sirblastalot @ sirblastalot @ttrpg.network

Posts

4

Comments

265

Joined

2 yr. ago

Moderating

---

Fuuuuuck I wanna be in that superhero game.

Now I want to play the reverse...a fake barbarian. A really intelligent wizard that realized people don't ask him to work as much if he pretends to be illiterate and dumb. Quickened True Strike when he rages, etc.

It's hard to get anything through the court in hell, what with every lawyer in history getting involved.

It's called Theatre of the Mind. I've definitely done it, and it has it's advantages (cheap, lower prep time) but I don't favor it nowadays. Especially in my last campaign, a swashbuckling pirate adventure, I tried to always have at least some kind of visual aid, because it's critical to that swashbuckling feel - the players can't swing from the chandelier if they don't know there's a chandelier.

Queercoding villains to make them seem dangerous and deviant to the people of the time (and those that are still stuck in that time). Admittedly, the people making that decision probably weren't conscious of that being why they thought eyeliner made him look villainous.

I like to start with some kind of action that also gives the group a reason to work together. Eg the inquisition drags you all out of your beds in the night and chains you together, or (in the game where everyone was a werewolf) you're out in the woods hunting and this deer can run faster than you, how do you work together to take it down, or you've all been pressganged to work on some evil bastard's ship, what do you do about it. That kind of thing.

Every day I feel better and better about leaving reddit.

The Warlocks were all Pact of the Fey all along.

"The town guard arrive, but they are startled by an acorn falling and shoot you 27 times."

I'm saving that for a "journey to the new world" campaign at some point in the future.

I vaguely aim for 1 combat encounter and one social or puzzle per session, but it mostly comes down to what the players decide to do.

"Try more games" is great advice, and it's always good to expand your horizons, but at some point it stopped being actual advice and became the catchphrase of people who just can't handle the idea that someone would choose to play D&D.

Training my players to constantly make perception checks is the last thing I want to do. Nothing bogs down a game faster. If there's no point in rolling the dice, don't make them roll. If you're worried that calling for a roll will make them metagame paranoid, call for an occasional pointless roll, don't make it a constant expectation.

I have a list of setpieces I want to put in front of the players (an island that's actually a giant turtle, a treasure hunt, being lost in the ocean in a rowboat, etc) and around the halfway point of the campaign I try to figure out a climactic finale to build to. But beyond that, I don't plan beyond the next session. I just plan my sessions by recapping what happened last session, putting forward any consequences of that, and a little light prep for a couple of the most likely courses of action my players might take next. Maybe dropping in one of those setpieces if it seems to fit.

Brock Sampson seen here having just had to kill his hotrod.

Be the change

What DM would deliberately sabotage their own game like that? No one actually wants to spend a session waiting for someone to examine an endless supply of rocks.

They can't destroy the oil rig, because that would just release a ton of oil. And if they disable it, it will be relatively easy to repair. What real terrorists would do is cause an accident or a malfunction, then murder or kidnap the responders.

(I went to EMT school and it's something they told us to be careful about, I swear I'm not a terrorist mister NSA man please don't gitmo me)

Babe turns around and starts recking them too

Be the change and send me a copy