|
Post by Southpaw Hare on Nov 27, 2017 4:59:45 GMT 1
So, we finished the Tails of Equestria module. We actually finished over a week ago, and I have several weeks backlogged to explain - I've been procrastinating on doing so because, to be frank, the module went largely By-The-Book without too many odd twists. The basic story points that were played out: - The group found Professor Gullytrotter, who had not been captured, but was trying to hide from Dr. Cablblblblbl since he expected the (canonically villinous) doctor to be up to no good.
- The Professor shared with the group a number of ancient stone tablets which explained a series of trials in the Badlands which, if completed, might lead to the source of the Curse.
- The group completed the trials, which included:
- Fighting the Tatzlwurm, which they had completed pre-emptively already
- Making a dragon laugh
- Not being a dick to a big mother roc, and bonus points for helping her initially lost and injured baby roc
After completing the trials, the collected trinkets formed a staff which pointed the way to the ultimate goal - which Dr. Carbadarb attempted to suddenly steal at the last moment. The mysterious mare who turns people into statues, Moonbeam, showed up too, leading to a big melee on all sides. The group chased Moonbeam to where the rod was pointed, confronted her, realized that she's just tragically misunderstood, and befriended her. The Curse was seemingly shut down, and a door to the underground from which it originated opened up, leading to the next (soon-to-be-released module).
So, the path through this adventure was pretty linear, as somewhat expected from the material in question. Here are some of the exceptions in which the players of this group did some unique and interesting things: - Ferrous, who realized that the baby roc was in need of caring for and determined that rocs eat rocks, chewed up several rocks in her mouth (akin to Maud) and regurgitated the resulting gravel for the roc, in the way a mother bird might feed its young. It was as adorably sweet as it was horribly disturbing.
- Goldmyst, seeing potential in the Tatzlwurm snot and the resulting disease it can cause, decided to alchemically weaponize it. He then proceeded to threaten many NPCs with this horrible plague illness whenever there was a call for diplomacy, and inevitably used his biological weapon in the penultimate fight. Many Umbrella Corp jokes were made.
- While everyone participated in all of the challenges, Stacked Deck coincidentally ended up being the one who received the ultimate prize trinkets from each of them, as well as the golden rod that they produced when brought together. We joked that this rod was the Millennium Rod, and that (as essentially Yugi in pony form) it was his destiny to obtain a Millennium Item.
All in all, we really enjoyed our time playing this game. The system is simple, yet it doesn't treat you like an idiot. It's capable of being Babby's First RPG, without assuming you are babby. That said, we're going to be switching to something a bit more traditional in the coming weeks: we'll be trying out Ponyfinder, which is, naturally, Pathfinder with ponies. More to come.
|
|
|
Post by Plum on Nov 27, 2017 12:25:12 GMT 1
So we tried to introduce our new characters to the party but it didn't go so well. First up, of the five in the party, the two that died (and are being replaced) were the Good ones. Of the remaining three, the next most friendly has actually fled from the group entirely and is currently blubbing her heart out in a forest in private. The remaining two are amoral sociopaths - a druid that murders freely (though he at least had the sense to hide it from his party) and a racist tiefling warlock that pretty much hates everyone and humans especially.
We rocked up with our two new characters, human sisters, and had some very frosty mexican standoff introductions. At which point I figured we would just hand-wave the RPG bits a little in order to actually have a functioning team. We all want the same goal after all, defeating Strahd. Nope. The two existing players roleplayed that they didn't want help from strangers and left. So now our poor GM is now running two completely independent teams. My fellow new character and I are now going to steal all of their allies and flip the tables, which will be easy because as I say, both of the surviving characters are assholes (which is of course why they survived - they ran as soon as things looked bad). We've already convinced one of those allies and I don't foresee any problems persuading the third player (the currently traumatised ranger) to join us. That just leaves the old man and his apprentice, both of whom have recently been insulted by our former group leader.
Interesting times!
|
|
|
Post by Southpaw Hare on Nov 27, 2017 12:44:26 GMT 1
So we tried to introduce our new characters to the party but it didn't go so well. First up, of the five in the party, the two that died (and are being replaced) were the Good ones. Of the remaining three, the next most friendly has actually fled from the group entirely and is currently blubbing her heart out in a forest in private. The remaining two are amoral sociopaths - a druid that murders freely (though he at least had the sense to hide it from his party) and a racist tiefling warlock that pretty much hates everyone and humans especially. We rocked up with our two new characters, human sisters, and had some very frosty mexican standoff introductions. At which point I figured we would just hand-wave the RPG bits a little in order to actually have a functioning team. We all want the same goal after all, defeating Strahd. Nope. The two existing players roleplayed that they didn't want help from strangers and left. So now our poor GM is now running two completely independent teams. My fellow new character and I are now going to steal all of their allies and flip the tables, which will be easy because as I say, both of the surviving characters are assholes (which is of course why they survived - they ran as soon as things looked bad). We've already convinced one of those allies and I don't foresee any problems persuading the third player (the currently traumatised ranger) to join us. That just leaves the old man and his apprentice, both of whom have recently been insulted by our former group leader. Interesting times! That all sounds pretty unfortunate and disappointing. If you had to handwave all of the actual roleplaying just to continue on with a group that doesn't make sense, then what's the point? What are you even continuing? I'd suggest seriously trying to tackle this issue with a group discussion, lest you basically forfeit ever getting into character ever again.
|
|
|
Post by Zejety on Nov 27, 2017 13:29:30 GMT 1
Without knowing more about your group's playstyle, I feel like the players of the evil characters were a little immature. If metagaming is required to fulfill the basic premise of the game, then by all means metagame IMO. I'm sure they could have come up with a reason why their characters would want a larger party. Now the DM has to handle two groups and everybody can effectively only play half of the time... :/
|
|
|
Post by Southpaw Hare on Nov 27, 2017 14:24:31 GMT 1
Plum The problem your group is running into is something called My Guy Syndrome, and it is a well-documented problem in RPGs: rpg.stackexchange.com/q/37103/7253It is essentially when someone creates their character to have a personality or to do certain actions that makes the game overall less fun for everyone else, and then does those things while claiming that "it's just what my character would do." It comes up when people use character consistency as justification for otherwise problematic play. Getting into character and playing them consistently is a very good thing. However, everyone having fun is even more important. If someone is playing a character that makes the game frustrating, boring, or dysfunctional for other players "just because their character is totally like that," then they shouldn't be playing a character like that in the first place. The players playing the asshole characters are not devoid of responsibility of their characters being assholes. If it's a real problem (and it definitely sounds like it is), then they should get a talking to, and should seriously consider (or be made to consider) switching to something more group-friendly.
|
|
|
Post by Plum on Nov 27, 2017 18:39:23 GMT 1
Yeah, it was pretty annoying. That SE page was an interesting read, if only so that I can try to avoid these pitfalls myself. I particularly liked the response that suggested instead saying "My guy would do *this*, so long as *that* hasn't been accounted for...", giving the DM an easy option if they need it.
I figure I'll use the angry edginess of their characters against them though. We've hit the level where we have flight so we're just zipping around getting buy-in from the various allies we've made so far. Eventually we'll reach a critical mass where the other party have to team up with us because no-one else will work with them, at which point we'll be one group again. It just means that we're all just spinning our wheels for an entire session though, rather than advancing the plot. I might actually just email one of the players and say this is what we're doing, can you just accept our 'help' so we can get on with things
|
|
|
Post by Southpaw Hare on Nov 27, 2017 20:12:40 GMT 1
I figure I'll use the angry edginess of their characters against them though. I personally wouldn't really take a passive-aggressive approach on this. Letting them hang themselves through their poor choices will just end up making everyone angrier, and the group may just fall apart completely. It's better to talk out the problem openly as friends (assuming you guys are actually friends, not just just people who vaguely tolerate playing in the same game). If that ends up ending the game anyway, it will at least be with bridges slightly less burned.
|
|
|
Post by mysticjuicer on Nov 27, 2017 20:57:37 GMT 1
alternatively, solve it the D&D way: kill them and take their stuff
note: I don't actually suggest this
|
|
|
Post by Plum on Nov 28, 2017 12:24:16 GMT 1
I personally wouldn't really take a passive-aggressive approach on this. Letting them hang themselves through their poor choices will just end up making everyone angrier, and the group may just fall apart completely. It's better to talk out the problem openly as friends (assuming you guys are actually friends, not just just people who vaguely tolerate playing in the same game). If that ends up ending the game anyway, it will at least be with bridges slightly less burned. One of them is my boyfriend so you're probably right, I do need to play nice. Sigh. I'll be seeing him tomorrow so I might just see what it would take to convince his character. Neither of the players in question is particularly troublesome, they just happen to be playing troublesome characters and absolutely ticking all the boxes on the My Guy trope.
|
|
|
Post by Southpaw Hare on Nov 28, 2017 12:41:13 GMT 1
I personally wouldn't really take a passive-aggressive approach on this. Letting them hang themselves through their poor choices will just end up making everyone angrier, and the group may just fall apart completely. It's better to talk out the problem openly as friends (assuming you guys are actually friends, not just just people who vaguely tolerate playing in the same game). If that ends up ending the game anyway, it will at least be with bridges slightly less burned. Neither of the players in question is particularly troublesome, they just happen to be playing troublesome characters This is exactly the thing that My Guy Syndrome debunks. If you're playing a character in a troublesome way because you made them to be that way, then it's your own fault. You can't blame the character - they're not real.
|
|
|
Post by Plum on Nov 28, 2017 15:52:30 GMT 1
Yeah, that's a fair point. I'm sure that he'll back down anyway, it's making life awkward for our DM and means that half the table is sitting idle for large periods of time while the DM deals with the other half. Plus, there are plenty of RP reasons to accept us into the party (common enemy and all that).
Failing that, he can sleep on the sofa for a while.
|
|
|
Post by flagrantangles on Nov 28, 2017 18:13:20 GMT 1
This discussion has reminded me of a time when I made a character and ended up being wrong about who she was. I made her to be imperious but kind-hearted. As I was playing her, it became apparent that I was wrong about her. She was after power and money and definitely betrayed the rest of the party because of that. It was a very surreal roleplaying experience for me. I don't remember too much about the game other than it was short-lived because a lot of our players ending up moving away very quickly. Actually, it may have even been a one-shot. Either way, it was an amusing character experience for all of us.
|
|
|
Post by Southpaw Hare on Nov 28, 2017 19:06:29 GMT 1
This discussion has reminded me of a time when I made a character and ended up being wrong about who she was. I made her to be imperious but kind-hearted. As I was playing her, it became apparent that I was wrong about her. She was after power and money and definitely betrayed the rest of the party because of that. It was a very surreal roleplaying experience for me. I don't remember too much about the game other than it was short-lived because a lot of our players ending up moving away very quickly. Actually, it may have even been a one-shot. Either way, it was an amusing character experience for all of us. This is interestingly related to both of the recent discussions I spoke of. On the one hand, it can be a very rewarding experience to get into character, discover aspects of them that you yourself didn't even realize until they came up, and feel real emotion through an RPG. On the other hand, having a character betray the group can sometimes (probably often?) be a very negative thing that hurts the fun of everyone else, and if that is the case, you definitely shouldn't do it even if it's "what your character would do." The latter concept (avoiding My Guy Syndrome) should always take priority over the former (deep roleplaying and character development) IMO. How did everyone else feel about the situation? Did they laugh and cheer at your epic betrayal, all like, "Yeah! You got us! That was cool!" Or were they more groaning and pissed off about it? If they found it "an amusing experience" as you say, then it probably turned out okay.
|
|
|
Post by flagrantangles on Nov 28, 2017 19:16:06 GMT 1
As I recall, everyone's responses were neutral to positive. It was simply a non-issue for a one-shot/short campaign so none of us were emotionally invested enough to be upset. We were playing to spend time with one another, the game was, in many ways, immaterial.
As for My Guy syndrome, I avoid making characters who I think will clash, personality wise, with the party. I don't care all that much about mechanics overlap; I will always play a sorcerer or an arcane caster and I really don't give a fuck if we need a cleric or healer or what have you because I want to play a game I enjoy. If I end up making a character who doesn't work for one reason or another, then I will kill the character off and play another one. I don't do well with completely changing who they are. I'm better off starting fresh and, amongst my friends, this has never been an issue. We've had a couple people make some broody angst bots and found that they just weren't rewarding to play so they changed them/created new characters for the sake of their own fun and the group's fun.
Although, now that I'm thinking about it, I tend to play characters who are good at mediation/arbitration either incidentally or intentionally so I have no problems with coming up with ways to forge disparate character motivations into one cause so that colors my perspective of this particular phenomenon. If there's a modicum of cooperation, I can and will work with that. If not, then something else breaks or changes.
|
|
|
Post by Zejety on Nov 28, 2017 22:46:21 GMT 1
Trying to design a non-concentration spell with a disable effect for 5th edition D&D, like e.g. Vicious Mockery, but at least 1st level.
The current version uses the stunned condition to keep the text simple but I wonder if a guaranteed Str/Dex saving throw fail is too high of a pay-off for any 1st level spell. Any thoughts on this? I have enough alternatives in store so feel free to speak your mind.
Here's the current version: Edit: Comparing this to Guiding Bolt, it seems pretty bonkers. Guiding Bolt deals double damage and has a longer range, but its only rider is advantage on the first attack against the target. This must either be 2nd level or get revised pretty heavily... Edit2: On 2nd level, the closest comparison is Hold Person, which paralyzes (stronger than stun) for a longer duration but takes concentration. A stun that ends before the creature takes its turn does seem significantly weaker - the question is if that justifies dropping the concentration mechanic. Even if it doesn't cost the target a turn, it still means advantage and auto-failing saves for everyone if the initiative order is favorable. Actually, Pyrotechnics is another interesting comparison. Maybe I'll have to keep "until it takes damage" in even at 2nd level. Maybe that would justify turning it into a small aoe...?
|
|
|
Post by Southpaw Hare on Nov 29, 2017 4:01:05 GMT 1
Trying to design a non-concentration spell with a disable effect for 5th edition D&D, like e.g. Vicious Mockery, but at least 1st level. The current version uses the stunned condition to keep the text simple but I wonder if a guaranteed Str/Dex saving throw fail is too high of a pay-off for any 1st level spell. Any thoughts on this? I have enough alternatives in store so feel free to speak your mind. I don't know much about 5th edition, but in 3rd edition, "save or (effectively) die" spells are infamously available at every level, including 1st. Spells such as Color Spray and Sleep create effects powerful enough, even as toned down as they are in comparison to higher level spells, that the target is usually as good as dead. Spells at higher levels include (Tasha's) Hideous Laughter (2nd), Hold Person (3rd), Symbol of (Tasha's) Laughter (4th), and so on, but these only really improve the situation by making them more likely to work or to effect more people at once. The effect at any level is effective total defeat, so I wouldn't worry too much about the power of the effect so much as its reliability, range, AoE, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Plum on Nov 29, 2017 11:47:14 GMT 1
I think it seems fine to be honest, but does allow for a bad guy to get stunlocked from level one ("I ready Moment of Despair and will cast it as soon as the bandit leader starts to act"). You're not even paying much of an opportunity cost, since you're guaranteeing that the next dex-save damage spell will be an auto-hit (or your fighter immediately moves in and free-grapples their despaired spellcaster) On the flip side, it requires a spell slot per round to maintain, targets a common stat and there are plenty of other powerful spell combos. So yeah, it's strong and open to abuse, but that's pretty common anyway
|
|
|
Post by Zejety on Nov 29, 2017 12:21:27 GMT 1
I think it seems fine to be honest, but does allow for a bad guy to get stunlocked from level one ("I ready Moment of Despair and will cast it as soon as the bandit leader starts to act"). You're not even paying much of an opportunity cost, since you're guaranteeing that the next dex-save damage spell will be an auto-hit (or your fighter immediately moves in and free-grapples their despaired spellcaster) On the flip side, it requires a spell slot per round to maintain, targets a common stat and there are plenty of other powerful spell combos. So yeah, it's strong and open to abuse, but that's pretty common anyway Readying a spell also uses concentration so you might as well use the usual spells (though most that cost turns are 2nd level). Or you achieve the same result with Sleep or Color Spray, though they have different conditions than just failing a safe... Maybe it would be safer on 2nd level. Maybe I could drop the "or until it takes damage" clause in that case but it feels risky. For reference, here are the three variants I am currently considering: homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/r1DXDIsez One is a cantrip despite the original design intend but I'd like to keep the "Moment" in the name (because it was a prompt from the challnge) and it's somewhat invocative of a cantrip. Maybe there could even be a whole series of Despair spells...
|
|
|
Post by Zejety on Nov 29, 2017 12:48:24 GMT 1
Trying to design a non-concentration spell with a disable effect for 5th edition D&D, like e.g. Vicious Mockery, but at least 1st level. The current version uses the stunned condition to keep the text simple but I wonder if a guaranteed Str/Dex saving throw fail is too high of a pay-off for any 1st level spell. Any thoughts on this? I have enough alternatives in store so feel free to speak your mind. I don't know much about 5th edition, but in 3rd edition, "save or (effectively) die" spells are infamously available at every level, including 1st. Spells such as Color Spray and Sleep create effects powerful enough, even as toned down as they are in comparison to higher level spells, that the target is usually as good as dead. Spells at higher levels include (Tasha's) Hideous Laughter (2nd), Hold Person (3rd), Symbol of (Tasha's) Laughter (4th), and so on, but these only really improve the situation by making them more likely to work or to effect more people at once. The effect at any level is effective total defeat, so I wouldn't worry too much about the power of the effect so much as its reliability, range, AoE, etc. 5th edition has taken a couple steps to reduce the power of save or dies: - Many negative effects, especially those that affect the action economy, allow a new save at the end of every turn.
- Many ongoing effects require "concentration". You can only concentrate on one spell at a time and concentration ends when you get incapacitated or when you fail a constitution save upon taking damage. (Just realized that stunning someone, even outside of their turn, ends concentration!)
|
|
|
Post by Plum on Nov 29, 2017 15:40:01 GMT 1
Huh, I've never noticed that readying a spell takes your concentration! Although I'm only just now playing a spellcaster for the very first time in 5e. That's definitely a gotcha that I'm glad to know before accidentally switching off twinned Haste and exhausting the party's frontline...
Actually, that's a slight lie, I played a super fun one-shot a couple of months back with a tomb raiding, tarot reading cross between Lara Croft and Mystic Meg (Rogue 3/Wiz 2). Though all of her spells were for finding things, breaking into things, carrying things or escaping from things. The intricacies of combat casting weren't particularly needed. I think I might flesh her out more fully in a future campaign. I might even homebrew some augury style spells that focus on card readings.
|
|
|
Post by Zejety on Nov 30, 2017 15:19:48 GMT 1
My most engaged player player has mentioned that he's realized 5e isn't the system for him and that he probably won't play another campaign after Curse of Strahd. So I guess I'll either DM for a fresh group, we'll be switching systems (maybe DW or lades in the Dark; which means I've really gotta learn those rules), but most likely take a break from TTRPGs for a bit and play more board games again. With all the cool FFG releases this year, there's probably enough to carry us for a bit.
|
|
|
Post by Plum on Nov 30, 2017 16:01:00 GMT 1
maybe DW or lades in the Dark I read that as Ladies in the Dark, which would be an awesome steampunk setting. Victorian ladies of leisure by day, secretly chafing under the restrictions of polite society, heroines by night, protecting the people from the machinations of their powerful families. Oh god now that I think of that, I'm sure I read a book a few years back where the heroine was a Lady by day, jewel thief by night to keep her mother and sister from ruin. And it's really bugging me that I can't remember what it was! Male Love Interest needed something stealing and laid a trap to catch this notorious jewel thief, not realising she was female, thus leading to a fractious romance (I read a lot of very cheesy fantasy romance!). Ugh now I'm going to have to go through my kindle library until I can figure out what it was and if it was worth rereading.
|
|
|
Post by Southpaw Hare on Nov 30, 2017 19:25:57 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by Zejety on Dec 3, 2017 1:51:08 GMT 1
Back to Moment of Despair. I was about to settle on this version...
... when I started working on another prompt, "Moment of Triumph". I came up with this:
And it seems so inviting to make Moment of Despair the offensive version of that and publish them together...
But it feels bad to throw out the old design. Maybe I could change the name and re-use it for a different day...
|
|
|
Post by Zejety on Dec 4, 2017 0:33:17 GMT 1
I've spent about 2 hours today adapting Dark Creepers from Pathfinder to 5e. Only then did I remember that 5e already has Darkling, which are so similiar that I must assume that the Creepers are an inofficial adaption of Darklings to PF. >_< Well, practice is practice...
|
|
|
Post by Plum on Dec 4, 2017 10:19:20 GMT 1
What has prompted all of this homebrew? Are you looking to convert one system to another, or maybe practicing to create your own system?
I like the effects of the Moment spells, but it still seems a bit weird to me that it's a reaction spell - I think of reactions as reacting to a particular thing (you get hit, you fall, you take damage). If you want it to be a quick snap spell, what about a bonus action that lasts until the end of the targets next turn. This does extend the window on the spell slightly, but it still represents the same six seconds of time.
|
|
|
Post by Zejety on Dec 4, 2017 10:40:14 GMT 1
What has prompted all of this homebrew? Are you looking to convert one system to another, or maybe practicing to create your own system? #DnDecember! And mostly general design practice/challenging myself. I like the effects of the Moment spells, but it still seems a bit weird to me that it's a reaction spell - I think of reactions as reacting to a particular thing (you get hit, you fall, you take damage). If you want it to be a quick snap spell, what about a bonus action that lasts until the end of the targets next turn. This does extend the window on the spell slightly, but it still represents the same six seconds of time. Yeah, it stands out a bit but that kinda was the idea - I wanted to try something different. It surely is stronger this way than as a bonus action (which might make it too good?) but it stresses the "moment" part a lot.
|
|
|
Post by Plum on Dec 4, 2017 14:13:53 GMT 1
Ohhh that's very neat!
And speaking of triumph and despair, our teams have finally entered Strahd's castle but we're also still two teams! Although this time it wasn't actually anyone's fault - we actually tried to get the two groups to link up but it wasn't meant to be. At least we're both in the same rough location now so we'll likely meet up at some point. Team A entered via the rear garden and flight, while Team B entered through the front doors and while we've done a little exploration and had a couple of minor encounters, it'll be our next session when everything kicks off (we assume!).
|
|
|
Post by Zejety on Dec 4, 2017 14:31:04 GMT 1
Ohhh that's very neat! And speaking of triumph and despair, our teams have finally entered Strahd's castle but we're also still two teams! Although this time it wasn't actually anyone's fault - we actually tried to get the two groups to link up but it wasn't meant to be. At least we're both in the same rough location now so we'll likely meet up at some point. Team A entered via the rear garden and flight, while Team B entered through the front doors and while we've done a little exploration and had a couple of minor encounters, it'll be our next session when everything kicks off (we assume!). Yeah, sounds like you might meet up before shit really hits the fan. If it's a dangerous situation, it'll also be easier to justify merging the teams! I'm still salty about stupid Darklings...
|
|
|
Post by Plum on Dec 4, 2017 15:43:34 GMT 1
Yeah, plus if one team hears the noise of battle then the other is likely to come running. On the plus side, I now have the Animate Objects spell and I'm really looking forward to giving it a whirl (I also have counterspell for the obvious fireball to shut the objects down). I just need to find a hall full of armour / statues / busts / weapons to make it look good
|
|