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
My group livestreams our sessions. No idea if there's an audience or not but it's all streamed via a special DM controlled tokens view on Foundry.
 
Booger1488 said:
What's with the need for every character to be an überspecial snowflake all of a sudden?
Click to expand...
It's always been this way? Adventurers are not meant to be boring, average people with boring, average lives. That's what NPCs do.

Overly Serious said:
What's the view on channels that play on stream? Like if there were (or is) a channel that wasn't as desperately woke and stagey as Critical Role sounds like it is, would people/do people watch it? I mean real people, not Redditors.
Click to expand...
I never saw the point. They are always slow, clunky, and with no editing. There was exactly 1 that I saw that was interesting, and it was a module I was struggling with in my early DM days because a rule was missing. The DM just made up something on the spot and it blew open the floodgates for me.
 
Dante Alighieri said:
My group livestreams our sessions. No idea if there's an audience or not but it's all streamed via a special DM controlled tokens view on Foundry.
Click to expand...
I find that unless you do some editing of the content to cut the dead air and distractions to a degree, there's little to no audience. Even when you do commit to it you're not going to get much. That's not to say you can't run livestream sessions just for fun anyway, but do not expect to get great numbers.
 
Adamska said:
I find that unless you do some editing of the content to cut the dead air and distractions to a degree, there's little to no audience. Even when you do commit to it you're not going to get much. That's not to say you can't run livestream sessions just for fun anyway, but do not expect to get great numbers.
Click to expand...
Yeah it's just live streamed and then the vods are saved. It's whatever, if people watch them people watch.
 
Dante Alighieri said:
My group livestreams our sessions. No idea if there's an audience or not but it's all streamed via a special DM controlled tokens view on Foundry.
Click to expand...
You got me curious. I presume though it's PL'ing to ask where you stream them?

Adamska said:
I find that unless you do some editing of the content to cut the dead air and distractions to a degree, there's little to no audience. Even when you do commit to it you're not going to get much. That's not to say you can't run livestream sessions just for fun anyway, but do not expect to get great numbers.
Click to expand...
You ever streamed your games? I imagine it would be a fun crowd.
 
IndigoDownSuperEgoUp said:
Should I homebrew Izzat into my game
Click to expand...
What do you even mean by that? The system? The setting? Be specific. Never mind the fact that collective honor is not exactly an alien concept to fantasy, and the term izzat is only useful to describe a specific real-life behavior.
 
LovisXVI said:
What do you even mean by that? The system? The setting? Be specific. Never mind the fact that collective honor is not exactly an alien concept to fantasy, and the term izzat is only useful to describe a specific real-life behavior.
Click to expand...
He means the collective honor system as practiced by Indians, or Izzat. What else would he mean by it?
 
Dante Alighieri said:
He means the collective honor system as practiced by Indians, or Izzat. What else would he mean by it?
Click to expand...
I know what it is, I read the post, der Sneeder promoted it enough. My issue is that "Should I homebrew Izzat into my game" is not a very useful question, because, as I said, collective honor is not a new concept, and it seems like he is only thinking about it because it is a trending topic at the very second, rather than a desire to add an interesting societal angle to a fantasy culture.
 
Overly Serious said:
You ever streamed your games? I imagine it would be a fun crowd.
Click to expand...
Did a couple, two short Sigmata ones we recorded way back when to mock it, and we played a round of a Jewish board game called Oy Vey!. They did decently, but I think that's more an exception than a rule.

And adding Izzat only makes sense if you want to use it for a culture. It's not unique enough to really need to, because that reciprocal honor shit is beyond just Indian culture.
 
Adamska said:
And adding Izzat only makes sense if you want to use it for a culture. It's not unique enough to really need to, because that reciprocal honor shit is beyond just Indian culture.
Click to expand...
The Dwarfs of Warhammer basically have that anyway, having a literal universal book of every wrong against them, to be repaid no matter how slight.
 
LovisXVI said:
The Dwarfs of Warhammer basically have that anyway, having a literal universal book of every wrong against them, to be repaid no matter how slight.
Click to expand...
Dwarven grudge books are cool, though. I think because the dwarves, unlike the pajeets, are completely upfront about it and will look you in the eye while writing your name in their book instead of doing some petty bullshit to you when they think they can get away with it. They're balls-out about where people stand with them. The cowardly backstabby shit that Indians do seems more fitting for a goblinoid culture; it's not macho enough for dwarves nor cunning enough for drow.
 
robobobo said:
Dwarven grudge books are cool, though. I think because the dwarves, unlike the pajeets, are completely upfront about it and will look you in the eye while writing your name in their book instead of doing some petty bullshit to you when they think they can get away with it. They're balls-out about where people stand with them. The cowardly backstabby shit that Indians do seems more fitting for a goblinoid culture; it's not macho enough for dwarves nor cunning enough for drow.
Click to expand...
Yeah, Drow also might just not hold grudges, as they could very well respect the game and know when it's worth it or not. Demi-humans like goblins and orcs are probably the best options for retarded status games that subcons like to engage in, with goblins being into slighting each other undetectably and orcs openly humiliating their enemies rather than just killing them. Either way, this is an actual conversation about applying this new idea and thinking about collective honor culture in fantasy than if it should just be added or not without any context, making it far more productive than OP.
 
Judge Dredd said:
It's always been this way? Adventurers are not meant to be boring, average people with boring, average lives. That's what NPCs do.
Click to expand...
To clarify, I'm not referring to the narrative disparity between adventurers and NPCs. It's a given that adventurers are going to lead more interesting lives than NPCs by virtue of them being the players' characters. I'm talking about the fact that once upon a time, it was quite common to have your character be a complete novice while they were just starting out, or at least people didn't have an aversion to doing so.

"What's your backstory?" "Oh, I'm a farm boy who wants to see the world." "Oh, I'm a wizard's apprentice looking for my missing master." "Oh, I'm an orphan who grew up on the streets and had to learn to steal to survive."

Now it's the complete opposite, where every character has to be more special and unique than the last one. You can't just be a farm boy, you have to be a scarecrow who was granted life by the goddess of agriculture. You can't just be a wizard, you have to be the greatest wizard who was fucking the goddess of magic (one of the characters from Baldur's Gate 3, btw, as mentioned by robobobo). You can't just be an orphan, you have to secretly be a vampire who's been alive for a thousand years (another Baldur's Gate 3 character). It doesn't make sense to have a backstory which suggests you've completed feats whole campaigns are written around when your character is only level one.
 
Booger1488 said:
It doesn't make sense to have a backstory which suggests you've completed feats whole campaigns are written around when your character is only level one.
Click to expand...
It doesn't make sense in a very low average lifespan game where your character is more likely than not dying in the first session. However, I'd always let players put some kind of backstory into their character to justify the perks they wanted.

Even in very deadly settings like Call of Cthulhu, I'd allow this. Like someone wanted their Russian gangster character to have lots of guns and access to pretty much any guns he wanted. I wanted to know why because this was America. So his backstory was he was a gangster back in Russia too and had to flee the country because he had sided with the White Russians. He fanatically hated Communism and Communists and would generally kill them on sight.

He still had contacts with his arms dealers from his previous career. His reason for being against the Old Ones started when his new crew in the U.S. basically got massacred by a cultist group that was (not coincidentally) a Communist front group as well. He was still bootlegging and had serious car skills.

This sounded pretty cool so I went with it. It ended up being a very car and gun-heavy campaign and this particular character lasted years (of real world time). It sounds like a huge perk basically to have as many guns as you like, but while it was definitely cool and fun, guns ain't shit against eldritch. It definitely trivialized most issues involving human cultists, though.

tl;dr I never had any problem giving players some cool background that came with perks so long as they could justify why this actually made sense and it actually benefited the party, too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom