D&D V6 - Edition jokes don't really make sense anymore - Games

Orrrrrr, you could be a Paladin so Lawful Stupid that they are secretly actually Evil.

[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;51130735]Based on this, and how rare it is, GMs should focus on shorter, more satisfying campaigns in general, and save the big long plot stuff until they can get a solid group in order. Pushing the idea that every GM should aim to keep the game going indefinitely is really lame in a lot of ways.[/QUOTE] That operates on the assumption that a game that has it's story conclude in a structured way is inherently kind of better than what the players want, which I seriously disagree with For all my bitching and moaning about never finishing my plots, I tend to run extremely sandboxy games which tend to go all over the place anyway, and generally the impression I get is that the players are all fine with this. I adapt and find ways to fit my story into what they want to do, anc if the game is good and lasts a long time and keeps going, great How long a game should be should more be a function of mutual agreement than anything. Because, speaking from both sides, very little sucks more than a game you like ending because 'oh, plot's done, bye' as opposed to people losing interest or whatever Tl;dr, I don't think hard and fast rules work for this. If you have something that works out, run with it. If not, accept it as a failed idea and move on.

To be fair were kinda an odd case just through how we manage the group. The same folks for coming up on like what, 3.5/4 years? At this point we've become so acclimated to whatever the gm and party throw into the cogs of our plans that a tpk or failed game is just another Tuesday [editline]30th September 2016[/editline] Come to think of it, were like people who play a game for an hour and go 'fuck it time to mod it till it crashes'

[QUOTE=Rudevinny;51131092]How do you guys usually do evil PCs? My DM forbade anyone from making an evil character, saying they'd end up senselessly killing peasants because that's part of their personality, but I feel like that only happens with the lamest chaotic evil characters.[/QUOTE] Generally if its a new group outlawing evil characters is a good idea. A lot of people will use being evil as an opportunity to do awful things that make them just unable to function with a party that isn't entirely evil. If you're doing evil PCs in a non-evil party the main thing is to not become an antagonist to the rest of the party. You may use questionable methods for your own goals, but your own goals and methods wont directly contradict the goals of the party even if they will hate you for them. And if you're in the minority as an evil character, you'll probably have to be ready to compromise.

That's especially true in games with objective good/evil systems like D&D. You either need to go to lengths to conceal it or otherwise not get caught, and have some way to make keeping you around worthwhile even if you are caught It's generally not worth the effort, especially when there are basically infinite ways to be disagreeable and self-serving while sticking in a 'neutral' range. Being truly, absolutely evil generally isn't appropriate for PC's for a lot of very good reasons It'd help us give advice if we had an idea as to what your idea was that requires your character to be evil

The important thing about alignments is making up the character you want to play first and then assigning them the most appropriate alignment, rather than building your characters around an alignment.

Generally, I favor Chaotic Neutral characters. You can do what you what, whenever you want. Eh, ok I guess I'll help this guy. I get paid right? No? It's the right thing to do? Nah, not my problem. So long as you don't go out of your way for others or go on a killing spree, you're golden. I agree, though, building around alignment is dumb. I like elowin's idea though. Might steal it from ya' :wink:

[QUOTE=SiberysTranq;51131409]That operates on the assumption that a game that has it's story conclude in a structured way is inherently kind of better than what the players want, which I seriously disagree with For all my bitching and moaning about never finishing my plots, I tend to run extremely sandboxy games which tend to go all over the place anyway, and generally the impression I get is that the players are all fine with this. I adapt and find ways to fit my story into what they want to do, anc if the game is good and lasts a long time and keeps going, great How long a game should be should more be a function of mutual agreement than anything. Because, speaking from both sides, very little sucks more than a game you like ending because 'oh, plot's done, bye' as opposed to people losing interest or whatever Tl;dr, I don't think hard and fast rules work for this. If you have something that works out, run with it. If not, accept it as a failed idea and move on.[/QUOTE] It doesn't have to be in a contrived way, it just has to be something to keep in mind. A definite ending can be the difference between a satisfying game and it feeling like a waste of time. For example, taking your sandbox game in mind, let's say you are more interested in the journey than the end and aren't thinking about overarching plot stuff. Your group is a bunch of mercs who are just in it for profit, and each mission is totally standalone with no links. What's driving the game then is the group itself, and you can end the game by having everyone say their goodbyes as they go their separate ways. Then go all "The Sandlot" and freeze frame on each of the characters as they say goodbyes, and describe what happens to them in the future. Narrator: "The Squid, our profit-hungry decker, would later be employed by Ares Industries as their head of cyber security. Funny then that nobody can find him after 30 million credits seemingly vanished into thin air." It's so simple to end a game well, and it goes such a long way.

Our party had a Lawful Evil Dexterity Barbarian who worshipped Bane. He managed to mostly trick the party into believing he was a worshipper of Lathander, when he actually targets worshippers of Lathander and just massacred a temple of monks. He also tricked my character into aiding him find and lynch a scapegoat in the investigation after. Alas, he met his end by the town guard when he tried to do it again in the next city over.

[QUOTE=elowin;51132050]The important thing about alignments is making up the character you want to play first and then assigning them the most appropriate alignment, rather than building your characters around an alignment.[/QUOTE] Some people [B]don't[/B] do this?!

[QUOTE=DiscoInferno;51132626]Some people [B]don't[/B] do this?![/QUOTE] I often find I'll come up with an idea. Pick alignment based on that and then find during the actual creation of the character that they fit a different alignment better.

I know for my setting and game the only time I factor in alignment is anything in relation to the deities or planar creatures. Otherwise, I typically tend to treat it as a background feature to things or minor guidelines.

I think with the exceptions of Paladins and Clerics alignment is generally intended to be something interpreted by players and under the jurisdiction of the DM. Paladins and Clerics obviously differ being so tightly connected to the tenants of their gods, but even then Divine Sense only [I]mechanically[/I] targets Undead, Fiend and Celestials as being evil or good. I think this is a deliberate choice because the typical morality of mortals is more muddled than the prior three. Personally I find Lawful Evil and Neutral Evil pretty interesting alignments that can operate perfectly within an average party. The player just needs to understand that if they start doing genuinely cruel and evil shit, like openly hurting innocent people, then they should expect some kind of retribution from the party or DM.

Has anyone run a "West March" campaign? Just started my own, five sessions in, super excited and would love to hear anyone's experience.

[QUOTE=Rudevinny;51131092]How do you guys usually do evil PCs? My DM forbade anyone from making an evil character, saying they'd end up senselessly killing peasants because that's part of their personality, but I feel like that only happens with the lamest chaotic evil characters.[/QUOTE] My character Scyles is Neutral Evil because he's from a nomad culture and views settled people as inferior. All his evils aren't the product of psychopathy or cartoon villainy, he's just been brought up in an environment where only the strong survive, and here he's suddenly put in a society where people live behind walls to protect them. Scyles despises the settled folk because they challenge his lifestyle, secretly they terrify them because their existence essentially means that most of the suffering in his life was completely pointless.

[QUOTE=Broguts;51133931]My character Scyles is Neutral Evil because he's from a nomad culture and views settled people as inferior. All his evils aren't the product of psychopathy or cartoon villainy, he's just been brought up in an environment where only the strong survive, and here he's suddenly put in a society where people live behind walls to protect them. Scyles despises the settled folk because they challenge his lifestyle, secretly they terrify them because their existence essentially means that most of the suffering in his life was completely pointless.[/QUOTE] Sounds more like Chaotic Neutral, bruh. Which is another problem with the nine alignments, they're so open to interpretation. If Alignments have to happen at all, I kinda prefer the way 1e and a lot of OSR games do it; Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic, all based on your view of the cosmos rather than whether or not you're actually a law-abiding citizen.(Lawful people are generally religious and followers of one if not many gods, Chaotic people are generally practitioners of magic, Neutral people don't really give a shit one way or the other.)

[img]https://i.imgur.com/AtKtw86.png[/img] Speaking of allinmennts.

[QUOTE=Rats808;51134080]Sounds more like Chaotic Neutral, bruh. Which is another problem with the nine alignments, they're so open to interpretation. If Alignments have to happen at all, I kinda prefer the way 1e and a lot of OSR games do it; Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic, all based on your view of the cosmos rather than whether or not you're actually a law-abiding citizen.(Lawful people are generally religious and followers of one if not many gods, Chaotic people are generally practitioners of magic, Neutral people don't really give a shit one way or the other.)[/QUOTE] I'd argue he's neutral evil, neutral rather than chaotic because he believes in a code of law and establishment, just not the settled one, he doesn't do things according to his whims, he follows a set of rules but at the same time its not the same rules as everyone else. Evil because he's done some really fucked up shit in the past, and will probably continue to do so in the present.

[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;51132482]It doesn't have to be in a contrived way, it just has to be something to keep in mind. A definite ending can be the difference between a satisfying game and it feeling like a waste of time. For example, taking your sandbox game in mind, let's say you are more interested in the journey than the end and aren't thinking about overarching plot stuff. Your group is a bunch of mercs who are just in it for profit, and each mission is totally standalone with no links. What's driving the game then is the group itself, and you can end the game by having everyone say their goodbyes as they go their separate ways. Then go all "The Sandlot" and freeze frame on each of the characters as they say goodbyes, and describe what happens to them in the future. Narrator: "The Squid, our profit-hungry decker, would later be employed by Ares Industries as their head of cyber security. Funny then that nobody can find him after 30 million credits seemingly vanished into thin air." It's so simple to end a game well, and it goes such a long way.[/QUOTE] Being fair you've gotta understand that 2/3 of our games on avg end with at least 80% of us dead

[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;51129776]Im curious, how many of you have actually sucessfully ended a game thay lasted 20+ sessions? Even 10+ sessions?[/QUOTE] I've ended two Fallout games that were 20+ sessions each, and am shepherding Magical Burst and its 110+ sessions (I haven't recorded a log in the last 2 months, at least Discord keeps everything) to a final conclusion. My Mekton game at 53+ sessions and without a new log in the last 4 months is also on the way to a conclusion.

Heys guys, I'm working on my first one off for 5e which will involve running 3 level one PCs through a pretty simple adventure. I wanted the final combat encounter to be against a Drow Mage (pg.129 of the monster manual) with two human bandits as guards. Drow Mages are listed as challenge level seven so I intended to nerf him down to be more on par with the PCs, specifically removing the demon summoning ability and bumping down his spellcasting ability to only 1st level spell slots. By default Drow Mages have a +6 to hit with spell attacks. Would this make him too efficient at hitting low level PCs?

Going to do a one-shot D&D game for my 6 year old nephew and 7 year old cousin tonight. Probably going to include my sister and older cousin in the game as well, but obviously I want the game to be about the kids. Does anyone have any tips for playing with children? What kind of scenario should I run?

think about a redwall type game if you can.

[QUOTE=slayer20;51137921]Going to do a one-shot D&D game for my 6 year old nephew and 7 year old cousin tonight. Probably going to include my sister and older cousin in the game as well, but obviously I want the game to be about the kids. Does anyone have any tips for playing with children? What kind of scenario should I run?[/QUOTE] Maybe a dumbed down superhero system?

[QUOTE=slayer20;51137921]Going to do a one-shot D&D game for my 6 year old nephew and 7 year old cousin tonight. Probably going to include my sister and older cousin in the game as well, but obviously I want the game to be about the kids. Does anyone have any tips for playing with children? What kind of scenario should I run?[/QUOTE] I wouldn't make the Big bad to morally ambiguous. I'd make him more a Saturday morning villain.

[QUOTE=_Maverick_;51138289]I wouldn't make the Big bad to morally ambiguous. I'd make him more a Saturday morning villain.[/QUOTE] I'm going to run an edited version of the goblin ambush from the Lost Mines of Phandelver. It'll be a short and sweet game, so hopefully I their attention span doesn't wander off too fast lol.

[QUOTE=slayer20;51137921]Going to do a one-shot D&D game for my 6 year old nephew and 7 year old cousin tonight. Probably going to include my sister and older cousin in the game as well, but obviously I want the game to be about the kids. Does anyone have any tips for playing with children? What kind of scenario should I run?[/QUOTE] Something with a positive outcome and something at stake but with a little wiggle room in case they initially fail - foiling a robbery or saving some people from a monster maybe. Let them be heroes!

Suddenly, three wizards jump out of the bushes! All three cast sleep at the party, and everyone fails at least one of their saves and falls into a deep slumber. Then the wizards kills them all in their sleep, one by one. The end.

[QUOTE=RearAdmiral;51138644]Something with a positive outcome and something at stake but with a little wiggle room in case they initially fail - foiling a robbery or saving some people from a monster maybe. Let them be heroes![/QUOTE] I had them escort a fine keg of dwarven root beer via horse and cart. They successfully drove off a goblin ambush and broke down the cart to create a make-shift bridge to cross a river. They made it to another city and then used the keg that they were delivering as their own reward and drank it all.

[QUOTE=elowin;51139068]Suddenly, three wizards jump out of the bushes! All three cast sleep at the party, and everyone fails at least one of their saves and falls into a deep slumber. Then the wizards kills them all in their sleep, one by one. The end.[/QUOTE] Is [I]this[/I] what was supposed to happen with that encounter? Thank god nobody failed, and one of the wizards got his face eaten off by the anti-paladin, instead. :v: