Tabletop Roleplaying Games (D&D, Pathfinder, CoC, ETC.)

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
I allow torture within reason and while I’m willing to play it out with a player that can responsibly handle it without being all edge lord I will do a fade to black if it drags on too long.

On a related note I’ve recently been playing a villianous character in a different game wherein after kidnapping the middle-man for a high profile criminal syndicate I only had to threaten to torture him with a few tools that I found at a cult temple once. I got the information out of him, killed him, and dropped his body off at the syndicate’s doorstep to provoke them. So far it’s working. They moved out of their main base of operations after I continued breaking in every few nights to rob them and generally be a nuisance. My plan is to gradually muscle them out of the territory and take over their turf.

I'll also say, if the party has a plan of "We kidnap this guy, get information from him, and then kill him and do something with his body to provoke conflict between two rivals" I will let more shit slide then just "eh, this was less entertaining than I thought it would be, bored now *stab*" (unless they're supposed to be evil, that is).
 
Torture scenes are like sex scenes. Sometimes they're necessary to what's going on in the story, but 99% of the time a fade to black is better than actually describing anything. Make an Intimidation roll against the target's Wisdom if you feel like it, but there's no need to go into detail. It usually just slows things down.
 
Someone once asked Gary Gygax if Lawful Good paladins might attempt to redeem orks.

Gygax responded they'd probably drag the orks back to their keep, then torture them until they renounced their evil deities and accepted the Paladin's deity. They would then be immediately executed before they'd have a chance to re-taint their now purified souls.

Paladins are good... for medieval times.
 
Knowing your players also helps.

There was a time, over a decade ago, that I didn't really know the people I had gathered to be my D&D group. So, out of the blue during maybe our third or fourth session together, I did something none of them even knew could be a thing in these games.

I had a bad guy drop his sword, and surrender. He was the last survivor of a gang that had been robbing people on the road, and had tried their luck on the party.

Now, for context, I had four players at that stage, and apart from one, none of them had ever played any kind of table top RPG before they accepted my invitation to give it a whirl. They were used to computer games where enemies have retarded AI, and fight to the death.

When I threw the test at them, there wasn't a second's hesitation. They were under time constraints, and had narrowly avoided being slaughtered.

Yet they went deliberately out of their way, after several minutes of frantic planning and map consultation, to make sure they took this bandit to the nearest authorities (a local Temple in the woods) where he was placed under arrest, before rushing back to the highway so they could get back to trying to stop the planned assassination of a Count. At no point during any of this did it even seem to occur to any of them that they could have just slit his throat and went back on their merry way.

I love this hobby for a lot of reasons, but one of them is how much you can learn about a person when you put little choices like this in front of them in these games. It was at that moment I knew I had lucked out, and found a good crew. Still have half of those original four players, plus a few others that have joined since.
 
Just a funny question on my part: what would you guys do if the players just ignored your declarations and then mutinied and hijacked the game despite your efforts? Just wondering, since I've read stories where that on rare occasion happens.

Admittedly it's usually due to the players just getting sick of a shit GM, but I'm just curious to see the responses,
I would probably end up rolling with whatever direction they wanted to go and just think of NPCs and monsters that would also be involved. Once I know what they were trying to achieve I would just throw said NPCs and monsters around the goal and think about why they would be there. If I had a main quest plot that is going to be thrown to the wayside that's fine too because things will still happen in the background and I can have them overhear NPCs talking about whatever they weren't interested in, or just tuck it away for another game.

I also think it's not a bad idea to just message your group before you start writing stuff up and just asking them, "What are you guys doing next session?". Kind of tells them what I'm going to be working on and if someone changes their mind mid game they just look like an asshole. I'm close friends with everyone I play with though, so they won't actively sabotage a game like that. Not that they don't scheme, constantly, but part of the fun is when they've been quietly gathering the right stuff to pull off some plan and blindside me with it, then I can have all the NPC friends and enemies they've made react accordingly.
 
As a GM, I've always gone with the fact that torture just makes people tell you what they think you want to hear.
That's the main problem with torture (and one of the main reasons most civilized societies moved away from it...aside from the obvious) and a smart GM would use that against the party if they're sloppy. A smart party would take precautions for just such an occasion (such as keeping the one being tortured alive and in a secure place, with a promise of hurting them worse, or venturing the torture on someone they care about, if they lie about things).

A good example of a smart torture scene is the one from the final Telltale The Walking Dead game, where you can do outright horrible shit to an NPC (don't worry, he deserved it), but get nothing out of him, but the minute he realizes that he's going to die from earlier injuries, and thus become a zombie, his greatest fear, he crumbles like a wet paper bag and tells you everything if you promise to kill him via headshot prior to him turning. However, how harsh you were before that point determines how much info he gives you (the harsher you were, showing you meant business, the more info he gave up in the end out of fear). And in the end, you still could sadistically refuse to kill him like you promised and let him turn, just for extra sadism points, and it didn't require you, the player to do anything else to him.

A bad example of a torture scene is the one in GTAV, where agent Haynes refuses to simply ask the guy being tortured straightforward questions, even though its clear from the start he's already willing to spill his guts out of fear, just to force the player to torture him, in order to feed the player a very bad Aesop about why torture is bad.
 
zoom game with people I don't know very well? I'm going to enforce that ban rigorously.
Wow, you actually will run full on sessions/games with randos? Incredible. Do you find it usually works out? I get nervous just thinking about the absolute maladjusted weirdos that I'd see at the comic shop for Friday night magic and release days and then dial that up to 11 for strangers on the internet.
There was a time, over a decade ago, that I didn't really know the people I had gathered to be my D&D group. So, out of the blue during maybe our third or fourth session together, I did something none of them even knew could be a thing in these games.

I had a bad guy drop his sword, and surrender. He was the last survivor of a gang that had been robbing people on the road, and had tried their luck on the party.

Now, for context, I had four players at that stage, and apart from one, none of them had ever played any kind of table top RPG before they accepted my invitation to give it a whirl. They were used to computer games where enemies have retarded AI, and fight to the death.

When I threw the test at them, there wasn't a second's hesitation. They were under time constraints, and had narrowly avoided being slaughtered.

Yet they went deliberately out of their way, after several minutes of frantic planning and map consultation, to make sure they took this bandit to the nearest authorities (a local Temple in the woods) where he was placed under arrest, before rushing back to the highway so they could get back to trying to stop the planned assassination of a Count. At no point during any of this did it even seem to occur to any of them that they could have just slit his throat and went back on their merry way.

I love this hobby for a lot of reasons, but one of them is how much you can learn about a person when you put little choices like this in front of them in these games. It was at that moment I knew I had lucked out, and found a good crew. Still have half of those original four players, plus a few others that have joined since.
I would probably end up rolling with whatever direction they wanted to go and just think of NPCs and monsters that would also be involved. Once I know what they were trying to achieve I would just throw said NPCs and monsters around the goal and think about why they would be there. If I had a main quest plot that is going to be thrown to the wayside that's fine too because things will still happen in the background and I can have them overhear NPCs talking about whatever they weren't interested in, or just tuck it away for another game.

I also think it's not a bad idea to just message your group before you start writing stuff up and just asking them, "What are you guys doing next session?". Kind of tells them what I'm going to be working on and if someone changes their mind mid game they just look like an asshole. I'm close friends with everyone I play with though, so they won't actively sabotage a game like that. Not that they don't scheme, constantly, but part of the fun is when they've been quietly gathering the right stuff to pull off some plan and blindside me with it, then I can have all the NPC friends and enemies they've made react accordingly.
These were neat to read, thanks.

I think my issue personally is that these campaigns for the most part are run as usually very light-hearted and borderline cartoony fantasy scenarios with regard to morality and behaviour. I'm just as bad for it as anyone but when the campaign is run in a vaguely wacky world with weak consequences or a schism between player action and game reaction, it kind of devolves into an abstract sense of dice chucking, light RPing, and going 'lol who cares let's just have fun' which in turn leads to murder hoboing, trying to seduce everything in sight etc.

Writing this though I wonder if it's a group problem or a DM/writing problem that people just aren't invested in the world so it's treated as an ID sandbox.

I get that you (maybe) don't want to have some constant uber serious grimdark experience where you throw someone out for being goofy but at the same time there's a severe disconnect between the story and world that's being built when the evil party member slaughters a family of begging goblins while laughing and pissing on their corpses. I guess I'm not ballsy enough or no one else cares to kind of say 'knock it off with the edgelord gross out crap' because it would probably create a schism in the group but I guess a simple non-confrontational conversation outside of the game later could most likely solve this type of situation.
 
Wow, you actually will run full on sessions/games with randos? Incredible. Do you find it usually works out? I get nervous just thinking about the absolute maladjusted weirdos that I'd see at the comic shop for Friday night magic and release days and then dial that up to 11 for strangers on the internet.
Not Ghostse, but I have been running games with randos for a few months now and while its not completely bad, it does have its peculiarities. Its very easy to find players and tables in the run of the mill tabletop discords of life, the hard part is finding people that stick around. Ghosting is incredibly common, my main table right now is a Lancer campaign that has been going on for about 12+ sessions with 3 very good very solid players and about 4-5 guys that joined in, played about 1-2 sessions, and then left without saying anything. Same thing happened in a SW campaign I was in, about 3 guys ghosted the DM after session 1 and he had to look for new ones.

Basically, you just have to give it enough shots until you land some and then stick with the ones you hit. I also haven't run into any weirdos, which actually kinda surprises me, but other guys in my table have had some really bad player horror stories (they make it seem like Vampire: The Masquarade has the worst players of any system, I still believe that to be 5e).
 
Wow, you actually will run full on sessions/games with randos? Incredible. Do you find it usually works out? I get nervous just thinking about the absolute maladjusted weirdos that I'd see at the comic shop for Friday night magic and release days and then dial that up to 11 for strangers on the internet.

I haven't for a year or two, but yes. And never, ever more than a one-shot until you get to know them a bit because it makes for a zero-drama way to remove the non-hackers - just don't invite them to the next thing you do.

Depends on what you mean by "works out"; I think the longest stable group I maintained with pure internet weirdos was just short of a year. Life happens; people find meat-space groups, move, jobs, kids, school, etc. And as are also an internet weirdo to them, internet weirdo D&D is the first thing to get cut from someone's "free time budget".

For avoiding maladjusted weirdos, if you phrase your request correctly, and require minimal effort from prospective players to filter out the laziest, that tends to filter out the worse of them (or makes them easy to spot so you can filter them). Honestly just mentioning that animal races are banned, or doing something like 4e where they don't exist (other than minotaurs/shifters) keeps out the furries, and those are 95% of your problem players.

I think my issue personally is that these campaigns for the most part are run as usually very light-hearted and borderline cartoony fantasy scenarios with regard to morality and behaviour. I'm just as bad for it as anyone but when the campaign is run in a vaguely wacky world with weak consequences or a schism between player action and game reaction, it kind of devolves into an abstract sense of dice chucking, light RPing, and going 'lol who cares let's just have fun' which in turn leads to murder hoboing, trying to seduce everything in sight etc.

Writing this though I wonder if it's a group problem or a DM/writing problem that people just aren't invested in the world so it's treated as an ID sandbox.

I get that you (maybe) don't want to have some constant uber serious grimdark experience where you throw someone out for being goofy but at the same time there's a severe disconnect between the story and world that's being built when the evil party member slaughters a family of begging goblins while laughing and pissing on their corpses. I guess I'm not ballsy enough or no one else cares to kind of say 'knock it off with the edgelord gross out crap' because it would probably create a schism in the group but I guess a simple non-confrontational conversation outside of the game later could most likely solve this type of situation.

In my experience, its a feedback loop - if they aren't invested in their characters, they treat the game as a wacky-zany fun house because they don't care what happens to them and no one/nothing they care about, so they never get invested, so don't care about the consequences of their actions, and when their actions do start to have consequences they don't have fun anymore and leave so they can go monkey cheese something else. And that's provided they don't devolve into slap fighting between the people who don't want monkey cheese murderhoboing, the die-hard monkeycheese murder hobos, and the people who don't care they just hate the squabbling.

And I mean, I run Kobolds Ate My Baby, I'm not against lolwacky fun times. But KAMB is one-shot for a reason.
Usually i just tell people "You want to be funny out of character, that's not a problem, we can make jokes, we're supposed to be having fun. But your character is going to be treated like they are interacting with real people. if you treat them like shit, they'll remember. Gossip spreads faster than you travel and your reputations will proceed you."
Basically make sure the monkey cheese has a kill switch when its time to get serious.

Not Ghostse, but I have been running games with randos for a few months now and while its not completely bad, it does have its peculiarities. Its very easy to find players and tables in the run of the mill tabletop discords of life, the hard part is finding people that stick around. Ghosting is incredibly common, my main table right now is a Lancer campaign that has been going on for about 12+ sessions with 3 very good very solid players and about 4-5 guys that joined in, played about 1-2 sessions, and then left without saying anything. Same thing happened in a SW campaign I was in, about 3 guys ghosted the DM after session 1 and he had to look for new ones.

Basically, you just have to give it enough shots until you land some and then stick with the ones you hit. I also haven't run into any weirdos, which actually kinda surprises me, but other guys in my table have had some really bad player horror stories (they make it seem like Vampire: The Masquarade has the worst players of any system, I still believe that to be 5e).

I don't mind people dropping but holy fucking shit do the folks just ghosting without a word piss me off. just say you are dropping, its fine.

The edgest of edgelords I dealt with were PF1e munchkins, but that was in the early 5e days and I hadn't learned to filter them, and I never ran VtM but I can see how that would attract some real specimens.
 
Wow, you actually will run full on sessions/games with randos? Incredible. Do you find it usually works out?
Ever since The Plague started, I found myself with a lot of extra time, and little else to do, so I've been joining one game after another on Roll20. I've gotten into nearly twenty, thanks to a massive advantage I have over most other people trying to join: I actually read the application process for each game.

Some of those games were not good, for a variety of reasons. Most died due to real life, or ghosting. A couple I left, due to just not feeling it, or being disgusted by some of the others players, or the DM.

That said, if you do it enough, you will eventually get lucky. For the last eight months, my Wednesday evenings are spent as part of a 5e game, where we all play cops, running around The Planes, with Sigil as a base. The DM is one of the best guys I've ever played with, and I have never been in a group with other players that have such energy and creativity among them all. The characters are a Dysfunction Junction of weirdos that at this stage are developing a messed up kind of Stockholm Syndrome for each other. One's even playing a fucked up version of The Parent Trap, to try and get his dad to marry the mom of another player to make him family, and it's all just to fuck with the guy. We're getting so tight, one of the players even commissioned art of the Party. I didn't even know any of these people eight months ago, but after these batshit adventures are done, one of the others has already volunteered to run a 5e Greek Myths game. Another player (not me) actually wants to be Oedipus Jr, so that's a thing I'm looking forward to watching play out.
 
@Ghostse "if you treat them like shit, they'll remember. Gossip spreads faster than you travel and your reputations will proceed you."

Strangely enough this is what's going on in the game I'm running right now. One of the party's favorite past times is bullying NPCs. They've gone all in on this as three of them are a particular kind of elf that survived a super death plague a century ago and they see non-elves, including standard elves which they have deemed, "low elves" with something less than affection. They also visited a hidden low-elf city the other session and started a fire in a museum/monument they made to mourn the loss of the party's civilization. The reason behind this was that they overheard a couple of the elves gossiping about how they have a pet human, which they do and how they made two elf women on a picnic cry by berating them about how they could "never understand the horrors they saw".

As an aside, they have a drow friend and have decided that drow are the second best elves. She's good at being offended too, especially if someone accuses her very obvious slaves of being slaves. There was never slavery and no she will not explain it.

There's also a hag, who very specifically gossips to every hag coven about other hag covens who they have grown attached to. She is of course telling everyone about the fire because that's her schtick. They should know this because the hag coven that they have decided are good people scream at the gossip hag whenever she's around. They're well aware of all of this and I suspect they just want to self fulfill their own persecution complex. They're also about to save the human town they live in (mostly because they're angry at the cause of the towns problems for personal reasons) so they'll probably won't be ran out any time soon.

I love them all and they're great fun to run for.
 
Not sure whether I'll crosspost this in the Dark Souls thread or not, but some interesting information has come to light:

Apparently there's a Dark Souls tabletop game. It hasn't been released in America yet, only being released in Europe and the UK, but its already getting massively shit upon.

In other news, Hasbro has acquired D&D Beyond.

If I wanted to play Dark Souls on tabletop, I'd import the Japanese Dark Souls ttrpg that has optional rules for playing only using non-verbal gestures like it's a real Dark Souls game.
 
If I wanted to play Dark Souls on tabletop, I'd import the Japanese Dark Souls ttrpg that has optional rules for playing only using non-verbal gestures like it's a real Dark Souls game.
I'm steaming that a real, new Dark Souls RPG exists across a language barrier while we just get "Dark Souls: 5e". Do you happen to know if there's a fan translation about? In my initial poking I just found a redditor who didn't want to share his GM's "personal project" because reddit soy shit and I got sad and I need a drink now
 
Not sure whether I'll crosspost this in the Dark Souls thread or not, but some interesting information has come to light:

Apparently there's a Dark Souls tabletop game. It hasn't been released in America yet, only being released in Europe and the UK, but its already getting massively shit upon.

In other news, Hasbro has acquired D&D Beyond.
Not interested. Never was interested in From's games.

It's neat though, since it reminds me kind of what WEG used to do with properties. Though a shame it's a shit take; DnD is pretty flexible and you kind of have to not test your own game to get that many problems.
 
is it just me or is challenge rating in D&D (5e in this case) the worst explained mechanic in the books for new DMs, been forever DM for a while and some other group members have been trying to do it. Their encounters have the expected issues that are part of the learning process such as imbalanced action economy or lack of enemy variety, but one thing bothers me. They seem to religiously follow CR for building their encounters, which when looking at designing a encounter on a surface level looks fine until you realize that CR in practice only exists to grant immunity to instakills and stuff like ranger taming (or XP if you aren’t using milestone for some reason), CR rarely displays the actual strength of a creature against players, is this a common trap new DMs fall into or is my friends’ unrelenting hordes of AC20 golems at low level a unique pain.
 
is it just me or is challenge rating in D&D (5e in this case) the worst explained mechanic in the books for new DMs, been forever DM for a while and some other group members have been trying to do it. Their encounters have the expected issues that are part of the learning process such as imbalanced action economy or lack of enemy variety, but one thing bothers me. They seem to religiously follow CR for building their encounters, which when looking at designing a encounter on a surface level looks fine until you realize that CR in practice only exists to grant immunity to instakills and stuff like ranger taming (or XP if you aren’t using milestone for some reason), CR rarely displays the actual strength of a creature against players, is this a common trap new DMs fall into or is my friends’ unrelenting hordes of AC20 golems at low level a unique pain.
CR was designed in older editions with the following team in mind: A sword and board fighter, a rogue that specializes in finding traps, a cleric dedicated to healing, and a blast casting wizard. It's always been a bit wonky in terms of how they work because of that, especially when you have more than 4 players.

It was always a bit off and a rule of thumb was you look at what that monster does, and use either more of about or lower than the CR, or add a monster that's one or two points higher than the party.
 
I'm steaming that a real, new Dark Souls RPG exists across a language barrier while we just get "Dark Souls: 5e". Do you happen to know if there's a fan translation about? In my initial poking I just found a redditor who didn't want to share his GM's "personal project" because reddit soy shit and I got sad and I need a drink now

I never looked at it in detail, since I'm not super interested in games that are so heavily skewed towards combat as most Japanese rpgs. (Another result of a lot of Japanese ttrpg scene being focused on oneshots.) I just appreciated that it tried to actually make a system that emulates the games in tabletop form instead of applying a coat of paint on another system.

As for the redditor not sharing the GM's project, I'm actually somewhat sympathetic to it. Since, again, the Japanese ttrpg scene is so oneshot focused, a lot of the local systems are pretty easy to pickup as a player at a tiny con where the GM just provides you with a quick rules summary. The GM might have only translated those player-facing bits and had the rest of the book in a state only he'd be able to run a game from.
 
Back
Top Bottom