Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

If you can see this message, the SSL certificate expiration has been fixed.
Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 8 KB, 480x360, Deep Dark Fantasy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
53285989 No.53285989 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

I've been circling around PnP games for years without ever joining one until this month. I was originally wanting to be a DM, but heeded advice to be just a player for a couple months/year to learn the ropes.

Been trying to gather all the advice I can find online into a set of general guidelines for DM'ing and would appreciate any ideas yall would offer. Below is what I have actually written down so far, in no particular order.

>Speak to players before a campaign and get a consensus on how much combat vs roleplaying they are interested in per session and if anyone is uncomfortable with certain themes like ERP showing up. Checkup with them at the end of each session to find out what they liked/was bored with.
>Fudging rolls or gimping enemies is okay to do. DON'T tell the players this is happening.
>Critical skill check rolls should not allow impossible results.
>Never run DMPC's. Your focus should be on the PC's.
>Do not railroad, let players drive the direction of the game even if that leads to them dying.
>Never handwave anything. Keep abilities and events consistent with the universe.
>If you fuck up an event, do not change it after it's happened.
>Try to keep party from splitting too much, but if they do then avoid focusing on one player for the entire session and try to expedite the encounters to gather them again.
>Do not let players make changes to characters mid-game, exception for new players in the early sessions or correcting honest mistakes.
>Avoid abilities that can kill a PC in one hit. Exception for low-level murderhobos who attack high-level NPC's unprovoked.
>Never have traps that do not allow spot/avoidance rolls. (ex. rocks fall, party dies)

>> No.53286302

>>53285989
>Never run DMPC's. Your focus should be on the PC's.
We have a whole thread going on about this now, but to summarize >>53274215, having an NPC in the party is by no means always a bad thing. You just shouldn't view them as *your* personal character.

>Critical skill check rolls should not allow impossible results.
Not if you want a game that's at all realistic, no. Some groups might welcome ridiculous or reality-breaking mythical results though. I wouldn't, but some might.

>Do not railroad, let players drive the direction of the game even if that leads to them dying.
Certainly don't herd the players along and take away their agency, but sometimes the stricture against railroading can be overstated. It's okay to make an adventure about a particular thing (a particular dungeon, for instance), allowing you to focus your planning. You just need to make sure you have the cooperation and interest of your players. Not everything needs to be a wide-open sandbox.

>Try to keep party from splitting too much, but if they do then avoid focusing on one player for the entire session and try to expedite the encounters to gather them again.
This is good advice, though I've reached the point where I tell people who leave the party without a very good reason to go ahead and make a new character. It's a game about the party, and I don't want to waste time splitting the action because fuckers couldn't stay together.

>Never have traps that do not allow spot/avoidance rolls. (ex. rocks fall, party dies)
A description could warn attentive folks away without any roll being necessary, though I do like rolls as a sort of saving throw if nothing else.

>> No.53286438

>>53285989
>Checkup with them at the end of each session to find out what they liked/was bored with.
You could maybe do a quick check, but I wouldn't expect a detailed commentary after every single session. Most players will view this as a hassle and will be noncommittal, giving you shrugs and "I guess it was alright." But certainly check back in with your players periodically. The trick is that players often don't understand why they do or don't enjoy a session, and may misattribute things or fixate on minor or ancillary issues, so always take what they say with a grain of salt. Also, people can have a bad day for reasons that have little to do with your execution of the game (or the group dynamic can be off, negatively impacting the session), so don't overact to player concerns. That's not to say that you shouldn't react at all; just be measured and considered in your response, especially if somebody is suddenly taking issue with something they didn't seem to mind before.

>> No.53286476

The rules are but tools for the GM to use to provide structure and consistency to his game. They should not be a cage, and should be disregarded if they start to become one. If you do so, however, be careful not to make things seem unfair or inconsistent. You don't want to hurt people's sense of immersion or piss them off.

>> No.53286481

>>53285989
On the railroading deal... ya know that completely depends on the group. I run 2 groups, the first group likes open sandboxey shit, practically hexcrawl shenanigans, the second group prefers railroad tracks.

They just like the direction and will sometimes chide me for making the game a little overly open. I think that comes from the second group's ability to bog down in minutiae of planning and if I put the tracks down they can just focus on murderhoboing or playing the game.

>> No.53286531

>>53286476
Another way of saying this is that *you* are the boss of your game, not some rule book. Just make sure your players know what to expect.

>> No.53286916
File: 7 KB, 299x168, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
53286916

>>53286302
DMPC - I'll keep that in mind. It seems like a balancing act that requires a bit more experience than I have right now.

Critical rolls - I understand that. I just can't understand the stories I see of a party killing a king's daughter in front of him, then rolling a nat 20 to convince him to join their party with a high five over his daughters corpse.

-Railroading - So rely on communication with players. That seems to be the answer to most problems apparently.

-Splitting the Party - I agree with your point, but still on the fence a bit. It seems unrealistic to expect a group of people to never work on separate objectives and be in the same place. But it seems to put too much stress on the DM trying to juggle multiple encounters at the same time. I suppose it would be best to just let the group know beforehand to accept it's a game and there won't be any party splitting.

>>53286438
You make good points. Everybody hates surveys. Maybe check in every few sessions for a quick 1-2 minutes or just go off their body language responses.

>>53286476
I started out with that attitude that everything should be black and white, but I have come around to your thinking. Fun is more important than rule lawyering.

Consistency is very important to me, definitely paying attention to that.

>>53286481
I've seen people talk about not knowing what to do when presented with pure sandbox. I had the idea of starting a campaign with an obvious plot hook. After that just constantly throw out more hooks to different side-plots if they avoid the main one. That one if they run out of idea's there is always something they could go towards instead of staring at each other over the table. I just don't like the idea of a party doing a murder investigation deciding to leave town, then finding out all the gates are locked and they can't climb the walls to escape cause reasons type rails.

>>53286531
That's a recurring theme, I'll keep it in mind.

Thanks guys!

>> No.53287047

>>53285989
To players:
>There is an overlap between what you know and what your character knows. This overlap is everything you've learned before High School. Simple things such as 'water is wet', '1+5=6', or 'fire burns wood easily'. No need for any knowledge of photosynthesis in order to defeat a Plant monster. Roll a Nature check instead.
>If I haven't seen you at the table before: No Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, Chaotic Evil, or Chaotic Neutral. Players take alignments too literally and think that they can do 'anything they want' just because they picked one of those alignments and read on some dumb website how they should act.
>For the newbies: If you have trouble with the rules or are intimidated by them. Or perhaps have trouble memorizing, reading, or taking notes. DO NOT play a spellcaster. If you still want to play a spellcaster, don't play a Druid.

To GMs:
>Provide essential information front-and-centre. This means Who doing What, Why and Where the PCs need to go. Don't rely on hints or that the players will figure it out afterwards. They won't.
>Provide corpses and victims to certain deadly situations your players might fall for. If they ignore those signs, don't pity them when they fall for a trap.
>If you want to add puzzles, make them optional, not essential to solve. This means that you can reward them with additional treasure, but they still need to solve a puzzle for it. Also look for what kind of puzzles they'd be good at, visual, linguistic, mathematical or logical puzzles have different difficulties depening on the player.
>Try something new with each session. Whatever that may be.
>Stop thinking in sandbox or railroads, think 'narrative'. A narrative is a series of events that trigger other events. It's interactive and can be influenced, a story is not.
>Break the rules sometimes. As a DM, you have to power to do so. Sometimes it makes the game better and less of a cookie-cutter-encounter driven slug-fest.

>> No.53287771

>>53286916
>obvious plot hook

>Implying any plot hook is obvious enough.
>Implying any hook will bait the players in.
>Implying this isn't railroading.

>> No.53287894

>>53285989
>>Do not railroad, let players drive the direction of the game even if that leads to them dying.
This statement is inconsistent. Railroading is not the opposite of "letting the players drive the direction of the game.". Railroading is restricting the players to one option and only one option to continue. They will not usually drive the direction of the game unless you allow for more or less totally emergent plot, which is tough to do at the best of time and I would very much NOT recommend for a new GM.

Consider the most classic of campaign archtypes. You have some BBEG, say a lich, who is going to raise an army and conquer the land if he isn't stopped by whatever it is the PCs are going to do. The PCs aren't driving the direction of the game, the villain is, and the PCs role is that of stopping the villain from doing whatever it is his villainous plot is.

Now, you shouldn't be railroading, and there should be multiple options open to stopping this villain, or even joining him, (in which case the point of view shifts to helping the villain fulfill his villainous plot in the opposition from whatever forces of good there are), but in neither case are the players driving the direction of things.

>> No.53288055

>>53287894
This has always been a battle of definitions. I would have said if there are many options for defeating or joining the antagonist, then the PCs must be driving the direction of the game.
Coherence and Lack of Agency are the Scylla and Chyribdis of RPGs.

>> No.53288213

Something i like is to make sure that its not a you vs the player scenario

For example when i design an encounter where a shopkeeper is going to rip off the players i ask a player to play the shopkeeper

That way its more fun for me and the players and theres less potential for conflict during a session

>> No.53288244

>>53287894
I think its stupid from a players perspective to expect to do everything in a game

The gm has planned out a direction for the story to go and its not easy to just improvise a memorable plot on the spot

So its not railroading when you tell your players beforehand that this is a murder mystery game and they shouldn't really start planning a bank robbery that'll take more than one session and invalidates most of your planned game

>> No.53288311

>>53285989
You're forgetting the #1 rule of DMing.
Have fun with it you dinkus. This is about you having a good time as much as it is about players.

>> No.53288508

One piece of advice I found pretty good was: your job as DM is to be a fair judge between the players and the world. Don't fall in either of the pitfalls of siding with the awesome villain/dungeon/monster, because you essentially play it or siding with the players because they are meant to be the heros of the story. In both cases you take away their agency. Either because no matter what they do their antagonist counters it or no matter what they do you hand an easy solution to them. The first one leads to frustration, the second one to boredom, both to unengaged players.

>> No.53288647

>>53287047
Alignments are some weird shit I've come to find. Especially if you're classifying a character into an alignment before actually playing them.

Every PC in my current group I could give 2 alignments, because one just doesn't fit it.
I just leave the Alignment fields empty on any new Character Sheets.

Alignments also risk reducing a character to 2 letters. Whenever people see …E on a character sheet many don't trust the character, or even go mad and try to kill them, not considering how they actually behave.
So the CG paladin goes ahead killing the LE rogue "cuz he's evil!" – that's great "good" behavior.

But then there's DnD with its: You need an alignment, otherwise you can't use item XYZ! herpderp

>> No.53288714

>>53287047
Exactly. That's why I kick those and leave the rest to pick from because even after a thorough explanation, players still fuck it up and pick one and rationalise around it. But at least those are (relatively) harmless.

How does removing alignment go for you? Does it add more or less depth to the PCs? Do they just run rampant as criminals or are they actually following any plot?

>> No.53288723

>>53288647
I derped here I was stating this:
>>53288714

>> No.53288965

>>53288647
I think alignments are fine, if the players realize they simply describe your general nature.
I take umbrage as a DM when a player says they are X, but act like Y; if you say you are Good, than show it in your rp. If you repeatedly take a different approach than that, I maintain the right to instruct you to change it to reflect your habitual approach.
To me, alignments are a simple thing that I do think /tg/ tries to overthink, find some way to "game", or try to tear down as though alignments are the problem, and not the player.

>> No.53288991

>>53288714
In my current campaign I started with alignments, but started ignoring them about half a year ago.
My players started the campaign with some comments like:
>Hey anon, what you did isn't CN, that's more LE
(talking to a player which is more in the game for the fighting, and does some weird stuff in RP – he had his great moments though; other story)
the alignment stuff just went under, and no one shed a tear.

Most important stuff is probably that 2 important NPCs the players have right now following them (both include a character sheet) are both LE. If they knew that, they wouldn't trust them at all, lol.

>> No.53289157

>>53285989
im sort of new to dming, what the hell is gimping enemies, is it just making them die faster for the sake of speeding up fights or just generally changing stats mid fight to make the fight more enjoyable, also what the fuck is a dmpc, it sounds like a mix of dm and pc so i assume its a pc controled by the dm.

Also how much fudging of rolls is allowable, because during my last boss fight i found ,myself fudging the enemies saves because I accidently made the fight to difficult

And thanks for the tip about insta kill because i was thinking about wether or not a single enemy that has an insta kill would be a bit over powered

>> No.53289159

>>53288991
>players using alignments to describe each other's acts, rather than ic descriptions
Congrats, your players are exactly the kind of people I referred to.

>> No.53289282

>>53289157
dmpc are not really npcs but npcs that are played by the dm in a way thats favorable towards the npc and disfavorable to the players characters

So for example if you're playing DnD you might have a companion thats played by the DM has overpowered gear and is unable to die due to plot or dm reasons

Fudging the rolls and gimping enemies is fine as long as it attributes to the fun of the game

In some games like CoC its perfectly fine to wipe a party - because CoC is mostly played in one session and losing the game can be just enjoyable as "winning"

>> No.53289293
File: 1.23 MB, 1235x2892, Useful.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
53289293

>>53285989
Good stuff in this thread. My perspectives:

>Fudging
This goes both ways. Sometimes it makes combat go smoother--like killing an enemy that's a hair from death to save time. Sometimes you'll just want to roll to make players sweat (like when a player does something cool or clever and you don't really want them to fail for it).

>Railroading
This is a question of terminology, but I think pic related is a fine example of how to account for players without commanding you to set a certain structure.

>Splitting
In my experience, it pays to cross the streams and ensure that the party is somewhat disinclined from splitting up in-game. Not ENTIRELY, but somewhat. We often "roll initiative" when characters split up to add some structure and ensure nobody is left out of the spotlight. And sometimes a character has a plausible reason to be left out--but the player might be okay with that.

>Spot rolls
With traps, I prefer the traditional 'player skill' approach. I don't like rolling, because it's fun for players to exercise their own ingenuity in trumping them--but a roll makes for a suitable fallback in corner cases.

>Avoid OHKO
Sometimes an attack is liable to fuck you up. My party got nearly one-shot by a Behir because they kicked in a door in single file. Not every situation is deliberately malicious, and as long as you and your players are on the same page they shouldn't hold an occasional instance of brutality against you.

Other advice: Prepare. It's a lot easier to improvise when you have a grab-bag of names for people/places/things, or when you've exhausted all possible questions surrounding something. Players, in DOING things, are essentially "asking" about your world, and it pays to have "answers" in advance, even if they're simple.

On that note, sometimes it's okay to say you don't have all the answers. Sometimes a hokey or implausible concept is what it is, and the players can help you with understanding it. Low-risk worldbuilding, in a sense.

>> No.53289294

>>53289157
>what the hell is gimping enemies
Holding back or changing their abilities because you overestimated the party/underestimated the enemies, and are scared of actually killing pcs.
NEVER be scared of killing pcs.
>what the fuck is a dmpc
What these fools do not tell you is that there is a difference between what they are talking about on /tg/ and what it is irl.
A DMPC is a pc controlled by the dm that overshadows the players' pcs, is better than them because reasons, floughts the rules of the game the players are bound to, etc.
A dmpc is a pc the dm controls for whatever reason, like an npc assistant, playing the pc of a player who is absent that day, someone the players hired or the pc of a player that dropped but the rest want to keep them around.
>Also how much fudging of rolls is allowable
Some, not a lot, because players will notice. In your situation, you were both gimping your boss AND fudging poorly.
> a single enemy that has an insta kill would be a bit over powered
Do your players have one, anon?

>> No.53289312

>>53289157
dmpc are not really npcs but npcs that are played by the dm in a way thats favorable towards the npc and disfavorable to the players characters

So for example if you're playing DnD you might have a companion thats played by the DM has overpowered gear and is unable to die due to plot or dm reasons

Fudging the rolls and gimping enemies is fine as long as it attributes to the fun of the game

In some games like CoC its perfectly fine to wipe a party - because CoC is mostly played in one session and losing the game can be just enjoyable as "winning"

>> No.53289524

>>53286916
>I've seen people talk about not knowing what to do when presented with pure sandbox.
I think that a good sandbox is really hard to pull off. Even if the players are proactive, the GM can't focus his preparation the same way he would for a more focused adventure, which often impacts the quality of the game. And in the hands of lesser GMs (or GMs who just aren't good at this particular approach), it can turn into a game of "not much happens" or at least a game that feels disjointed and rather pointless.

When starting out, I like the idea of setting the parameters of an adventure right off the bat. Something like: "This is the story of a band of intrepid adventures who plumbed the deepest recesses of the cursed caverns of Yodurih." While "intrepid" and "deepest recesses" are just there for color and shouldn't influence party actions in any way, the point is that the adventure is about going into the caves. Now you can focus your prep on the caves and don't have to concern yourself with the party deciding on a whim to do something else. Obviously this is a contract of sorts with your players, and you need to make sure that they're okay with this sort of thing so you're not effectively forcing them to do something they're not interested in, but there is no good reason why you can't set the parameters like this.

>> No.53289558

>>53287047
>If you want to add puzzles, make them optional, not essential to solve.
I think it really depends on the type of puzzle. If it's "answer this riddle or you can't proceed", then you obviously want to make whatever's behind it optional, because otherwise the adventure slams to stop if the players can't figure it out.

With that said "puzzle" is a rather broad term and could be applied to any tricky situation you need to come up with a clever way out of. In cases like that, where failure to solve a puzzle doesn't simply halt your progress but instead lands you in hot water, it's fine if they're on an essential rather than optional path. Assuming the solution isn't blatantly obvious, I like to think of at least 2 good ways to address any conundrum like that (and leave myself as open as possible to additional ways the players may come up with, giving any plans of theirs the benefit of the doubt whenever possible).

>> No.53289634
File: 84 KB, 1049x803, death checks.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
53289634

>>53289294
>NEVER be scared of killing pcs.
It really depends on your game and your group. Some games are gritty and player death is vital to them. Some groups would straight up lose interest if you killed off their characters.

>> No.53289642
File: 7 KB, 284x177, dexter.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
53289642

>>53289293
I'll read through that thread, thanks.

Rolling initiative for split parties is a great idea, thanks.

Preparation - I've been warned by people against "over prepping". Where is the line? My original idea was to run a Dark Heresy game in a Hive City and was working on fleshing out every level and having a handful of NPC's in each area/job to throw out there no matter where the party went. Friends told me I was wasting time.

>> No.53289754

>>53289634
That's why I said never to be scared of it, not do willy nilly.
GMs who are afraid to push the players past the point of safe return end up being the bitch.
>>53289642
I don't think you are wasting time if you plan on using the setting more than once. You could, however, just freeform the npcs and have a rough idea of what is on each of the many level of a hive city. What I prefer is to make the big 5 or 6 npcs in an area, the movers and shakers, and improv the rest.

>> No.53289789
File: 81 KB, 933x606, dm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
53289789

>>53288965
>>53288991
>>53288647
>>53288714
I don't ever plan to run a game with alignments. It just does not make any sense. No human acts just Good, Evil, Lawful, or Chaotic their entire life. Or even in a single week.

It makes for stupid decisions because "my paladin who is a father of four and helps traumatized kids can't kill the rapist because I'm lawful good. I arrest him and try to turn him back to being good."

Shit's dumb.

>> No.53289796

>>53289642
>Preparation - I've been warned by people against "over prepping". Where is the line?
The point at which your preparation starts getting in your own way. I know that's a non-answer, but that's what it really comes down to. It can help to only set some core things in stone* and leave the other details as mere possibilities you could include if you remember them and they fit in well with the flow of things. But you want to be light on your feet and not bogged down by shuffling through papers or trying to remember how everything ties together. You need to live in the moment and feel free to change the course of things based upon how shit is unfolding, rather than playing the game as if it were a pre-written screenplay.

>> No.53289832

>>53289558
That's good! However, I've come across DMs who mistake puzzles for skill challenges and keep the answer open so they can give their players a badge for trying anything. I'm a bit more strict when it comes to those.

>> No.53289899

>>53289789
>No human acts just Good, Evil, Lawful, or Chaotic their entire life. Or even in a single week.

It's fiction, Anon. Fiction. Dragons aren't real, as are Demons, Angels or sentient robots (yet). Alignments were made to give the characters... well... more character. It's a Tolkien-esque view of Fantasy. A clear line between Good and Evil. It's not realistic, that's because it's not even real to begin with. Playing realistic can be quite boring as the most realistic situation in a world of monsters would be to play a coward.

>> No.53289927

>>53289789
I have never seen someone with a physical board like this. Do you think anyone actually plays on something like it?

>>53289642
Fleshing out the area is worthwhile, but if you structure it by fleshing it out in such a way that certain things only happen if other things happen, it's a bad over-prep.

Say I have two related shopkeepers, they don't look too similar, and you might only find out if you ask them. They could be twins, and attentive players may notice they're similar. But If one sells a special item that the players need but will only sell it if the players know that they have a brother, that's too much.

>> No.53289929

>>53289754
>>53289796
That's a good point. No reason to plot out everyone's hair color and habits when I won't be able to remember them off the top of my head mid-game. Thanks.
>>53287047
>>53289558
The optional puzzles are definitely the go to. I'm not a big fan of having to deal with puzzles to continue a story either. I'm signed up to play *insert system* not Portal.

>> No.53289942

>>53289789
>No human acts just Good, Evil, Lawful, or Chaotic their entire life. Or even in a single week.
And you have already shown you haven't read what alignments represent for mortals.
They are HABITS, anon, not a "you must act this way always and forever with no deviation" cap. The only ones who were bound to act within the strictures of alignment were divinely inspired classes, and even that has tapered off majorly.
You are calling something you don't understand and are doing wrong a problem, when the problem is user error, ie your warped perception of alignment.

>> No.53289964

>>53289899
>not playing WoD and hunter

I find taking completely non-combative characters and throwing them into a world in which vampires are real and want to kill them because they know, or any supernatural creature really can be fantastic. Not only because they have to do something otherwise they'll be hunted and things will get worse, but also because they feel a need to protect others, even if they can never say so because they'd be outed for being 'crazy'.

>> No.53290029

>>53289157
>Also how much fudging of rolls is allowable, because during my last boss fight i found ,myself fudging the enemies saves because I accidently made the fight to difficult

Fudging should be kept to minimum, and preferably reserved for those times when you've fucked up and you can't easily un-fuck things without it.

>> No.53290052
File: 26 KB, 900x600, doll.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
53290052

>>53289899
I get that, not going for Realism in games. Just prefer something like a reputation system when interacting with NPC's.

Alignments seem to stop players from doing certain actions, while reputations would allow them complete freedom of choice while roleplaying their character and still have consequences for being good/evil other than "You can't use this type of sword now".
>>53289927
Wasn't boards the standard back in the 80's? I'm sure plenty of people still do.

That's a good point. I've seen that become an issue in video game RPG's where the player does not follow the set path and suddenly NPC's are using dialogue that makes no sense because you missed the first part of the chain. I'll try to avoid doing that.

>> No.53290108

>>53289789
Sounds like you have no idea what alignments are or how they work.

>> No.53290134

>>53290052
>Alignments seem to stop players from doing certain actions
Only if the player believes that is how it works, ie doing it wrong and the gm ought to have explained it better.

>> No.53290135

>>53289942
Alignment as a tool to help roleplaying is fine. The problem seems to be once you start having items that require you to be a certain alignment. Now players can not act outside of that alignment if they want to keep using their gear and gear comes first in most people's minds.

>> No.53290158

>>53290108
>>53290134
see
>>53290135

>> No.53290217

>dont railroad

try not to but realise players a bimbling idiots.
give them a railroad but try to make it seem like their choice to do this

>> No.53290226

>>53290135
>The problem seems to be once you start having items that require you to be a certain alignment.
Alignments do not immediately change due to one off events, anon.
You are applying the old paladin standard (which hasn't existed in more than 10 years) to all characters.
Even then, the intelligent items that would actually have consequence do not vanish the moment you do something evil if you are supposed to be good, at worst, they ask the fuck that was about.
>>53290158
Yes, I see he is still doing it wrong.
Can someone explain to me just how people fuck up alignments so hard, so often, then claim alignments are the problem? They are so simple to me, I rarely even think about them in practice, I just do what my pc would do in the situation.

>> No.53290289

>>53290135
>Now players can not act outside of that alignment if they want to keep using their gear and gear comes first in most people's minds.
They can, actually. People can fuck up. Good characters can perform Evil actions without their alignment changing(within reason, obviously). In fact, generally the alignment of PCs should be left solely in the hands of their players unless it's really obvious that the said PC either blatantly violates his alignment(such as a good character torturing someone) or is consistently acting in a way that doesn't fit his alignment.

It should also be noted that, with the exception of divine casters, items and abilities that require a particular alignment are a rarity.

>> No.53290420

>>53290289
>Let players handle alignment
>Unless they act against their alignment

Why have it at all is my question? What does it add to the game? Players are already going to create a backstory and decide if they are generally good / grey / evil and act accordingly (unless they don't roleplay, then fuck em).

Why juggle alignment items and shifting alignments when you can just throw them all out.

>> No.53290506

>>53290226
Because without derailing into a philosophy debate, the alignment definitions make no sense.

>I rarely even think about them in practice, I just do what my pc would do in the situation.

That's what I'm saying everyone should do.

>> No.53290547

>>53290420
Because you are doing it wrong, and are confusing doing whatever you want with having a solid rationale.
>>53290506
>the alignment definitions make no sense
They make sense in D&D, where the cosmology supports them. Like I said, you are creating a problem with misunderstanding where there isn't one.

>> No.53290693

>>53290547
I'm playing a Lawful character worshiping bahamut the god of justice.

If I steal gold from a peasant that would be an evil action. If I steal gold from the "evil" villain is it still an unlawful action or is it evil because my god see's the boss as evil?

If alignment is based off the deities, then wouldn't a mass murdering barbarian worshiping a god of murder be performing Good actions?

>> No.53290771

>>53290693
>let me klodge together an example of something that will never happen, on top of leaving out details, in order to prove my misunderstanding about alignments
>If alignment is based off the deities
Alignment is not, nor has EVER, been based on gods, anon. Please, continue proving you have never read the phb about alignments, but stop taking the pleb approach of using hamfisted "moral quandaries" to make a nonpoint about alignments.

>> No.53290838

>>53289929
Maybe I can specify what I mean by "exhaustively" preparing--I only mean what's exhaustive by YOUR table's standards.

ex. If your players shop a lot and find those kind of exchanges fun, don't worry about introducing fleshed out backstories for the king and his captain of the guard--cater to the party's interests. Memorable store names, unusual wares, quirky personalities, haggling, etc.

At the end of the day, you can imbue lots of detail without bending over backwards. After all, you're ultimately building around the players.

>> No.53290868

>>53290771
>Stop using morality when talking about morality categories.

Sure thing man, I'm done here.

>> No.53290919

>>53290868
>using half crafted bullpoints to prove a point
Are you a politician?
Do you know why stealing from a peasant is evil, while stealing from a villain is generally regarded as neutral?
That you actually think alignments are based on deities shows you don't actually know what you are talking about, but are parroting shit you've seen on /tg/.
Now go back to /v/, anon, and remember this the next time you want to troll timmies on this board, ok?

>> No.53290984

>>53290693
If you can't even be bothered to try and make a decent argument, just fuck off already.

>> No.53291100

>>53290052
The problem is that you sometimes need a way to quantify if they're allowed to use a weapon or ability. Players do feel better if they know they can now use a sword because they have the proper ideals instead of because in a random session they became worthy.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action