|
kerpow posted:If he just wants it for fluff then I wouldn't bother with making mechanics for it. Just role-play it as a baby young pseudodragon that hides when combat occurs.
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2009 18:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 03:17 |
|
|
My players are about to reach "the big city" in the campaign setting, and I'm trying to come up with a way to give the players a tour and sense of scope w/o me just reading a long, boring description. I keep coming back to the idea of fetch/tour quests like you'd see in WoW or other computer RPGs that force you to tour an area (head down to the docks to deliver this box! Fill it with fish and come back!), but obviously doing something like that in a tabletop game would be pretty bad. However, does anyone have any suggestions that might work along those lines? Minor tasks that engage the players but allows me to lay out some descriptions of the city's areas of importance?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2009 23:35
|
|
|
DeclaredYuppie posted:My players are about to reach "the big city" in the campaign setting, and I'm trying to come up with a way to give the players a tour and sense of scope w/o me just reading a long, boring description. Is there any reason that you have to give them the description all in one big chunk? If they need a description of an area, then can't an NPC give it to them on an as-needed basis? I don't instantly get a description of everything in, say, Boston the second I walk in.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2009 23:47
|
|
|
DeclaredYuppie posted:My players are about to reach "the big city" in the campaign setting, and I'm trying to come up with a way to give the players a tour and sense of scope w/o me just reading a long, boring description. They need to report somewhere to register with authorities or whatever. Have two different places at opposite ends of the city to choose from, and have one bounce them to the other, so they have to travel through the locales. Offer to have one of the city guard guide them, and he gives a commentary on the place as they go through, lets them ask questions etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2009 00:05
|
|
|
One that I've used successfully in Sharn is to have their quest dude make them escort an item from the warehouse district to the posh district. You can throw combat or a social/skill challenge at them somewhere during it, and they still get to wander around.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2009 00:24
|
|
|
The problem is, it sounds almost as if you're just looking for an excuse to give them the same over-long, boring description, but in smaller chunks. Regardless of how you present it, it still boils down to geeking out over your beautiful, precious city. You might just be best served with a quick description of the city, and then letting them explore the city on their own with more quick descriptions of each area they encounter. If they want to go to the Grand Market, describe the Grand Market for them. Sure, they might pass through Beggar's Alley and Battleburg on their way there, but you only need to mention them in passing. If they're interested in what those places are, they'll ask questions. GM: "As you enter Riverside, you can immediately tell why people call it the 'Jewel of Glunland'. The bustle of activity on the streets is almost overwhelming, and people swarm by in numbers you couldn't even imagine. Looking down the length of one of the larger canals, it seems as if the shops and stalls extend on forever, and towering over the it all stands the imposing Karthos Keep." Players: "Okay, cool. Well, we go find an inn." GM: "No problem. As you walk down the city streets, you begin to realize the question is not 'Where can we find an inn?', but 'What kind of inn do we want?' The city is so large and expansive that inns range from the upscale, pseudo-palaces of the Canal District to the bargain-hunter boardinghouses of Oldtown." Players: "Sweet. Let's go to Oldtown, that sounds kind of cool." GM: "Alright. You leave the Canal District, and pass around the Imperial Stockyards and the famous Star Stadium on the way to Oldtown. The vibrant color and teeming downtown life seem to drain away with each step into Oldtown. Smiling faces and eager merchants are replaced with suspicious glances and shady characters urging you to enter one rundown establishment after another. Even the beautiful canals seem to have been dammed up here, and are now infested with squatters and beggars, who root about in the muddy trenches under a patchwork tarps and canvases." Sure, some of those were a little bit long, but none of those descriptions would take more than 30 seconds to say. That's hardly too long for any player's attention span. You'll probably find that your players fixate on just one area of your big city anyway, so a lot of the work you invest into descriptions of other areas will be lost. Just get an idea of the city's major landmarks and burroughs, and then see what they gravitate to. If you really want them to explore, give them a map of the city with all its major locations clearly marked out and maybe even a few short descriptions. That way each player can look out the map for precisely as long as he feels like, and you give them a chance to understand just how impressive and huge the place is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2009 14:03
|
|
|
Hey guys, I need some help cause my mad GM skills are failing me. These skills are so honed this is only my second time running a game. I have a small gaming group, and there's a fellow who has a tendency to play up his time traveling blind ninja assassin for every character. When I GM with him, I don't have a problem saying no, but it just gets sad and tired to see the same poo poo, different day irrespective of the game/DM. Well, I'm running a WoD Vamp game (we're in the third/fourth session), and after the first session, this guy says he wants to scrap his character. Whatever, only one session under our belts, that pc just became a npc tool to use later on. No big deal. I was expecting the usual min/maxing for AWESOME COMBAT abilities and the like for his next character... and then this guy says he wants to play a money launderer. A rich money launderer. A rich, sociable money launderer. Completely from left field and I'm pretty stoked that he's actually doing something other than the stereotypically-stupid-as-hell-except-to-the-lower-tiers-of-nerds-combat-oriented-character. So I allow this guy a few breaks in his character creation, fudging the rules a bit (for a few extra dots) so he can I plan on using the notorious issue to crop up later in the game in a pretty big way (...they did just help to blow up the 1981 Miami Airport  ) with continued FBI investigations and the memory thing as an occasional hindrance. However, my real trouble is, is I'm not entirely sure what the gently caress to do with his character. Like, plot hooks or anything. I'm psyched he actually isn't being the time traveling ninja assassin, and I want to encourage this behavior (he specifically said he wanted to change his character because of the poo poo we give him for his constant/usual shenanigans) by giving him things to do. He's trying to make it with the Carthian movement, if that helps at all, but honestly I'm just trying to look for something he can do/plays up his non-combat role for the group other than a five second "Yup, I can launder this money for you... [roll] aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand, done! Next?" ...Which doesn't necessarily need to be Vamp specific.Any general ideas, thoughts or suggestions would be great. My other two friends playing have PCs with a pretty solid investment in the city, but this guy's PC is a bit on the "why the gently caress am I even staying around?" boarder line and I just want to find something(s) to hook him in.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2009 22:29
|
|
|
Try just presenting them with general problems that lack a clear solution. If they're actually given the chance and have the resources to do so, many players (even the combat-oriented types) will try for a clever solution, often times one that involves lots of money and contacts. For instance, you want your players to break into the Matsugumi crime family's headquarters to recover a laptop with critical information on it. Instead of telling them where the headquarters is and having some NPC show them some obvious way to approach the problem ("Yea yea, you guys got the blueprints of the building, huh? Well, that ain't poo poo. I can show you where the secret entrance is."), just tell them where the HQ is and leave the other clues out at first. This gives your money-launderer a chance to flex his social muscles by calling in contacts, making bribes, and acquiring expensive equipment. The party might just end up with the same information, but it'll feel like they earned that information, due largely to the help of Mr. Money. In terms of hooking him in to the city, it seems like you could do tons of the things with a money launderer. On the more unimaginative side, just give him some business. If he has connections with the local AmeriBank branch manager and some up-and-coming capo decides to trust this guy with his money, then now he has a real reason to stick around: money. In addition to just giving the party a constant source of funds, doing so would also generate countless plot hooks. Maybe they hear a rumor that someone is planning on knocking that capo off, threatening not just his life, but their money too. Or it could just be that Jimmy Sparks and his boys have been trying to muscle in on the party's business. Do they just keep their heads down, or do they fight back, potentially drawing the ire of Jimmy's dad, Don Canovichi?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2009 23:47
|
|
|
What are the other players playing? It's a littlehard to offer advice without knowing who he's interacting with. That said, it's really cool he's playing off type and it's even cooler your encouraging him to do so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2009 03:57
|
|
|
How should I handle monsters that can turn invisible, then move? Should I take the model/token off the grid and keep a mental note of where it is? Or just tell them "Ok this guy is invisible"?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2009 18:49
|
|
|
Super Waffle posted:How should I handle monsters that can turn invisible, then move? Should I take the model/token off the grid and keep a mental note of where it is? Or just tell them "Ok this guy is invisible"? Leave the model on there as a reminder of where the PCs last saw them, keep track yourself of where it really is, and remember that the monster has to make a stealth check vs. the PC's passive perceptions if he wants to move without them knowing where he ends up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2009 18:51
|
|
|
Ok, let me make sure I have this right  Shadar Kai Gloomblade uses Veil of Shadows, turns invisible and moves up to his speed. After turning invisible, and before I move, I make a stealth check for the Gloomblade, if it passes the highest Passive Perception of the party, he can move up to his speed, and I can take the model off the grid. If he fails, the party gets to see where he moved. At the start of a players next turn, he can make an active Perception check with the DC set to what I rolled for Stealth before, to see where the Gloomblade moved. If he passes, I put the model back down where he had moved to. Does all of that sound right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2009 20:13
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:Any general ideas, thoughts or suggestions would be great. My other two friends playing have PCs with a pretty solid investment in the city, but this guy's PC is a bit on the "why the gently caress am I even staying around?" boarder line and I just want to find something(s) to hook him in.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2009 20:50
|
|
|
ripped0ff posted:In terms of hooking him in to the city, it seems like you could do tons of the things with a money launderer. On the more unimaginative side, just give him some business. If he has connections with the local AmeriBank branch manager and some up-and-coming capo decides to trust this guy with his money, then now he has a real reason to stick around: money. Dik Hz posted:You could feed the next adventure hook to the party through him via his connections, but have him "forget" (as in don't even tell him) one major complication. Maybe even have him roll to try to remember it at key junctures in the adventure. Ulta posted:What are the other players playing? It's a littlehard to offer advice without knowing who he's interacting with. Basically, I have railroaded the players for the first few games just to establish the city and all the wonderful happy things going on, as well as their place in relation to it all. My intent was to throw out a plethora of plot hooks while simultaneously making each hook intertwine the characters together in some fashion, so that no matter what direction they decided to take their characters would have a reasonable cause to do it together. Once I basically told them that the game was now pretty much a sandbox at the end of last game's session, and that they could do whatever the hell they wanted without fear of further railroading, they all decided to pack their bags and fly to Vegas for a few days since things are getting pretty hairy around Miami.  Mr. Money Launderer is financing the trip, so we'll see how that goes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2009 23:43
|
|
|
Next week I am running a module for the current campaign we are doing where the players travel to a port city which has been quarantined due to a terrible disease among the citizens. The local Port Authority was supposed to receive by boat a large shipment of medicine, however due to a storm and an overzealous ship captain the boat was lost before it could dock, and is now sitting underwater off the shore. Does anyone know of a good place to research how to actually make a ship map? I had some ideas on paper but I am kind of lost on the whole thing since this is my first time having combat done on the inner decks of a boat in 4th Edition.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2009 01:10
|
|
|
Dr. Doji Suave posted:Does anyone know of a good place to research how to actually make a ship map? I had some ideas on paper but I am kind of lost on the whole thing since this is my first time having combat done on the inner decks of a boat in 4th Edition. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=ship+plans&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g8 The thing to remember is that you'll have between four and five and a half feet of room per deck. The passageways will be close, and it could be quite easy for the adventurers to get lost. Good things: Survival (or Wisdom) checks, possibly Acrobatics, Athletics, and Escape Artist. Profession (sailor) would be a godsend to your players. Bad things: Excessively bulky armor, shields, or weapons. Anything two-handed might have to be left on the outside. Tower shields would probably be more hinderance than any kind of help unless they were trying to seal off a hatchway or something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2009 12:11
|
|
|
One thing I've never really seen a GM advice section in a book mention: the plot doesn't have to be about the players. I always thought that getting the players caught up in the plots of other people is just as good, as long as the players have a role to play in the plot. This give you a number of other narrative structures than the basic ones where the players go around and do stuff and stuff happens. When stuff happens regardless of the involvement of the players, it's much easier to pace the game. The concept of everything being about the player characters just seems antiquated for me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2009 00:16
|
|
|
One thing that I'm pondering hard in preparation for running a sci-fi game is is it too unfair to play human NPCs who the players are fighting "in-character," that is to say if they start a fight with special forces they should expect competent opponents? Central to the campaign will be tussles and encounters with paramilitary and mercenary organisations, ranging from green from the arena pushovers to renowned "do not gently caress with these guys" groups with black market gear. As a result, I feel it would be appropriate to roleplay the NPCs as such, not purely through mannerisms but also through fighting style and stats. Trained ex-Space SAS men will not fight like Stormtroopers or redshirts, but would instead use cover and terrain along with fighting on their own terms. However, if the players dont cotton on to how teamwork and tactics are vital in futuristic firefights, they'll get cut off and cut apart by these NPCs "played like PCs." Is this acceptable DMing? Bear in mind only supposedly well-trained and smart NPCs will be optimally played like this, and average grunts will be stupid, easily fooled and inaccurate. It will therefore work both ways, with "inexperienced" NPCs breaking formation in mass combat, wasting powerful weapons on overkilling targets and not fighting smartly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2009 15:52
|
|
|
It really depends on your group. If you feel your group can be really tactical, then gently caress yeah, go for it. If they're more likely to get chewed up running screaming into enemy gunfire, it may not be a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2009 16:39
|
|
|
Bob Smith posted:However, if the players dont cotton on to how teamwork and tactics are vital in futuristic firefights, they'll get cut off and cut apart by these NPCs "played like PCs." Try easing into it slowly: start with the mall security and then move your way up through the skill levels. If you notice a snag in your players tactics, you can try to teach them a maneuver by having their foes use it. If you can get them to coordinate just a little bit, then they'll probably end up surprising you, rather than the other way 'round.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2009 18:06
|
|
|
Male Man posted:Try easing into it slowly: start with the mall security and then move your way up through the skill levels. If you notice a snag in your players tactics, you can try to teach them a maneuver by having their foes use it. If you can get them to coordinate just a little bit, then they'll probably end up surprising you, rather than the other way 'round. That's the plan - unless they're really stupid they won't end up fighting the most elite soldiers in the country after one or two sessions, they'll start with weaker forces and fights they can win. I'll stress in the "intro and character generation" session that picking your fights is key to the campaign rather than running in madly or being Chaotic Random.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2009 18:34
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:One thing I've never really seen a GM advice section in a book mention: the plot doesn't have to be about the players. I always thought that getting the players caught up in the plots of other people is just as good, as long as the players have a role to play in the plot. I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. The plot should be about the players. Otherwise, its just you telling a story. All the best games I've been in, plot has been secondary to character. A close second mind you, but what the players are doing and how they are fleshing out there character is what is important, not what some NPC is doing. Having the plot not be about the players kills the whole collaborative storytelling part of the game. It makes it about you, and not us.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2009 18:45
|
|
|
Bob Smith posted:That's the plan - unless they're really stupid they won't end up fighting the most elite soldiers in the country after one or two sessions, they'll start with weaker forces and fights they can win. Another thing you might do is early on establish some methods they can use to spot the differences between the real top-tier guys and the off-brand thugs. Spotting marking and patches on their vests, body language, etc so they at least have some warning that they may be getting in over their heads.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2009 20:07
|
|
|
DeclaredYuppie posted:Another thing you might do is early on establish some methods they can use to spot the differences between the real top-tier guys and the off-brand thugs. Spotting marking and patches on their vests, body language, etc so they at least have some warning that they may be getting in over their heads. It's going to be a bit more obvious than that - it will be the difference between the guy that looks like a soldier complete with power armour and heavy weapons and the guy in a tank top and jeans with an AK.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2009 20:10
|
|
|
Ulta posted:I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. The plot should be about the players. Otherwise, its just you telling a story. All the best games I've been in, plot has been secondary to character. A close second mind you, but what the players are doing and how they are fleshing out there character is what is important, not what some NPC is doing. not necessarily true. The plot doesn't have to be about the players, but the story should be. Events should be going on, stuff should be happening whether the players are involved or not. How they choose to get involved, what they do, how they resolve things... that's what crafts the finer details of the story and what the play experience should ultimately be about. of course, at the end, they should at least feel like the heroes. Success or failure should hinge on their efforts, even if it's on some small scale or scope (like scouts or a small, elite unit in a war or detectives working internal politics or whatever your grand plot is about). If the story doesn't revolve around what they do, then why are you telling it? There isn't a point if they aren't effecting the plot on a large scale. If what's going to happen is going to happen and there's not a thing they can do about it, then the game better be focused on how they're dealing with the aftermath and what comes next and not the thing they can not change itself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2009 20:14
|
|
|
Ulta posted:Having the plot not be about the players kills the whole collaborative storytelling part of the game. It makes it about you, and not us. I ran a game a couple of weeks back which was basically Die Hard 3 set in Sharn (Eberron D&D). The story was about the players, but the plot wasn't about them, like the plot in Die Hard 3 wasn't really about John McClane. Not having the characters being at the center of the plot also allows partial victories: they stopped the bank robber, but the terrorist threat against the city was successful in creating chaos. Now they will have to deal with the fallout of the situation, reap the rewards of their victory and now movers and shakers in the world will notice the players.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2009 20:57
|
|
|
I don't know if this has been posted before, but some advice I'd like to give all the GMs out there is to consider using this alternative skill challenge system I found: Obsidian Skill Challenge System. I feel that it complements very well the existing skill challenge system - and the part I like best is that players don't feel obligated to use their best skills and instead just pass off to others. "Oh, but we have 2 failures already, so I shouldn't use diplomacy - I'll let Brian do it because he's got training in it. If I tried and failed we'd lose." There are other points in its favour, as the author explains in that thread, some more technical than others, but the greater inclusion my players felt while using it is number one with a bullet for me. I have not, however, replaced the existing skill challenge system - having the rogue make 4 straight successes after starting with 2 failures to disarm a trap while the rest of the party fought was intense and I wouldn't want to trade that away. Instead, I am using them side by side depending on what I feel fits best. Maybe you'll feel the same way I do, maybe not. Give it a look and see. Note: I have no relationship with the author and no stake in this system's success. If I came off sounding like an advertisement, I'm sorry. I simply mean it as a recommendation in good faith.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2009 04:06
|
|
|
quote:Larger plot verse character plot stuff I will concede the point that plot can be external to the players and that story should be the players response to the events of plot. These types of games can be good, and are often great and the stuff of grognard legend. However, and this may be personal opinion, the best games tend to be more character focused. This means interactions with NPCs and inter party interaction. I didn't bring this up before, but this tends to mean the gameplay is more sandboxy. Instead of the DM saying X is happening deal with it, the player says I'd like to make X happen, and the DM let's them go do that with varying degrees of success.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2009 12:44
|
|
|
My players are distracted by phones with annoying frequency. One player received three phone calls within an hour and then proceeded to leave to go to a bar after the last one, and another cannot leave his goddamned iPhone alone. I don't think that telling them "put that poo poo away" out of game would work terribly well, so I was thinking of instating an in game penalty - something like -5 to all rolls on the next turn for texting and -10 for actually answering a call. It seems like the easiest way to get them to pay attention to the game, but am I being a passive aggressive rear end in a top hat?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2009 17:47
|
|
|
CDOR Gemini posted:It seems like the easiest way to get them to pay attention to the game, but am I being a passive aggressive rear end in a top hat? Eh, probably. In the tabletops I'm in people do tend to get the occasional phone call, but they usually ignore it unless it's from someone likely to be important (significant other, immediate family, that sort of thing). And even then they normally head off to someplace where they won't distract the game, answer, and unless it's urgent the other end gets a "I'm kinda busy now, can I call you back later?" Then again, the people I game with are really into roleplaying games, and I'd be really surprised if any of them would even think of walking out of a game in progress in order to go out drinking with other friends. If your players are like that, they may simply not care as much about the game as you do, or they may not realize that it actually takes some effort to prep for a session. I think they'd just get annoyed if you go at it with check penalties and what-not, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2009 18:14
|
|
|
CDOR Gemini posted:My players are distracted by phones...it seems like the easiest way to get them to pay attention to the game, but am I being a passive aggressive rear end in a top hat? Yes. Don't punish people in-game for OOC actions. What you need to do with the dude who is playing with his iPhone: give a complex description of an area and then ask the player to repeat it back to you. When he can't, tell him to put down his iPhone. If he can, then you don't really have a problem...unless it's distracting other players. In which case he's gotta stow it. Now the guy who left your game for the bar is a different case. He's the kind that will play your game until something better comes along, and then bail. Your activity is his "default fun". You have a couple of options. I've tried sitting down with these players and telling them that it's tremendously disrespectful to me to waste hours of my time setting up and preparing quests and adventures, only to bail. They usually don't care. So give it the old college try, and then kick 'em when he still doesn't give a crap. Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 18:25 on Aug 25, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2009 18:20
|
|
|
I have someone who busts out his iphone, psp or laptop mid game and I just tell him to not do that here. I'm being a bit of a hypocrite because I used to have my laptop out always and didnt realize how inconsiderite it was till I was in the GM's chair. As the GM it's your game and it's in your bounds to tell them that if they dont want to play, they're allowed to go somewhere else.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2009 18:42
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Keep on the Shadowfell sucks for roleplaying. My group is pretty good about it and didnt feel much need to roleplay until pretty much the final battle. KotS may not seem too great for role-playing, but we've managed to not have a problem. I just finished this recently as DM after our switch to 4e, and we stumbled upon a 'house rule' of sorts that kind of forces role-playing in some way. After skill challenge checks on Sir Keegan [or any skill challenges/rolls against/for something verbal] you roll and then say what your character was going to say. The skill check, obviously, determines how effective your words were and the response the NPC gives. We also do this for combat, so if a killing blow is delivered -- or a particularly devastating one is -- you describe what your character does as he/she prepares and or delivers it. This may not work for everyone, but it works for us, and kept KotS fairly well role-played, though we care more about RP'ing than treasure for the most part.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2009 00:15
|
|
|
^We do that too. It becomes almost expected after years of playing these games because you inevitably run into some jerk who plays a max CHA + diplomacy + feats to boost diplomacy to handwave away any sort of conflict. So you make them justify it by explaining what they said that's so drat persuasive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2009 01:22
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:^We do that too. It becomes almost expected after years of playing these games because you inevitably run into some jerk who plays a max CHA + diplomacy + feats to boost diplomacy to handwave away any sort of conflict. So you make them justify it by explaining what they said that's so drat persuasive. We had a guy doing that who for some reason couldn't come up with anything to say. This wouldn't be a problem if he weren't playing the party's Faceman (head talker for any non-Spycrafters). But he'd come up to a situation where he'd need to make a Bluff check and his only response would be something along the lines of: "I got a 24." "Okay, but what are you telling him?" <blank stare> "Did I succeed?" It was sorta like that scene from Spinal Tap with the amp that goes to 11.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2009 03:20
|
|
|
I make my players do that before they roll for a skill check. Takes a bit, but I can eventually coax out a sentence at least  My group is straight hack-n-slash, they don't even have backgrounds for their characters. Doesn't help that the most RP-ish one left the group.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2009 03:26
|
|
|
Super Waffle posted:I make my players do that before they roll for a skill check. Takes a bit, but I can eventually coax out a sentence at least I can't imagine not having a background. I've only been playing for a few months now, and one of my favorite things to do is write background for characters I play. The last one I wrote was for my warforged paladin in Eberron and it ended up being some 4500 or so words.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2009 22:08
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:^We do that too. It becomes almost expected after years of playing these games because you inevitably run into some jerk who plays a max CHA + diplomacy + feats to boost diplomacy to handwave away any sort of conflict. So you make them justify it by explaining what they said that's so drat persuasive. I have not yet run into that particular brand of jerk, although I used a kind of middle-of-the-road approach with this. I think you should be able to play a smooth-talkin' mofo even if you're not one yourself, so people could make fast talk/intimidation/persuasion rolls without having a line if they couldn't think of one. On the other hand, if they had a good argument or effective line, they'd get a bonus. Then again I give bonuses to just about anything if you're trying to roleplay and especially if you're doing something awesome.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2009 15:27
|
|
|
Jiggity posted:I can't imagine not having a background. I've only been playing for a few months now, and one of my favorite things to do is write background for characters I play. The last one I wrote was for my warforged paladin in Eberron and it ended up being some 4500 or so words. I've been brow-beating my players for weeks to write backgrounds for my upcoming campaign. So far two of the players have given me one sentence concepts and the other three haven't come up with anything. It doesn't exactly give me high hopes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2009 18:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 03:17 |
|
|
even worse username posted:I have not yet run into that particular brand of jerk, although I used a kind of middle-of-the-road approach with this. I think you should be able to play a smooth-talkin' mofo even if you're not one yourself, so people could make fast talk/intimidation/persuasion rolls without having a line if they couldn't think of one. On the other hand, if they had a good argument or effective line, they'd get a bonus. It's different to play a smooth guy and someone who's words can stop wars. The latter better be justified.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2009 18:49
|
|