Ahdok @ ahdok @ttrpg.network

I make comics sometimes: https://linktr.ee/ahdok

---

Read more

Posts

128

Comments

818

Joined

2 yr. ago

yep!

I'm aware of ludonarrative and ludonarrative dissonance, and use these terms a lot when discussing games. I really like rules design where the rules themselves support the narrative of the game. If you want a really great example, I would recommend the board game Galaxy Trucker by Vlaada Chvatil. Guy's a master of this.

Another device that is commonly invoked in my group is something called "the abstraction layer." - Basically, while roleplaying, the details of an interaction either matter to your narrative and game or they don't. If something is consequential, it's "above the abstraction layer" and if it's not, it's "below the abstraction layer." Anything below the abstraction layer you just assume the characters accomplish in the abstract.

The abstraction layer moves as your characters progress and the scope of your story changes. Imagine you're a starting level 1 wizard on your first adventure and you want to cast Find Familiar. The spell claims it requires "10 gp worth of charcoal, incense, and herbs that must be consumed by fire in a brass brazier" as a component.

Per the rules, this is a costed component, so it's not in your reagent pouch, and you can't replace the requirement with a casting focus, so your character actually has to source these components, and use of a brass brazier, in order to cast the spell. As a level 1 wizard, there might be some interesting narrative the DM wishes to insert here, where you meet and talk with proprietors of various magic reagent stores, or you have to visit your school or academy to buy some from the stores, or any number of other options.

However, consider a level 15 wizard who's plane-hopping to race a cabal of Bane cultists to the pieces of an ancient artifact to activate a time-lost monoloth to wrest control over the heavens from the gods. Does your story still care about this 10gp of incense that you need to cast the spell? Or can you just assume that the wizard is capable enough to solve this problem off-camera? Do you even bother to mark down the 10gp cost on your character sheets when your party is rocking 150k of gold and art objects?

The important lesson is that the story you're telling should focus on the details that matter to your characters, and to the narrative itself. Players who take the time to think about the details, and insert flavour will often tell more immersive and interesting stories, and the rules provide opportunities to delve into narrative, but also consider whether the details you're bringing are pertinent and relative to the current narrative. It's good to focus on where the details you're adding provide context and support for your character and the narrative they're involved in.

I shall fix

Honestly, it's CR1. The guy has 18hp meaning you probably murk him in a round at any level. The most dangerous thing is the pit trap.

Bonus Konsi?

If you know what the Carabiner means, you know.

This one caused me so much trouble! I went into it thinking "this will be easy" but it's surprisingly hard to get right.

I don't think I 100% got it, her body proportions are too human (Konsi is 4ft tall) - but it was a lot of fun to try. Daily drawing challenges aren't about being perfect, they're about just getting the thing done and learning from it.

This was part of my october drawing prompts, the prompt was "meme pose"

Artist circles on Twitter (although now it's blue sky) have a bunch of "meme" drawing challenges. Most commonly "outfit" challenges where you have to draw your character wearing a specific outfit. These challenges are like artist "memes", seeing other people do them causes them to spread. Pose memes are less common, but there are a few.

This pose is the "cammy stretch" meme pose: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/cammy-stretch

A long time ago I did spend a few months experimenting with ratios to make my own cookie recipe, it makes really good chocolate chip cookies. Not very christmassy though.

Honestly, the system you run for new players should depend on who those players are, their preferences, and comfort levels with related things you can use to judge their preferences. A group of hardcore eurogame boardgamers are going to be a lot more comfortable learning a complex rule system than my in-laws.

Closest I have is this:

Bonus Konsi?

I suppose you can have some extra hair

Did someone say "Bonus Konsi"?

I think it was something like 10d8, plus poisoned condition until removed.

You could absolutely just put 25 gold pieces in a pile and cast the spell, but Konsi's such a tryhard...

I think this largely comes from being a protagonist in a DnD campaign for a long time, especially a roleplay heavy one. DnD characters naturally build a portfolio of exploits that any NPC character would think insane to accomplish.

If you want the true gigachad energy though, the spell she used to contact Talona was Divination, which requires a sacrifice to the deity in question, worth at least 25gp.

Konsi thinks it's good etiquette to make your sacrifice something the deity would approve of. For example, when she contacted Selune, she crafted some art-piece quality functional navigational tools out of silver and used those as the component in the spell.

As Talona is the goddess of poison and decay, Konsi decided that a suitable "sacrifice" would be a bottle of lethal, slow acting poison. She spent a few days gathering appropriate herbs and mushrooms, made the poison, then promptly drank it to sacrifice it.

Here's your bonus Konsi.

(Please be aware I'm talking about 5.0 here. Everything I say here is wrong for 4.0 and 3.5, and I don't know anything about the new edition.)

It's a little complex.

5e wasn't really designed for multiclassing, the original intention was to disallow multiclassing altogether, and the feature was only added last minute after playtesters complained. They didn't really try to balance it other than trying to make it weak enough that most players would be dissuaded from taking multiclass levels.

The main cost of multiclassing is that it delays your class features for a level, for some classes, such as primary casters, this is a big deal - a wizard doesn't want to wait until level 6 for fireball. For other classes such as rogues and monks, they might not really care as much about higher level features. Once a rogue (played by a player who is minmaxing for power) has reliable talent, they often multiclass into something that'll give them new features (Paladin is quite popular as it increases your damage, gives you a better hit die, and adds new spells and abilities.)

One of the biggest reasons to multiclass, or refrain from multiclass is roleplay - as this is entirely based on a character's narrative and the story being told, the consideration of whether or not to multiclass for story reasons is essentially a personal choice.

For players looking to maximize their power, it's important to consider whether the features you'd be taking in your new class are useful in your campaign. I mentioned Mask of Many Faces, but that's a useless ability in a pure dungeon-crawler style "fight a new monster each week" style campaign.

It's also important to think about the scope of your campaign. Many people look at the level 20 capstone abilities, which can be extremely powerful, and will argue that multiclassing is never good because it locks you out of those abilities - but consider how long you're going to be playing your character and at what levels. Most campaigns that even get to level 20 wrap up after a couple of encounters, so is that exceptional power, for two sessions, better than taking a new feature that will last you for tens of sessions?

Most character classes, especially martials are very front-loaded. The first 5-10 levels contain most of the core features of your class, and before you've unlocked those, it's often tough to justify multiclassing - but once a monk gets access to stunning strike, do they care about other Ki powers? If a campaign is planned to end on an even level, does a full caster care about that last level when they're not getting any new spells?

As a very very rough rule of thumb, full-casters often want to avoid multiclassing altogether, or if they do multiclass, they want to take a single splash level of another class once they have the spells they care about. For most of those classes, that's either level 6 or level 14. Martials are often more flexible, as higher level features often amount to more choice in abilities rather than mechanical power. Swapping to a different class offers different choices, and certain builds can by synergistic.

Rangers always want to multiclass, because ranger sucks. /j

One level of warlock buys you eldritch blast and mask of many faces.

One level of artificer buys you the ability to cast cure wounds with your spellslots, and the ability to use medium armour.

They're real popular splashes.