Like the title says, this is a thread for any and all table top games and things related to them.
If you have a question about homebrew, worldbuilding, game mechanics ect this is the thread for it.
/vx/ - Videogames and Paranormal
154 replies and 28 files omitted.
What do you guys think of the 2e conversation handbook for Ponyfinder?
>>148198
Sorry, I have no knowledge of this, and therefore cant comment,... yet
2e conversion you say? Ima have to look that up
What are anon's impressions of using weighted scenarios to challenge the party? At times I like to pit the party against otherwise insurmountable foes, under the context of 'if you dont run/escape, you will be killed', to emphasize the fact that 'no, you cant just murderhobo your way through'. This could be anything from villains and adversaries, to a really pissed off group of soldiers/guards (often because of a rogue). The spirit behind it is to emphasize that the party IS the center of the story, but that doesnt give license to do anything they want, at least not without a very real possibility of death or consequence for foolish/haphazard choices.
In my games I want the players to be as motivated to try to avoid dying as a person likely would be in an irl conflict at the same level of risk.
Sorry, I have no knowledge of this, and therefore cant comment,... yet
2e conversion you say? Ima have to look that up
What are anon's impressions of using weighted scenarios to challenge the party? At times I like to pit the party against otherwise insurmountable foes, under the context of 'if you dont run/escape, you will be killed', to emphasize the fact that 'no, you cant just murderhobo your way through'. This could be anything from villains and adversaries, to a really pissed off group of soldiers/guards (often because of a rogue). The spirit behind it is to emphasize that the party IS the center of the story, but that doesnt give license to do anything they want, at least not without a very real possibility of death or consequence for foolish/haphazard choices.
In my games I want the players to be as motivated to try to avoid dying as a person likely would be in an irl conflict at the same level of risk.
>>148233
>At times I like to pit the party against otherwise insurmountable foes
No matter how clear you try to make the danger, at least half of the PCs will believe that the danger is supposed to be a challenge that they're supposed to overcome. Even if they know running is the better option, PC mentality encourages them to be "brave".
Of course, it's fine to do that, but you should have a backup plan for how you will react if the party does the opposite of what you want/expect them to do. For example, you could cause them to get captured, with a chance to escape later. Unbeatable enemies should also have nonlethal tactics at their disposal: for example, the overleveled werelion lich king in my most recent game was predisposed to be a cautious fighter since he had no knowledge of the party or their allies; his paralysis attacks would have likely incapacitated most of the party, and I had him prepare some extra spells that could explicitly incapacitate the elf and the dragon without killing them. If they lost, they would have been captured and tortured by the enemy bard. If they won, kudos to them. Either way the campaign would have continued.
>In my games I want the players to be as motivated to try to avoid dying as a person likely would be in an irl conflict at the same level of risk.
A good idea to do that is to do the overleveled encounter early on, on the third or fourth session. However, the objective shouldn't be to make the party run away, but to just let them throw themselves at the encounter and then watch them get captured. I wouldn't make the encounter too obviously overleveled either, but instead just deceivingly deadly (making it obvious will feel like railroading and will be unfun), like partof a group of seemingly weak goblins suddenly shapeshifting into half-dragon barghests. This way you can set expectations, and teach the party about the very real possibility of TPKs. The current module I'm using had an encounter like that, although I never really needed it since my enemy tactics were good enough to consistently scare the party for most of the game.
>avoid dying as a person likely would
Normal people don't crawl into dungeons full of skeletons to make a few hundred bucks; PCs are meant to be heroes, and risk dying like heroes, or fools. Death is a natural part of D&D. While PCs who kamikaze themselves at every danger may be annoying, it's also important to acknowledge that players should also be free to play their characters how they wish. If their choices result in their capture or death, so be it. Just make sure you've got robust flowcharts and you narrate well enough to make the dangers clear. Expecting players to make the decisions you want is just setting yourself up for frustration.
Enemies with nonlethal tactic options to capture the PCs are also a good method to prevent the party from being TPK'd at moments that would be inconvenient to your plot.
>At times I like to pit the party against otherwise insurmountable foes
No matter how clear you try to make the danger, at least half of the PCs will believe that the danger is supposed to be a challenge that they're supposed to overcome. Even if they know running is the better option, PC mentality encourages them to be "brave".
Of course, it's fine to do that, but you should have a backup plan for how you will react if the party does the opposite of what you want/expect them to do. For example, you could cause them to get captured, with a chance to escape later. Unbeatable enemies should also have nonlethal tactics at their disposal: for example, the overleveled werelion lich king in my most recent game was predisposed to be a cautious fighter since he had no knowledge of the party or their allies; his paralysis attacks would have likely incapacitated most of the party, and I had him prepare some extra spells that could explicitly incapacitate the elf and the dragon without killing them. If they lost, they would have been captured and tortured by the enemy bard. If they won, kudos to them. Either way the campaign would have continued.
>In my games I want the players to be as motivated to try to avoid dying as a person likely would be in an irl conflict at the same level of risk.
A good idea to do that is to do the overleveled encounter early on, on the third or fourth session. However, the objective shouldn't be to make the party run away, but to just let them throw themselves at the encounter and then watch them get captured. I wouldn't make the encounter too obviously overleveled either, but instead just deceivingly deadly (making it obvious will feel like railroading and will be unfun), like partof a group of seemingly weak goblins suddenly shapeshifting into half-dragon barghests. This way you can set expectations, and teach the party about the very real possibility of TPKs. The current module I'm using had an encounter like that, although I never really needed it since my enemy tactics were good enough to consistently scare the party for most of the game.
>avoid dying as a person likely would
Normal people don't crawl into dungeons full of skeletons to make a few hundred bucks; PCs are meant to be heroes, and risk dying like heroes, or fools. Death is a natural part of D&D. While PCs who kamikaze themselves at every danger may be annoying, it's also important to acknowledge that players should also be free to play their characters how they wish. If their choices result in their capture or death, so be it. Just make sure you've got robust flowcharts and you narrate well enough to make the dangers clear. Expecting players to make the decisions you want is just setting yourself up for frustration.
Enemies with nonlethal tactic options to capture the PCs are also a good method to prevent the party from being TPK'd at moments that would be inconvenient to your plot.
>>148233
>2e conversion you say?
The PF2e conversion for Ponyfinder, which was originally PF1e.
I say it converts really well, relatively. PF2e's modular and scaling racial abilities are pretty accommodating for pony races. You can have races that fly and races with innate magical powers without them being too front loaded.
>2e conversion you say?
The PF2e conversion for Ponyfinder, which was originally PF1e.
I say it converts really well, relatively. PF2e's modular and scaling racial abilities are pretty accommodating for pony races. You can have races that fly and races with innate magical powers without them being too front loaded.
>>148233
>as a person likely would be in an irl conflict at the same level of risk
In my experience, I have been more frustrated by characters who continuously run away and refuse to enter danger than characters who are too reckless.
Reckless characters can be replaced, but if the plot can't advance because PCs don't enter the cave the game grinds to a halt.
>as a person likely would be in an irl conflict at the same level of risk
In my experience, I have been more frustrated by characters who continuously run away and refuse to enter danger than characters who are too reckless.
Reckless characters can be replaced, but if the plot can't advance because PCs don't enter the cave the game grinds to a halt.
What's the best platform for online games? I've been trying to get savy with Foundry to improve my games, but I think there are some other electronic tabletops worth using. I'm used to using discord for voice chat, but I want to break my dependance on my site.
On the subject of voice chat (or lack thereof), what makes a good PbP game? I really believe that PbP games can be good and fun, but my personal experience with them hasn't been all that great, from both a DM and player perspective. They've in my experience been slow and inconsistent with rules, often frustrating because players get up and walk away during roleplay. I find that they seem to be difficult with mechanics too because combat become a slough, or the entire game goes full magic tea party.
On the subject of voice chat (or lack thereof), what makes a good PbP game? I really believe that PbP games can be good and fun, but my personal experience with them hasn't been all that great, from both a DM and player perspective. They've in my experience been slow and inconsistent with rules, often frustrating because players get up and walk away during roleplay. I find that they seem to be difficult with mechanics too because combat become a slough, or the entire game goes full magic tea party.
>>148551
I care about freedom, but I also care about functionality.
I've never heard of mumble. I guess I'll try it out.
I care about freedom, but I also care about functionality.
I've never heard of mumble. I guess I'll try it out.
>>148552
Mumble is good... if your ping time is over 1 second (satellite internet) discord drops all packets over that, mumble does not.
Found that out playing ponyfinder... lul.
While the protocol for matrix is fine, as far as I know none of the clients have voice functioning very well unless its the element web browser client. Even then there is no push-to-talk which is super fail in my book.
There are no tech companies paying for any of the matrix clients development. So far its just one or three guys working on the client. Mind you there are like a dozen different kinds with a different focus for each.
Look for one that will work well for what you want and throw money at them.
I could pop open a mumble server though. Easy to do and uses almost no resources. Works well for voice communication within games of any kind. Heh, I have the domain area51.world I could use it for if you want.
Mumble is good... if your ping time is over 1 second (satellite internet) discord drops all packets over that, mumble does not.
Found that out playing ponyfinder... lul.
While the protocol for matrix is fine, as far as I know none of the clients have voice functioning very well unless its the element web browser client. Even then there is no push-to-talk which is super fail in my book.
There are no tech companies paying for any of the matrix clients development. So far its just one or three guys working on the client. Mind you there are like a dozen different kinds with a different focus for each.
Look for one that will work well for what you want and throw money at them.
I could pop open a mumble server though. Easy to do and uses almost no resources. Works well for voice communication within games of any kind. Heh, I have the domain area51.world I could use it for if you want.
Anyone know a good place to get players online? Do we have a ""Discord"" or whatever else thats better?
>>148703
I made a games matrix channel on https://mlp.chat - depending on how things go I might rename it to tabletop or whatever. For now there is not enough activity to have such a divide.
#games:mlp.chat
I made a games matrix channel on https://mlp.chat - depending on how things go I might rename it to tabletop or whatever. For now there is not enough activity to have such a divide.
#games:mlp.chat
>>148704
Oh nice. Btw I know its not really the best but its the only version i have. Would anyone be interested in a game of DnD 5e?
Oh nice. Btw I know its not really the best but its the only version i have. Would anyone be interested in a game of DnD 5e?
>>148732
It is indeed a fun time.
I'd invite you to my current campaign, but it's already kind of nearing its end. I'm probably going to run a new one this winter though, and I'd gladly take players from this board.
It is indeed a fun time.
I'd invite you to my current campaign, but it's already kind of nearing its end. I'm probably going to run a new one this winter though, and I'd gladly take players from this board.
>>149012
Hell yeah. I 3d print my minis and paint 'em. Theyre alot more fragile/brittle than the old-school pewter ones, but they take paint alot better, and the price is right.
Hell yeah. I 3d print my minis and paint 'em. Theyre alot more fragile/brittle than the old-school pewter ones, but they take paint alot better, and the price is right.
Anyone of you know a good place for a leaf to get good price minis? The ones i get from wizkid are good but i wish i could prime them myself.
File (): 6E7FDF30C5452087CF859ADB4D19A6DA-57403.jpg (56.1 KB, 626x802, fizbans-treasury-of-dragons.jpg)
>>149300
I thought of making a thread for 5e, but it would basically be a general and I never really felt like it or thought anyone was interested.
The cover was found in the source code of d&dbeyond, which once again shows how crap Hasbro is at protecting their property.
Looks like it's going to be a generalist book, like Volo's Guide, only with Dragons. The name on the cover is of course a Dragonlance reference, although we also know that this book features Gemstone Dragons, which don't fit into the mileau of Krynn at all; from that we can assume that it's not a setting book, but a generalist book. Basically 5e's Draconomicon. As for why they would invoke the name of Fizban, I can only assume they want to either milk nostalgia or possibly reboot a Dragonlance adventure book in the future.
All of the player content has already been published in UA. It's only a question of what they're going to nerf into oblivion.
I thought of making a thread for 5e, but it would basically be a general and I never really felt like it or thought anyone was interested.
The cover was found in the source code of d&dbeyond, which once again shows how crap Hasbro is at protecting their property.
Looks like it's going to be a generalist book, like Volo's Guide, only with Dragons. The name on the cover is of course a Dragonlance reference, although we also know that this book features Gemstone Dragons, which don't fit into the mileau of Krynn at all; from that we can assume that it's not a setting book, but a generalist book. Basically 5e's Draconomicon. As for why they would invoke the name of Fizban, I can only assume they want to either milk nostalgia or possibly reboot a Dragonlance adventure book in the future.
All of the player content has already been published in UA. It's only a question of what they're going to nerf into oblivion.
>>149302
Them again, they're probably just using Fizban's name. They used Tasha for their last book, and they haven't said anything about Grayhawk whatsoever.
Them again, they're probably just using Fizban's name. They used Tasha for their last book, and they haven't said anything about Grayhawk whatsoever.
Don't you just love it when book writers name-drop characters from old settings and say a couple words like "yeah, you can totally play in this setting", and then proceed to not produce any content for the setting whatsoever? No modules. No maps. No nothing.
>>149306
WotC tries to get as much hype as possible with minimal effort. Name-dropping old characters and half-ass reviving old settings let's gets people excited enough to get a book printed.
Welcome to 5e.
>new maps and worlds
Lmao, no. That would require hiring actual writers to produce actually content. WotC doesn't do that in 2021.
WotC tries to get as much hype as possible with minimal effort. Name-dropping old characters and half-ass reviving old settings let's gets people excited enough to get a book printed.
Welcome to 5e.
>new maps and worlds
Lmao, no. That would require hiring actual writers to produce actually content. WotC doesn't do that in 2021.
Also, maps and worlds aren't worth very much on their own if they don't print any adventures to enjoy them.
>>149310
They weren't always this terrible. They've gotten lazy, or at least unwilling to hire writers.
They weren't always this terrible. They've gotten lazy, or at least unwilling to hire writers.
>>149311
>they weren’t always this terrible
I’m not so sure. They were better at hiding their Disdain.
>they weren’t always this terrible
I’m not so sure. They were better at hiding their Disdain.
>>149312
I mean they used to actually produce books. There was a time when they'd pump out books full of mechanical content at least once a month.
I mean they used to actually produce books. There was a time when they'd pump out books full of mechanical content at least once a month.
>>149314
Tbh, with the most recent edition, the problem isn't just lack of content, but the game design itself. The game isn't modular enough for new character content to really enrich the game. Every feat and subclass it mutually exclusive with all of the previous feats and subclasses, so there's little that you can add to a character concept with a new book.
It's a shame. They tried to make 5e so "simple" that they quashed any room it could have had to improve. Too bad it's not modular like PF2e.
Tbh, with the most recent edition, the problem isn't just lack of content, but the game design itself. The game isn't modular enough for new character content to really enrich the game. Every feat and subclass it mutually exclusive with all of the previous feats and subclasses, so there's little that you can add to a character concept with a new book.
It's a shame. They tried to make 5e so "simple" that they quashed any room it could have had to improve. Too bad it's not modular like PF2e.
Favorite game?
What do you like about it to that other games don't do well?
What do you like about it to that other games don't do well?
File (): 5F08F9E51EB247352664FBFA6B5A4CA0-138855.jpg (135.6 KB, 600x787, despair.jpg)
File (): 01138A2CA9C145A69CCA55E350ED0086-2645.png (2.6 KB, 364x43, ee52a138ddf93e56520910fabcb0df25.png)
https://www.enworld.org/threads/wotc-novels-non-5e-lore-are-officially-not-canon.681553/
Thoughts? I didn't think it warranted a thread.
Thoughts? I didn't think it warranted a thread.
>>148233
I'm bored, so I feel like inquiring this again, if you're still there.
What exactly is your experience with "weighted scenarios"? I think I've been in plenty of games that might have something similar to what you are describing, but I'm not sure.
I'm bored, so I feel like inquiring this again, if you're still there.
What exactly is your experience with "weighted scenarios"? I think I've been in plenty of games that might have something similar to what you are describing, but I'm not sure.
>>149799
The thing about "weighted scenarios", as you describe them, is that they often include situations where the party has their backs to the wall and there is only one viable solution to the predicament. The problem with that is if there was no way of avoiding that situation in the first place, it's basically just railroading. Now, nobody likes railroading, but a little bit of subtle railroading to keep the game on track doesn't hurt that much. However, if the railroaded situation you create is "Do what I expect you to, or you'll be TPK'd", a variety of things could happen.
>1. The party immediately realizes that it's railroaded, and does what you want them to do (run away, negotiate, surrender, etc)
This is a likely scenario, but it's rather unfun when the players realize that they're not getting to make choices in the matter, which can lead to situation 2b (see below) if you do this more than once.
>2. The party recognizes it's a railroaded situation, but misinterprets what they are supposed to do (fight until expected help arrives, die with honor, kill the enemies' leader, distract the enemy and die while the rest of the party escapes, destroy the McGuffin, use up all of their resources, etc)
This is a situation you create for yourself when you give the party problems with only one solution. If there is only one solution in the situation, any other significant action has potential to derail the plot that you tried to railroad. As the GM, you are responsible for eloquently communicating the situation to the party; any inadequacy in making the situation clear is a failure on your behalf.
>2b. The party realizes that the situation is railroaded, and gets frustrated or antagonistic as a result, leading them to do something you don't expect them to (destroy the McGuffin, kill themselves, fight to the death in a show of 'bravery', join the evil side, exploit a mechanical loophole, sacrifice a key NPC, destroy the world, etc)
This outcome is more likely than you think. If you haven't been communicating with the party well, or you've frustrated them with your plot resolution, they're going to be unpredictable. Players who feel like they're being deprived of choices will try to create choices for themselves, leading them to subvert the plot and/or to the one thing you haven't prepared for them to do. Some players will do this without even realizing it, or just have a belief that they're supposed to outsmart the GM even when surrounded and supposedly out of options. This is something to watch out for, because players will never fail to surprise you in their plot-derailing ingenuity or equally-powerful stupidity. Cornered PCs can act like cornered animals, even if they don't realize they're cornered (see number 3 below).
>3. The party DOESN'T recognize that the situation is railroaded, and does the opposite of what you expect them to (fight to the death, destroy the McGuffin, join the evil side, sacrifice a party member, use up all of their resources in desperation, etc).
You can expect at least one party member to misinterpret the situation, so this outcome is rather likely.
>3b. The party is more optimized/powerful than you expected, leading them to simply bulldoze right through odds you thought to be "insurmountable" with brute force and clever tactics.
This happens all of time, but isn't really a problem unless you hinged your entire plot/universe on the the party's failure, which you should never do. If you don't want the PCs to murder the goddess of light, you shouldn't have put her there in the flesh (if it has stats, you can kill it).
>4. The party doesn't recognize the situation is railroaded, but still does what you expect them to.
This is the most desirable outcome, but notice how it's only one of 4-4 outcomes possible, and with 4-6 party members you can expect at least one player to try something whacky. It is also the outcome that requires the most skill as a GM, because it means getting the party to do what you want without letting them realize that they aren't the ones making the choices.
From what is listed above, there are 4-6 ways a party can react to any situation with "insurmountable odds", and only 1-2 of them are really any good. As a GM, you shouldn't really be depriving your party of choices, because when you do that you deprotagonize the players and worse you create the possibility of PCs frustrating you by defying your expectations. Not only is railroadinging in this fashion unfun, but it gets even worse when you realize that the party might not properly cooperate with the actions you are trying to force them into.
Of course, it's not always bad. This stuff happens in games all of the time, but you might be setting yourself up for failure if you rely on the PCs doing exactly what you expect them to.
>>149800
Idk. I might have just wasted 15 minutes typing the post above if i've misinterpreted Anon's post.
See >>148233
The thing about "weighted scenarios", as you describe them, is that they often include situations where the party has their backs to the wall and there is only one viable solution to the predicament. The problem with that is if there was no way of avoiding that situation in the first place, it's basically just railroading. Now, nobody likes railroading, but a little bit of subtle railroading to keep the game on track doesn't hurt that much. However, if the railroaded situation you create is "Do what I expect you to, or you'll be TPK'd", a variety of things could happen.
>1. The party immediately realizes that it's railroaded, and does what you want them to do (run away, negotiate, surrender, etc)
This is a likely scenario, but it's rather unfun when the players realize that they're not getting to make choices in the matter, which can lead to situation 2b (see below) if you do this more than once.
>2. The party recognizes it's a railroaded situation, but misinterprets what they are supposed to do (fight until expected help arrives, die with honor, kill the enemies' leader, distract the enemy and die while the rest of the party escapes, destroy the McGuffin, use up all of their resources, etc)
This is a situation you create for yourself when you give the party problems with only one solution. If there is only one solution in the situation, any other significant action has potential to derail the plot that you tried to railroad. As the GM, you are responsible for eloquently communicating the situation to the party; any inadequacy in making the situation clear is a failure on your behalf.
>2b. The party realizes that the situation is railroaded, and gets frustrated or antagonistic as a result, leading them to do something you don't expect them to (destroy the McGuffin, kill themselves, fight to the death in a show of 'bravery', join the evil side, exploit a mechanical loophole, sacrifice a key NPC, destroy the world, etc)
This outcome is more likely than you think. If you haven't been communicating with the party well, or you've frustrated them with your plot resolution, they're going to be unpredictable. Players who feel like they're being deprived of choices will try to create choices for themselves, leading them to subvert the plot and/or to the one thing you haven't prepared for them to do. Some players will do this without even realizing it, or just have a belief that they're supposed to outsmart the GM even when surrounded and supposedly out of options. This is something to watch out for, because players will never fail to surprise you in their plot-derailing ingenuity or equally-powerful stupidity. Cornered PCs can act like cornered animals, even if they don't realize they're cornered (see number 3 below).
>3. The party DOESN'T recognize that the situation is railroaded, and does the opposite of what you expect them to (fight to the death, destroy the McGuffin, join the evil side, sacrifice a party member, use up all of their resources in desperation, etc).
You can expect at least one party member to misinterpret the situation, so this outcome is rather likely.
>3b. The party is more optimized/powerful than you expected, leading them to simply bulldoze right through odds you thought to be "insurmountable" with brute force and clever tactics.
This happens all of time, but isn't really a problem unless you hinged your entire plot/universe on the the party's failure, which you should never do. If you don't want the PCs to murder the goddess of light, you shouldn't have put her there in the flesh (if it has stats, you can kill it).
>4. The party doesn't recognize the situation is railroaded, but still does what you expect them to.
This is the most desirable outcome, but notice how it's only one of 4-4 outcomes possible, and with 4-6 party members you can expect at least one player to try something whacky. It is also the outcome that requires the most skill as a GM, because it means getting the party to do what you want without letting them realize that they aren't the ones making the choices.
From what is listed above, there are 4-6 ways a party can react to any situation with "insurmountable odds", and only 1-2 of them are really any good. As a GM, you shouldn't really be depriving your party of choices, because when you do that you deprotagonize the players and worse you create the possibility of PCs frustrating you by defying your expectations. Not only is railroadinging in this fashion unfun, but it gets even worse when you realize that the party might not properly cooperate with the actions you are trying to force them into.
Of course, it's not always bad. This stuff happens in games all of the time, but you might be setting yourself up for failure if you rely on the PCs doing exactly what you expect them to.
>>149800
Idk. I might have just wasted 15 minutes typing the post above if i've misinterpreted Anon's post.
See >>148233
[Reply] [Last 50 Posts] [Last 100 Posts] [Last 200 Posts]
You are viewing older replies. Click [View All] or [Last n Posts] to vew latest posts.
Clicking update will load all posts posted after last post on this page.
Post pagination: [Prev] [1-50] [51-100] [101-150] [151-200] [201-204] [Next] [Live (last 50 replies)]
204 replies | 32 files | 48 UUIDs | Page 1