problems even if you don't roll for stats. It crops up in the form of a player complaining that they don't have an opportunity to shine, or complaining that magical items aren't evenly distributed, or complaining when the exact item they want to purchase isn't available, etc. It seems often people take the position that it isn't worth it to try to address the root of the problem, or separate the player from the group, and instead try to develop workarounds. I'm just not sure why.
People who don't use capitals, punctuation, spelling, grammar, or full sentences on the forums. I'm not perfect at this and I'm not expecting perfection either. I just would like to see an effort so I don't have to read posts that almost seem to be in another language given how long I have to spend deciphering them. Agreed. This is especially surprising to me when found in a character application. If applying for a game, shouldn't you try to put your best foot forward? I immediately eliminate an application with numerous spelling and grammar errors, and I have to assume I'm not the only one.
I'll just say that as a player, I hate this technique. Making up world stuff in play breaks me out of character, making me think about the game and setting in way the character wouldn't be. Some of that is unavoidable, but I'd rather not add more than necessary. Agreed. I think everyone has a line in the sand that separates TTRPGs from playing make believe. To me this method moves much closer to playing make believe than I am comfortable with as a player.
I can't speak to Wrath, as I have never run it, but the desire to have the most powerful character possible is something you will encounter frequently in the PF player community. Your best bet is to try talking to the player and explaining your expectations. If the player can't or won't reign it in, then you should part ways. If that is also not an option, then my condolences. As a last ditch effort, I would have the enemies team up against the PC of that player. If his character is incredibly powerful, then surely others are taking notice (especially with all the different sorts of magic out there that provides information.)
In a way, it does. The GM builds the world and everything other than player actions in it is decided by or OKd by him. If a player's backstory doesn't fit in with the world or the game set forth by the GM, the backstory must yield. In essence, backstories are hooks for the Gm to play with or ignore as he pleases, not something writ in stone that they must abide by. Sure, but imagine this situation:
The player has one impression, the GM has a different. Who's takes precedence? Well as the player is the one that created the backstory, the player should get final say what his PC would/wouldn't do based on his PC's backstory.
Players who complain about GM rulings constantly. You may not agree, but for the sake of moving on, drop it. Players who don't appreciate the amount of time GM's put into making the session & campaign. This can take the form of not paying attention until it is their turn in combat, otherwise they're silent. Then when they try to do something that doesn't really make sense, they have to be caught up to what has happened since they last acted. Or when a GM explains how something works in their world, the player puts in "Well, in a normal game, it works like ..." Or when a player wants to spend an inordinate amount of time talking about something non-game related. GMs that want things to go a certain way, and so they subtly or not-so-subtly railroad players into certain actions. GMs that try to force the PCs to have a friendship with a certain NPC. GMs that ask for a backstory, and then don't expect it to impact the character at all. GMs that think their understanding of a PCs backstory trumps the player's understanding.
I'm still having a blast with 5e, not sure I'll ever go back. If I played PF again, I'd probably allow rogues to sneak attack with one ally adjacent to their target, including with ranged attacks.
The problem was that I made a bad call. I've seen this same thing with new GMs. A player asks for some kind of exception to the rules, might be a banned race or class, might be to start play with a certain magic item or odd animal companion, etc. The new GM wants to keep his players involved in the game, and so says yes to the exception. Then things start to snowball out of control as other players question or demand exceptions for their characters. This is where saying "no" is appropriate and will lead to a better game.
It would seem then that the norm for anyone willing to GM is they will quickly have more people asking to play than they can handle. Definitely true, especially online. I posted a game with 6 slots for players and received over 80 applications. I personally think a lot more people are capable of GMing, its just taking that plunge to run your first session and getting the bug. Agreed. Successful campaigns are built on graveyards of unsuccessful campaigns. As far as the whole gratitude angle, when I am lucky enough to be a player I always try to say thanks to the GM at the end of each session. I know how much work is involved in GMing, and I like to show my appreciation for the GM spending the time to do so. I think this goes beyond gaming though, as it seems a lot of younger people find saying "thank you" to somehow place themselves in an indebted position or something. I base this around the fact that whenever someone suggests to them that they should say thank you, they have an attitude of "If the person didn't want to do the thing, then they shouldn't have done it." Completely missing the point that saying thank you is simply a common courtesy, not something that makes a person submissive or weaker or whatever the concern is.
I have to say I've found the opposite. Some of the most heated arguments I see about this are from GMs. I'm on a GMs and DMs board on facebook and that's where most of the commentary about how hated railroading is comes from. Gms who say that's never the way we did it inthe old days, every thing was home brew, you built the adventure around the party and never used a modules. They thing GMs who use modules are lazy. I hardly ever hear complaints about railroading from players. I find players will flock to paizo's APs at the drop of a hat This matches my experience as well. Players are much more comfortable with railroads now, some even demand them. There's one poster on here who said something to the effect of "I won't play in a completely homebrewed game." I'm sure he's not alone in that view. I had one player in a f2f game that said he wanted all plot hooks handed directly to him (as in, describe an NPC as having an exclamation point over his head so the PC would know he could get a "quest" from him.) Everyone plays for different reasons. Some simply enjoy rolling dice and moving their mini around. For these players a track is helpful. Other players enjoy figuring things out, making decisions, acting as their character would, etc. For these players, obvious tracks are detrimental to their fun. That's why I said the best tracks are invisible. I've yet to see a DM who is good enough to have absolutely zero tracks and still run a really good game. But if the tracks are subtle enough to not be noticed, then all is well and good.
Yeah, in my experience it has led to much better games. Players have a natural tendency to push against boundaries. When the boundaries are not upheld, a little wiggle room often becomes a lot of wiggle room which becomes a campaign that falls apart.
The best railroads are invisible.
I've always found saying "No" to be one of the most important skills that a GM needs. More recent GM advice seems to suggest the "Yes, and" method, which casts "No" as something to be avoided. IME, more campaigns have fallen apart due to a GM's inability to say "No" than to a GM actually saying "No."
Thanks to everyone for their input. My hypothesis regarding the lower number of GMs was related to the changing role of the GM over the years. In early editions of D&D, there was a pretty profound GM = the boss, don't question him or her, his or her decision trumps all written rules mentality. While there was a lot of push back over that mentality due to some bad experiences, I was wondering if perhaps the pendulum has swung too far. In the few games I have been able to get into as a player, the GMs have come across as people-pleasers. Anytime a judgment is made, they seek validation from the players regarding their decision. They seem very focused on the players liking them rather than liking their game. It's interesting to see other viewpoints and how there may be other factors in play that aren't so obvious.
The BBEG was a good guy, then discovered a tome of lost lore, which put him in contact with a Great Old One. The BBEG then went on to do some horrible things. When the BBEG discovered the means to travel back in time, he did so to stop himself from getting the tome. So he sends his Dragon to grab himself as a baby and bring him to himself as an adult, with the goal of preventing himself from ever contacting the Great Old One.
Hi all, So I have noticed recently that there seems to be a real shortage of the number of people that are willing to GM. Looking at sites like Roll20, there seems to be somewhere between 5-10 times the number of people applying for the number of slots available. Is this a new trend, or has it always been this way? Why aren't more people willing to give GMing a chance? I'm curious to hear your opinions. Thanks.
For several years I played with a tabletop group that consisted of some permutation of the same 8-10 people. While fun, it was difficult to get the kind of game I really wanted - in-depth RP. Every game ended up being beer and pretzels. After a long time of trying to convince the players to buy into an in-depth RP game, I wised up, and got new players. Now I get to play in games I really enjoy, with players that really enjoy them. Moral of the story - if your game preference and the players preference don't mesh, get yourself a new group.
The problem I have with 5E starts with that every class is locked in with one of three variations. Not options but variations which you must chose. None of them really all that interesting really. That is like a GM telling me I have to play a class the way he wants. Hate that! Would rather stay home and read a book then do this.As opposed to...? A system that has only one variation? I think he's saying he prefers a system with loads of options. The player then mixes and matches options to create a character. Then he'd consider that character "his." Since 5e is designed around simplified concepts, he feels like he's being given very limited choices without an opportunity to customize and come up with his own character based on selecting a ton of options. While I like a lot of the options for theorycrafting (or building characters for the sake of building characters) - I prefer 5e's simplified approach for actually playing the game.
For my next 5e campaign I'm going with 4d6 drop lowest, assigned as desired. If you don't like your stats, you can take the standard array instead. I've used that before - feels like it solves the "I rolled terribly" problem while still allowing for some randomness.
One of the things I didn't like about 3.5 or PF was the overabundance of humans. It was almost exclusively due to the bonus feat (at my table). When I saw the 5e variant human for the first time, I envisioned the same problem. As such it makes more sense to me to disallow the variant. If the result of that is no one picks human (which hasn't been the case with my 5e experience so far), I'm okay with that. The change of pace would be refreshing.
I don't think it's nearly as simple as "new players are happy with classic and long time players want something new." Definitely not. In my mind, if you try to bring a cyborg into the fantasy world that I am used to for TTRPG, you're doing it wrong. At no point in the past twenty five + years that I have been playing have I gotten bored with the traditional fantasy setting and wanted to bring in anything obviously anime inspired. I'd rather not play than play in a world like that. That being said, it's cool that there are so many different game systems which allow for different types of games. While I don't want to mix traditional fantasy and sci fi, I think some of the sci fi settings look cool in their own right (Monte Cook's new one looks interesting and I assume it is sci fi.)
You'd probably be shouted off the forums :p
And the root problematic mechanic is D&D magic, as it has developed to the state in 5e. Since that's not present in other... Hmm, well, that's too bad that you had these issues with 5e. The only thing I can suggest is to talk with your group of players and try to write down the mechanics of 5e that you don't like. Assuming your players mostly agree on the problematic mechanics, then if you still want to try 5e, you can add some house rules to get the game working how your group wants it to work.
|
