He’s also Mr. Hands in Cyberpunk 2077, which is hugely relevant currently and a much bigger role than “breathy sex guy”. The people who wrote that headline are insane.
Sometimes it’s easier and cheaper to let someone with expertise do something rather than building the infrastructure inhouse and doing it yourself. The article says that the booksellers and game store owners aren’t looking forward to the change because penguin random house is really good about taking back outdated and overstocked books.
You’ve got a few options here, as I should think that ultimately the solution will be found by the not-sphynx’s behaviours and mannerisms (though the questions themselves do help bring those behaviours out).
You could go for something everyone knows, like “What’s lighter: a tonne of bricks or a tonne of feathers?” When the players get it right by saying they both weigh a tonne, have the not-sphynx insist on the obvious wrong answer instead (the feathers, as a single feather is lighter than a single brick). Then when the players explain why that’s wrong and their answer is right, the not-sphynx pretends he knew that and was just testing them. Stuff like that.
If the campaign isn’t super serious in tone, you could work-in famous pop-culture examples. Ask the questions for crossing the bridge from Monty Python “What’s your name/quest/favourite colour?” With the not-sphynx not getting that the difficulty came from Tim alternating to a super hard third question for every other person he asked. You can even use the question about the African Swallow, with the not-sphynx not knowing if it should be laden or unladen, and just handwaving that one away when the players ask.
Ask the “What have I got in my pocket” question from the Hobbit. The players might try and answer “The One Ring” or something clever. When they exhaust their ideas and give up, the not-sphynx gets embarrassed and plays it down, admitting he forgot he doesn’t have any pockets…
Cool idea overall though - I think your group will have a lot of fun.
I’m imagining a player asking, “laden or unladen?” The not-Sphinx immediately replying, “I don’t remember, but I wrote it down one sec- fuck I can’t read in the dark.”
Really wishing I could do this in my next game lmao.
The easiest way to start with character creation is by using dndbeyond.com
Unfortunately, the more advanced features on this site are paid, so once you’re ready to try more advanced features, use 5e.tools and fill in your character sheets manually.
I disagree with some of tips given in this article (for example, Session 0 is a waste of time), but in general it provides good information and useful links.
I disagree with your disagreement. Sure, if you already know your party and everyone is experienced, you can skip it, but if you start as a new player group, it is well invested time, that should be used to get to know each other and lineup expectatios.
Depends heavily on the group IME. For instance, some players will only have a good time if they know what others are expecting from them in advance, while others prefer to just get started and see what happens.
If the group consists of people who come there in good faith and are determined to have fun, no Session 0 is needed. Whatever problems will arise on the way, are going to be dealt with in mature way.
And if the group features bad faith actors, then no amount of discussion prior to the game will prevent a disaster from happening.
I don’t like thinking of individuals as simply “good/bad”. Some people grow frustrated with trying to engage creatively without specifics, others grow frustrated with overly narrow roles, still others get upset if everyone just builds what they want with no regard to team balance.
It really depends on the individuals involved whether people are going to get salty over unstated expectations. Setting vibes, expectations, and integrating characters with the setting are all worth doing, and for many players they need to be done in advance in order for them to feel included.
I never said that individuals are “good/bad”. I said they approach the game with either good faith or bad faith, which is radically different to what you’re talking about.
Yet your argument still ignores all nuance. I just chose to simplify the phrasing since it boils down to the same thing: “good group doesn’t need session zero and bad group isn’t helped by it”. You may as well use the same argument to repeal all criminal laws, since good people don’t commit crimes and bad people will do bad things anyhow.
Now you’re just doing some pedantic backpedaling, as though it changes the fact that your argument hinges on a false binary.
There are no nuances needed to be acknowledged in this specific distinction. People playing in good faith, WILL try to overcome any obstacles according to their experience, skills and maturity. People who don’t, will invent problems and actively search for them rather than focus on solutions. Neither needs Session #0.
good group doesn’t need session zero and bad group isn’t helped by it
It’s absolutely wrong take on the dillema. GOOD group doesn’t have to play in good faith - they are good players, experienced veterans, that know the art of role playing well. But they don’t have to put all their skills into good outcome. They may, for many reasons try to undermine the experience, break the game, test the ruleset for weaknesses, focus on one singe aspect of the game (for example, on combat) rather than on the whole adventure. And the other way around - bad gamers, clueless and inexperienced might still try to save their game, make the best of it.
As you can see, what you’re discussing is wildly different to what I’ve been talking about.
Now you’re just doing some pedantic backpedaling, as though it changes the fact that your argument hinges on a false binary.
From where I sit - it’s you who didn’t think through your position and when asked about details became passively-aggressive. Usually a strong hint that you feel you’re/were wrong.
And it’s ironic that you simultaneously accuse me of lacking nuances and simultaneously of being “too nuanced”. 😬
I didn’t acuse you of being too nuanced. I accused you of being pedantic, which you were in both your previous comment and on the one I’m replying to right now because you’ve been making this an argument over semantics.
It’s absolutely wrong take on the dillema. GOOD group doesn’t have to play in good faith - they are good players, experienced veterans, that know the art of role playing well. But they don’t have to put all their skills into good outcome. They may, for many reasons try to undermine the experience, break the game, test the ruleset for weaknesses, focus on one singe aspect of the game (for example, on combat) rather than on the whole adventure. And the other way around - bad gamers, clueless and inexperienced might still try to save their game, make the best of it.
I never said “a group of good players” or “a group of bad players”. I think it’s extremely obvious from context that by “good group” I meant the scenario you were talking about, so “a group of people playing in good faith”, and likewise meant “a group not playing in good faith” when I said “bad group”.
You’re still making this an argument over terminology (literally an argument over semantics) rather than addressing my point, which is that the thrust of your argument hinges on a false binary. Groups with players playing in good faith can still grow frustrated with each other, such as when two different existing friend groups are playing together for the first time and there are two competing ideas about how best to play or communicate. Different people are comfortable with different things and a session zero can help eliminate a lot of that friction, especially in groups with lots of new players.
Otherwise you might find your sessions devolving into pointless arguments over semantics due to a simple miscommunication, for instance. I’d much rather have this debate with you before a game ever started rather than mid-session.
As far as I can tell we’re both trying to engage in good faith, but talking past each other. If I knew you had no tolerance for the kind of conversational context I relied on with my initial comment in advance, I wouldn’t have said “good/bad” as shorthand for “people playing in good faith/people playing in bad faith” and we would’ve finished talking about this already. This type of miscommunication is extremely easy to avoid in-game by using a session zero to establish everyone’s communication styles and gameplay preferences in addition to integrating characters with the setting and balancing the party composition.
I’ve got something to admit: I’ve never actually played DnD.
I read a ton of TSR books, thoroughly enjoyed the movie, liked the cartoon as a kid, played D&D type PC games, but when I was young I didn’t know anyone who played and as an adult I feel kinda… a bit behind the curve to jump into a live game despite having a number of friends who do play more.
Is there any sort of online community where a newb can join into a game (preferably with a patient DM and players). Are there good kits to enhance the experience of playing with others online (virtual meeting and board?)
I’m still new to DnD, but after a few quick experiences, I think playing in-person has some benefits, especially for newcomers. It’s hard to get going with an online group when people have different levels of investment and commitment to the timeslot, and I’ve found online groups fall apart more easily than IRL groups. As a newcomer, my first “group” fell apart after 3 sessions, and I never really got a good feel for how the game went. It took my cousins and their friends inviting me for an IRL game to really get into it and enjoy it.
If you’re really looking at online, there are various Discord servers that will run games on roll20 and whatnot. I also just saw an ad for startplaying.games earlier, which apparently has paid games.
As for tools, it’s really up to you. Some people like using the physical books, others enjoy the way the information flows in something like DnDBeyond or Roll20’s compendiums.
@meant2live218@phx well IRL ones are cool and all, but most of my friends are online only. so we did the first session was at a friend's house nearby when we all were together for a comic con. Then we went to online Tabletop simulator. We played for a good 2 years. We are planning to get back to it since I was new to being a Co-DM and all.
I just started playing DnD a year ago for the first time at 31. I’d always wanted to play, ever since I was a kid, but never had the chance. So I decided to grab my wife and a couple of my wife’s friends and DM a short one shot, just to see if we enjoyed it. I spent a lot of time watching videos and looking at the DM communities, and after a couple weeks, we played it. It was a blast, and now a year later we’ve finished our first module and are midway through our second, and I’ve loved every second of it. We have three more players, two of which have played for years, and I’m still DMing.
If you’ve got some friends that play in person and they have an open slot, I’d 100% say go for it. Let them know you’re a total noob and just follow their lead; everyone was new at some point.
In my experience, the D&D community is very welcoming to newcomers. In addition to the classic online LFG stuff (lemmy, reddit, discord), I would give your local hobby shop(s) a visit. Chances are they host weekly games, or at the very least can point you in the right direction.
I will say, with D&D 5e, they really made an effort to streamline the learning curve, and it shows. I’ll message you a tool I found really helpful for learning the rules.
(Also, don’t limit yourself to D&D! There are plenty of great pen and paper roleplaying systems out there. Call of Cthulhu is a great example of one I’ve been meaning to play.)
I don’t think it’s hyped up. You just need context.
The OGL stuff was a tipping point but WotC prioritizing profit at the expense of the player is hardly new. I think the last truly lauded release in D&D proper was the shift to 5th edition, which was nine years ago and was a correction after 4th. Before that it was probably Eberron, almost twenty years ago. Other changes have largely been to increase profit with little consideration on improving the game. 4th edition, while not actually a bad game, was a mistargeted attempt to cash in on MMOs as well as the first attempt to kill the OGL. More recently you will not find many active DMs who love the 5e splatbooks, or who think the game values how they spend their time preparing for a session, or thinks the game does a great job helping them design custom content, or who really loves how WotC is locking down the virtual tabletop space.
Tabletop game design, as well as how designers interact with their player bases, has completely changed for the rest of the TTRPG space.
You missed the rise of Paizo, where former D&D writers found a home to write pre-generated content that is legitimately good and saves GMs hundreds of hours of work, called Adventure Paths, and who later filled the niche of 3.5 when WotC forced closure in favor of something more easily monetized. You missed Apocalypse World/Dungeon World/Blades in the Dark and Cypher, systems where cutting down on prep time was a serious priority rather than a tertiary afterthought, making games much more fun for the GM. You missed the OSR, the return to D&D’s roots. You missed Savage Worlds, Fate, FFG’s Star Wars, Free League, Honey Heist, Gumshoe, Lancer, tons of innovative ideas.
The other old companies like White Wolf and Chaosium have reacted at every step, re-writing their games to reflect modern design principles unprompted and working to improve distribution of their content. Those have also been attempts to make money, but by making the product better, not by squeezing the player base. The one time WotC was forced to turn to its designers they got 5th and they’ve been milking it since.
A lot of people don’t care about any of that, they just buckle down and play D&D. But DMs and most of the people who talk online are power users who know what they’re missing.
Thank you very much for the insightful response, looks like I have a lot of reading ahead of me. This was exactly the type of answer that I was looking for. Thank you.
Ok but chase that concept through capitalism. Control of the sword falls into the wrong hands, and that person becomes immeasurably powerful. Inevitably you end us with a dystopian nightmare where the ruling class trades youth to the rich and connected, while creating a market for poor sacrificial children.
Make it up! It's your world, so put your own spin on it. If someone complains, BS a reason behind it and connect it to some lore about a hero that changed or fucked something up and since then they've always done it that way.
Some things to consider:
operating funds. Should they have a minimum of gp to set up? Should their be a minimum per month operating cost for admin staff? Taxes by city?
location. Should they need a guild hall? Do they have to buy the property or rent?
buyin from residents. Do they need support from residents to do it? Do they need to take care of some sidequests to get support of a few cantankerous councilman?
make up a weird third category. Do they need to throw a feast? Do they need to decorate their hall with the heads of monsters they killed? Does the local temple offer a blessing (with benefits for members) if they do some task?
I’ve found Counterspell to be a pretty positive addition to my encounters. It encourages players to watch when enemies use their reactions, or try to bait a reaction. Rather than frustrating, the players have turned it into part of the game.
I’m also kinda meh about the whole arcana check thing. Casters generally have high DPS/versatility. I feel no need for them to be able to horde their spell slots further. When the party is facing an enemy caster, they announce that they’re casting and I tell them if the enemy caster counterspells.
It's pretty great in a party of players who enjoy puzzle box combat. Like you said, if you're paying attention to who used what action and reaction, you can either expect the counterspell or bait out the reaction so you know it can't be used when it matters. It's just like burning off legendary resistances before you hit a boss monster with your real big-dick spells. Except this time you're just annoying the enemy wizard with lightning bolts and thunder step until he actually uses the counterspell and you whip out your Feeblemind.
For players who aren't paying attention though it can be oppressive. Every DM who decides to use Counterspells has at least one situation come up where an enemy is primed to counterspell a heal. Whether he makes his move there or not is up to the particular DM, but every player who has had their heal counterspelled will remember that forever.
From the sessions ive been in and ran, the player/npc can make a arcana check to see if they know the spell. If they fail the check they can still use their reaction cast counterspell but they wont be able to tell what spell (an consequently what level to cast counterspell) is it a firebolt or meteor storm, who knows, want to risk casting it?
dnd
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.