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

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 39 KB, 382x287, forestfires.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
23415420 No.23415420 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

How many experience points does a hero get for starting a forest fire? If I can get it big enough, it's gonna kill a lot of monsters right?

Also, general forest fire tips
Is there a wizard spell that could dry out acres of trees?

>> No.23415430

>> No.23415576

Gain 2 Dark Side Points,
Lose 1 Rank of Honor,
Lose 1 Point of Humanity, and
Gain 1 Fate Point

>> No.23415620
File: 28 KB, 320x445, only you can prevent forest fires.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>starting a forest fire

>> No.23415624


He gains all of them.

Siphoning the life as it is ripped from the mortal plane into the immateriam,

your hero ascends.

This is why it's so fucking difficult to start forest fires in D&D.
They know.

>> No.23415646
File: 63 KB, 640x400, arne.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.23415655

No he fucking doesn't.

He only gets XP if he was opposed or if it was a quest.

If he just fucked off and built a fire and that's all that happened then he gets shit all

>> No.23415662

>If I can get it big enough, it's gonna kill a lot of monsters right?
The fire gets all the XP.

>> No.23415665
File: 55 KB, 350x291, kilgore.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Not one stinking body, but the whole forest smelled like victory.

>> No.23415678

Ok, now we have a level 5 fire on our hands.


>> No.23415707


Yes he does.

In my game, he does.

In every game, he does.

The life force of those burning squirrels will fuel him for eternity.

>> No.23415717

The fire fucking gains sentience.

>> No.23415732

It is simply a regular forest fire. Why do you think they're so dangerous in real life? All that XP.

>> No.23415742

Try using horrid wilting on a bunch of trees.

>> No.23415756
File: 118 KB, 850x701, 1268149818132.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


So that's where all those fire elementals are coming from?

>> No.23415763

Every one a forest fire that YOU could have prevented.

>> No.23415845

None. Experience points are used to represent EXPERIENCE. You gain levels by completing difficult tasks. If the task is trivial or if you aren't doing something that requires skill and knowledge, you gain almost none or none at all.

In this case I might grant a very small amount of xp for the action, as the player managed to successfully start a forest fire. The creatures that died in the process don't add shit to it though. They didn't fight them and kill them, so why SHOULD they gain the same experience that they would from personally fighting them?

You get XP for direct fights, good roleplaying, and completing difficult tasks. By pushing yourself, going above and beyond, and making yourself better.

You DON'T get XP for using an indrect, skillless method to mass-slaughter a bunch of creatures.

>> No.23415866

Yes, this.

Or to draw a parallel, go burn down a forest.

Did you learn anything? No? Good.

>> No.23415893


What if he runs ahead of the wake of the forest fire, engaging each creature as he goes, throwing them into the flame personally?

>> No.23415921

Gain throwing xp.

Also yes he would gain xp for this (since most systems don't have skill specific xp)

>> No.23415928

Jokes and neckbeard rage aside, and on a more practical note, why not have a bunch of druids, dryads, and treants stop the forest fire in its tracks then turn their attention on the PC(s).

If it didn't reach very far, they can give the party a GI Joe style PSA talk about the dangers of fire and how you can prevent it. If the fire was very damaging to the forest, the party has gained the eternal ire of the sylvan spirits.

>> No.23415931

you'd gain experience at being a dickass pyromaniac, i assume.

>> No.23415940

Then a burning tree falls on him.

Also, a flock of owlbears bear rush HIM into the fire.

Really personal kills do give xp, but I don't think it would be quite so matter of fact, considering that most smart and non-fire immune creatures will be running the fuck away.

And in the end, he's managed to kill a dozen creatures by tossing them in the fire, but has ultimately killed a few squirrels and maybe a stupid bugbear, was crushed by a tree and set on fire.

>> No.23415951


>Chuckles Macmage starts a forest fire
>Fire sweeps across acres of delicious forest, consuming countless trees and animals
>gives birth to fire elementals, who leave to set fires of their own in distant locations

>> No.23415954


What if he dodges the tree?

>> No.23415982

Killing monsters doesn't net you XP, overcoming obstacles does.
Slaying a dragon doesn't net any benefit except gaining an access to its hoard.
Deal with it.

>> No.23416031

>what if combat
you gain experience from doing combat. durr.

>> No.23416055

>No XP for backstab
>Too easy

You guys are harsh

>> No.23416070


Are you implying that running ahead of a forest fire masterfully snatching squirrels and throwing them into it isn't a challenging obstacular task?

>> No.23416083

He's still probably cooked. In my hometown we had a longstanding ritual where we all danced in a big snake line (whole town holding hands) and built a giant bonfire by the river.

The bonfire wasn't that big, but got hot enough that it peeled paint off of cars. Standing thirty feet away it was STILL scorching hot.

Imagine that, except you aren't thirty feet away. You're five feet away. The simple heat radiating off of a forest fire alone is enough to cook you alive.

And if he's fire immune, he manages to kill a few squirrels and a dumb bugbear.

That's when a group of high level druids and spirits of the forest come, put out the fire, and then rape him with a scythe BEFORE moving onto bear form.

Actions have consequences. I'm not the sort of DM to punish players for clever actions made wisely (a forest fire done to escape an attacking army or high level monster is one thing, doing it for the evlulz is another), but someone being a chucklefuck dumbass should be reminded why people don't play arsonist in real life. Because people tend to resent it and come to fuck you up. And frankly I don't hold back. I stack the odds against them and if they die, I have them roll up a new character. I repeat the process until they learn not to play idiot mass-murderers.

>> No.23416095

No, your implications are wrong.

Backstabbing gets xp because you're learning how to thrust a dagger into the spine of a living creature, and if you fuckup then the creature will fuck you up.

There's risk, challenge and you're learning.

Don't draw false conclusions, or maybe your IQ is double digits and you're having trouble comprehending this thread?

>> No.23416103

I agree. And the dude's obviously just trolling.

>> No.23416108

What's trolling?

>> No.23416125

I think I just found my next event for my MXC dnd game.

"This next game we call Burning woodland critter rush. The object of the game is to run through the woods, catch and toss critters behind you, all the while avoiding the raging inferno nipping at your heals. You score for each critter you toss directly into the searing death blaze."
"This game reminds me of the last BBQ we had at my wizards school reunion kenny."
"Vic, you never went to wizards school."
"Yeah, but that doesnt stop me from throwing a rockin BBQ Kenny!"
"And with that thought, we go down to Ge LeDuche who is on the field with our next contestant"

>> No.23416133

No, the GM sets up XP rewards for the scenario beforehand and informs the players of them. It's up to then for them to figure out how they want to approach the challenges, but nothing they do affects size of the XP rewards.

>> No.23416139

This is awesome

>> No.23416145
File: 190 KB, 845x477, Finn jake.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

She's Hot

>> No.23416151

>I repeat the process until they learn not to play idiot mass-murderers.
You're probably a bad domineering DM.
Some people like playing anti-heros.
It's your duty to make that fun, or at least play with other people who don't like it.
If you're DMing to "teach people a lesson," you probably suck.

>> No.23416168

Wow, that sounds like a really boring way to play. Shit system, IMO. You do epic shit, you should get stuff for it.

>> No.23416181

>anti-heroes are lulrandumb evlul arsonist

Yup, this anon is a bad DM because he doesn't put up with retard players

>> No.23416198

It actually could be a really entertaining contest. It takes a fuckton of skill to catch a squirrel normally.

Then throwing it into a raging inferno that is itself pursuing YOU?

>> No.23416214

Actions have consequences, true, but not every forest has a druid and a bunch of ettin. You shouldn't punish player for being a chucklefuck with unrealistic outcome - hell, people get away scott free with all kinds of unbelievable shit in real world all the time.

>> No.23416219

I dunno man, V, Riddick, Rorschach, they're pretty popular. Sounds like you might be a tightass.

>> No.23416229

Literally none of those characters are lolrandumb you fucking chaz

>> No.23416245

Some people can't tolerate humorously playing a jackass character. They're usually boring people.

>> No.23416262

V is a hardline violent and emotional anarchist. What the fuck are you talking about?

>> No.23416265

An anti-hero has a reason to do what they do. If they do morally questionable things to accomplish a goal, I MAY send a druid or two after them at a fair challenge level, to let them both realize that actions have consequences and to let them enjoy still being an anti-hero. They can win those fights, and they can become an interesting character moment.

But if they're doing it just for the lulz, I pull out all the stops. Then it's time for the druid rape squad.

Murder can be justified. Heroes do it all the time to evil characters. Morally questionable actions to accomplish goals are fine, provided they're really doing it to accomplish something and not merely using the goal as an excuse to be a sociopath.

I demand that my characters play smart. You don't wander through a town slaughtering everyone without the town guard showing up to kill you. You don't burn forests without druids showing up to kill you. You don't kill the king and take his throne (without a popular rebellion) without all the nobles around you and most of the kingdom trying to kill you.

You want to murder someone? Do it when no one can see it happening. You want to do evil? Do it SMART. But whatever you do, do it for a reason, and don't do it pointlessly.

If you're in my game you'll use your head and roleplay, or you get what you get.

>> No.23416274

I know what *I'm* coming from.

>> No.23416284

And yet he doesn't start forest fires for no reason.

All of his actions were carefully and meticulously planned out and had a reason.

Learn 2 fucking /tg/ you nigger

>> No.23416288

Quite the opposite. Consider a character that wants a revenge against a corrupt mayor who imprisoned his family on false charges. The GM the sets up rewards - 1000 XP for exposing him, 500 XP for just killing him dead, additional 1000 XP for freeing your family members.
The player is then completely free to approach it the way he wants. Maybe he tries looking for evidence to show to the king, or maybe he arranges a prison break - either way he's forced to be proactive and the GM is happy. It's up to him how much 'epic shit' he wants to do to achieve his objectives.

>> No.23416300

>But if they're doing it just for the lulz, I pull out all the stops. Then it's time for the druid rape squad.
You feel it's your role to be the self-righteous enforcer of morality.
That makes you a bad DM.
A good DM can take any players, whatever they're doing, and weave a story in which everyone has fun.
The minute you start trying to "parent" your players is the minute step toward the slippery slope of anti-fun.

>> No.23416317

No one starts a forest fire for "no reason". Sometimes that reason is pure emotion. Like what V does-- he is not a rational man.

>> No.23416318

If your players can't have fun without running roughshod and unopposed all over the setting, you have bad players.

>> No.23416321

Not every forest has a druid, but many have dryads or other forces in them that can call them. Or if it's a noble's private forest hunting ground, then he asks a wizard who did it, a divination is done, and you have to deal with an angry noble.

None of those people are randomly violent. V is an anarchist, but he focuses his actions to fight a fascist government. He never blows up something that has nothing to do with that fight, or randomly slaughters people just because. Rorschach kills and mutilates criminals, but he doesn't go on a one man rampage in New York and kill EVERYONE. He doesn't set the world on fire. Riddick isn't random at all. He just does what he has to to survive and get even.

Your idea of what you think I'd punish is far, far off the mark. If anything, I'd reward people playing like those characters.

>> No.23416324
File: 57 KB, 589x380, 1350248952819.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Sorry anon, but you might be a That Guy

>> No.23416328

No it doesn't make him a bad DM, it means his game is grounded in reality and doesn't feature retards running around playing murder-hobos that fuck every female NPC they come across.

Are you seriously sticking to your guns? They're rusty muskets without powder, you've lost the battle, war and now you're a crotchety PoW smearing feces on yourself and shouting at the guards.

Give up.

>> No.23416335

>No one starts a forest fire for "no reason".

Actually, most forest fires are started by accident.

>> No.23416340

>running roughshod
There's a difference between realistic consequences, and a deliberately punishing "rape squad".

>> No.23416357

>I start a forest fire lulz
>I kill the king and rape the princess lulz
> I murder the high priest of the god of kindness and shit in the stab wounds lulz
>What do you mean I'm being hunted by epic level priests, fighters, and druids? STOP TRYING TO BE MY MORAL MOM, DM!

Punish idiocy, NOT morality.

>> No.23416365

>grounded in reality
I'm sorry. Deliberately fucking over your players with a "rape squad" because they did something you can't handle isn't good DMing.
It's being a self-righteous twit.

>> No.23416371

What, you think the druids are gonna send out a "stern talking-to squad"?

>> No.23416379

You know, the most disliked part of Oblivion were psychic city guards who just *knew* when you had picked up a fork, and would chase you across the continent to catch you - and you kinda sound like them. Sometimes when a player does something stupid for the lulz, you punish him with a rape squad, true. And other times you're gonna just let it slide, because it would be unrealistic for someone know it was him.

On the average the lolrandumb character should get his ass kicked, but no, not every time.

>> No.23416383

My players will be chasing around a pig today at a local festival. Stealing your commentator idea.
Also, I bet you're an intelligent and handsome devil.

>> No.23416385

>I'm going to green text a small part of your post and ignore the rest! I'm so clever

>> No.23416398

And sometimes no-one cares when a forest burns down in the wilderness. The characters aren't in a Fantasy Disneyland with mall cops around every corner, after all.

>> No.23416405

>gonna send
The issue is that this doomparty of druids just mysteriously finds the player after having mysteriously assembled enough power to thrash the player.
It's stupid and pedantic.
Realistic consequences are fine, but do it for the sake of the world's atmosphere-- not your own personal desire to punish the player.

>> No.23416442

>He quote-linked your stupid melodramatic post for everyone to read.

>> No.23416461

Most campaigns operate on a conceit that at level one you aren't going to fight epic level people. But they exist. There are dragons and people that fight them. There are high level druids, clerics, fighters, and so on in the world. They generally ignore you because they have no fucks to give about low level characters and have their own concerns.

If you go out of your way to do massively stupid and disruptive things in the same manner a school shooter goes on a rampage, you should NOT be surprised when they suddenly do take notice.

If you're taking your actions for a good reason, the "reprisals" are limited to in-story challenges that enhance the experience. If you're just being a random and (most importantly) stupid mass murderer, the high level people in the world will appear and rape your eyes.

I don't care about theft, unless it's really stupid theft. I don't care about murder, unless it's really stupid murder. I want my players to be smart. If they want to steal the crown jewels I let them try - but they'd better have protections against divination spells, have done their homework, and be prepared for some reprisals.

>> No.23416472

What about when the druids send no-one because they're A) not around, B) don't give a flying fuck? Not every forest and woods needs to have a mythological guardian, sometimes bunch of trees sticking together is just that.

>> No.23416483

>a small part of your post
I believe my response was appropriate to the entirety of that post's content.
Which seemed to be mostly insulting me with metaphors.

>> No.23416485


>Ge LeDuche

I love MXC!

>> No.23416521

But realistically speaking even stupid people get away with crimes, albeit at lower success rate than smart people. Why your game shouldn't be any different?

>> No.23416540

Edgy grimderp player detected
It's a DM's market. he can choose whichever fucking players he wants. If he doesn't like sociopath murderers, that's his privilege

>> No.23416542

>disruptive things
Okay, so why don't fantastically high level epic EVIL people come to punish your players for doing something heroic?
Obviously you are just using your position as a DM for a moral soap box, not trying to make the game fun for players you have CHOSEN TO PLAY WITH.
It's that simple.
You want the players to do things a certain way, so you're going to force them to with unrealistic "reprisals".
That is not how to make the game fun for everyone.

>> No.23416548

Yes, that's true. Whether or not they're punished depends on whether they're doing it for a good reason and whether it's a smart thing to do in the first place.

If you're fighting the terrasque and start a forest fire to stall him, I'd have the druids forgive them and show up to help. Hell, maybe even give them a reward, because they're fighing the terrasque.

No, a nature spirit or creature (there's a good few in many forests) goes and finds a druid, says, "Chucklefuck McBurnsalot started a forest fire", and the druid assembles the rape squad, who show up a reasonable amount of time later.

If it's done for a good reason and it's a one-off thing, then he doesn't get much support and it's just one angry druid, and a fun in-story fight.

Then it would probably be something else. Angry nature spirits, nobles, intelligent bears, a clan of bugbears - whatever. Just someone pissed you burned down their home.

Crime is one thing, stupid crime is another. I don't care if my players are criminals, just if they're stupid. I expect them to play smart.

>> No.23416567

>that's his privilege
No shit.
Or make it clear before the game begins that this will be a Heroes Only game.

Don't be a stupid IC dick to your players.

>> No.23416570

If the game is grounded in reality then the characters should occasionally get away with doing stupid shit simply through dumb luck.

Psychic rape-squads punishing them for actions that the GM thinks are lolrandumb are unrealistic.

>> No.23416573

Some people play disruptive retarded characters and don't understand why they are not allowed to have all the fun at the expense of the other players and the GM

>> No.23416627

I once had a campaign where a player who was level one charged a goblin army. He died very, very, very quickly.

I had another where a paladin tried to set fire to Thay. He died very, very, very quickly.

I do not punish people for being evil or good. I punish them for being stupid and random. I expect people at my table to roleplay and be clever. I *always* reward clever play, and always reward good roleplaying. Chaotic Stupid and Lawful Stupid are not permitted at my game table. But if a player figures out a clever way to kill the BBEG mid-monologue? I let him, and give him bonus experience. ESPECIALLY if it's in character.

(I also gave a lot of leeway to Paladins in editions where they could fall, letting them do things most of /tg/ probably would argue makes them fall. And I did it because I wanted good play more than lawful stupid.)

>> No.23416653

I would have tons of fun with this dm.
You want to have your fantasy where you are the invincible mass murderer/rapist/torturer ?
Sure, but not every DM likes that.
And they have every right to.

>> No.23416670

>Whether or not they're punished depends on whether they're doing it for a good reason
See, here's the thing that I disagree with. I don't agree that the existence of vengeful rape dryads in the burnt forest should depend on whether it was ignited for smart reasons or stupid reasons. Either the dryads are there or not, period - player actions shouldn't affect that in any way. It's just unrealistic.

>> No.23416701

None, but the fire would probably get to level 10 in a couple of hours.

>> No.23416719

Then you confront them about their behavior OOC, not through in-game means - just like adults are supposed to do.

>> No.23416731

>and always reward good roleplaying.
So what if he's "roleplaying" a fucking pyromaniac?
Again, you either make the world realistic for all players involved, or you flat out tell people certain stuff won't be tolerated before hand.
You don't punish people IC just to punish them.
You don't punish them IC because you don't like why they did it.

You are only to relay the reality of the world in a way that allows the game to continue for the fun of all.

>> No.23416764

>No shit
You think it's so obvious ? There are a lot of That Guys that don't respect the time and effort the DM put into his campaign, or try to do things which are very bad taste as far as the DM is considered.

>Or make it clear before the game begins that this will be a Heroes Only game.


>> No.23416770


You've got to make clear what this game is going to be about before hand.

Then you simply portray what occurs in the world.

If someone starts a barfight, you don't have Paladin McLeveltwenty kill him because "I thought you were being too randumb."

>> No.23416788

>I punish them for being stupid and random
You shouldn't punish them *every* time for being stupid and random, because it is unrealistic and hurts the verisimilitude of the game. I know that as a player it would strain my suspension of disbelief, making the game world feel more like the GM's play box than a real, breathing world.

>> No.23416820

The setting might have- I dunno- laws, and guards who- gasp- ENFORCE these laws.

If a character breaks those laws, or trespasses onto someones proverbial lawn, what do they expect ?

>> No.23416831

>>Or make it clear before the game begins that this will be a Heroes Only game.
That is what has to happen.
You explain the game and what's going on in OOC to people in an understanding way.
You do NOT use IC as your punisher platform to make unrealistically bad reprisals happen to actions you don't like.
That is juvenile and reduces the fun for everyone.

>> No.23416836

I'm not DMing to be perfectly realistic. It's a game where multiple people are playing cooperatively, and I have to run it.

Were I being realistic, random high level retribution would also fall on people with good reasons for doing things.

What I do is deliberately pull my punches on people doing bad things for good reasons. I *want* my players to be rewarded for doing things for good reasons.

And one disruptive mass murderer can seriously ruin everyone else's time, because THEY have to deal with the fallout of his actions.

I flat out state this is how I run my campaigns before I start. Unlike many DM's, I stick to my guns and do not pull my punches. They'll start playing smart or get used to rolling new characters. Or leave, in which case good riddance.

This is my opening speech:
"I don't care if you play good or evil, but I expect you to play smart and roleplay well. I will not coddle you. If you do something exceptionally stupid, you will die. If you try to take on an army alone, you will die. If you are randomly evil and a mass murderer, you will die. But you will be greatly rewarded for playing intelligently and roleplaying well, especially outside of combat."

I don't ALWAYS punish them. But I do it when there's logical response to it. Like murdering the king. If they can't get caught, they've at least thought it out that far and I'm okay with it.

Though I will state I usually run heroes only campaigns. But I still expect people not to be stupid when I'm running an evil campaign.

>> No.23416862

>If you are randomly evil and a mass murderer, you will die.
So is there ever a case in your game where someone can skillfully be a mass-murderer and commit random acts of evil?

>> No.23416895

Exactly. If the GM is going to drop a level 20 rape squad on the party every time they do something he thinks is 'stupid', you're going to end up with players who are too terrified to do anything that doesn't look like it belongs to the plot railroad. I've seen these kind of players who have been abused by their control-happy GMs, and trying to get them out of their shells and trust the GM again is a lot of work.

>> No.23416902

It would be awesome to be a pyromaniac in a WOD game and see how long the player can outrun the Werewolves- or the Vampire Havens he set on fire...

>> No.23416911

Well that's the thing, a good GM is going to realistically portray the world in such a way it feels alive and responsive-- that actions have real consequences.

That does not involve sending arbitrarily powerful entities to home-in psychically on a player that does something the GM dislikes.

>> No.23416992 [SPOILER] 
File: 420 KB, 1600x1050, specopsWP.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>a hero

>> No.23417009

>and trying to get them out of their shells and trust the GM again
Mhm. I've had to do this as well.
They seem abused and scared to try anything creative.
Afraid someone will say "that's stupid".
I usually just run a quick few unattached games on the fly to break them out of it.
And make certain to say:
"Alright guys, I will faithfully simulate the world as best I can, there is no right way to do things, you may fail, you may succeed, it's going to come down to your ingenuity and the dice."

>> No.23417040

Souce on image?

>> No.23417051

Yes and no. Yes, they can get away with it if they carefully think things through and plan them out. And I will reward them if it is particularly clever. I will definitely reward them if it's done for a reason. I occasionally DM evil-only games, after all.

But opponents will scale their defenses and opponents will act competently. I'm the sort of person that will have enemies act intelligently first and foremost. The guard of large cities will hire diviners, enemies will employ tactics to counter what they DO know of their opponents, and enemies will come hunting for them.

If they do what they do in a manner that is intelligent, well roleplayed, and capable, I reward them. Opponents become fun story enemies.

You have a good reason to burn down a village and a good method to do it? DO IT. I will reward you. But don't expect me to hold your hand in the process. Expect stiff resistance and strong retribution if you do something stupid.

My favorite villain-protagonist is from a story many of you have never heard of. He's named Namirrah, and he's a character from a Clark Ashton Smith story called "The Dark Eidolon". He's an epic necromancer that decides he wants to destroy an entire city that abused him as a child before he gained his power - especially the king, who trampled him with a horse. But doing so goes against the wishes of his god. He calls upon other gods, and manages to destroy the city. But in the end his god manages to subject him to a fate worse than death.

He's an excellent character with an excellent story. He does mass destruction for a good reason, roleplayed well but not cleverly. I'd have probably handled it the same way - and even though Namirrah is retired, he has the most spectacular exit an epic-level spellcaster could hope for.

>> No.23417057


>> No.23417093

>there is no right way to do things,
Of course, that said, I also don't ever have one single plot going on in the game.
It's pretty much never a "the world ends" sort of deal, that gets dull.
They can interact with and help or oppose or anything really the factions I design and relate for the setting.
I tend to run games a bit like the Deus Ex series of video games, there are multiple endings.
I don't really give a fuck about a single plot, or if the players want to be dicks.

I just try to create a world for everyone to have fun in.
If there's a dispute about things material to people having fun, I OOC it and ask what's going on.

>> No.23417165

>You have a good reason to burn down a village
Why? Who decides what a "good reason" is?
What if my character has literally committed himself to being an anarchist and wiping the world clean of authority through random seedings of chaos?
The issue I see with you as the DM is that you'd be unable to handle that sort of character, and would simply powertrip all over the very concept.
That's the problem. You're not running a realistic world.

>> No.23417204

You know that thread we keep having, where one player is like, "Hey, we're out being heroes and then this one player is secretly murdering a whole bunch of people, and it's ruining the game for everyone else."

I don't have that problem. I'm much, much more lenient than most DM's in many ways, and I do NOT drop a rape squad down on everything I dislike. But I do not *hold back* when a player decides to read all the books and tries to wrestle Cthulhu. Nor do I tolerate massively disruptive players mass-murdering for no good reason.

I can't remember the last time I had a paladin fall, and I started in the AD&D days. Nor do I regularly have deaths.

I don't let players do whatever they want, but I don't randomly punish them for whatever I personally dislike. I punish them for blatant stupidity and being a massive asshat.

Don't associate me with overly harsh DM's who make every paladin fall or kill players for running off the rails.

I had one campaign where the players were characters in a hero-training university. One of the leaders had begun to raise the undead. I had a nice big campaign planned out. The players decided to say, "fuck all of this, we're out", and run away to another country. I made it clear that the war happened, but they were able to run off and play an entirely different campaign. I didn't punish them for doing it. They escaped intelligently and did it in character, and their later adventures were fun. The army of undead didn't chase them down and drag them into the story. Their friends and family died - but that's what they CHOSE to let happen. So I let it happen. And they had fun anyway.

>> No.23417232

If every place the character set fire to turns out to be a Werewolf Cairn or a Vampire Haven, wouldn't you agree that the GM is being a complete dick?

>> No.23417363

Here's a question. You're an anarchist who wants to seed random chaos and burn down buildings in the real world, right now.

Do you get away with it forever? No. The cops eventually find you and arrest or kill you, because actions have consequences.

If you want to play that kind of character, I expect you to have the intelligence to pull it off, and I will *not* pull my punches. People will eventually figure you out and come after you for it. Especially in a world with magic. If you prepare intelligently and play it out well, I might well let you tear down the state and set up your anarchist utopia. But if you play like a random "for the lulz" moron, I will kill your character very dead very fast. And you can either roll up a new character or go play at a different table, you whiny soft skinned fuck.

I don't expect you to play a paladin. I don't expect you to play a good guy. But I will be fucked if I'll let you play an idiot.

>> No.23417408

Forever? No. But for some time? Yes. And that's what you should allow in your game, too.

>> No.23417444

I do. When it is logically justifiable to do so.

If you kill the king in his throne room surrounded by guards, you'll face immediate retribution.

If you burn down a forest, it'll be a few weeks before the druids show up.

>> No.23417499

Unless the character burnt down the forest for good reasons, then the druids are a-ok with it?

>> No.23417524

>Do you get away with it forever? No.
You are assuming someone doesn't get away with it forever.
You are clearly ignoring the criminals that DO get away with it.
And therein lies your problem:
You are making the world unrealistic to punish players.
Rather than of course being mature and stating the intent of the game before hand.
It's one thing to say "I'm not allowing Chaotic characters."
It's quite another to straight up unrealistically screw over an exceptionally clever anarchist because you simply don't like anarchists.

Again, you need to remove your conception of "for the lulz" from the game:
People can actually do things "for the lulz" and get away with it. It can happen so frequently they might even be adept at evading detection subconsciously.
If you ignore the reality of the world in favor of sending a punishment squad, you're a dick.

Either take their actions and tell a fun story with it, or OOC and tell them you don't want it in this game.

>> No.23417586

>Of course. My Dick>Realistic Consequences.

>> No.23417656

No no, if he had a good reason, the druids are only level 15, instead of level 20. I am a generous Master.

>> No.23417702

No, in that case a reasonable encounter happens with *a* pissed off druid or group of druids. Which they can potentially get past without a fight.

Did you read my posts where I stated that I start off every game with a statement of what is acceptable or not, or didn't you?

Chaotic does not mean chaotic stupid. And yes, it's unrealistic. It's a conceit designed to make the game more fun for everyone. A pointless mass murderer going around and killing everyone and generally fucking over the party is a bad thing.

If you want to play sociopath mckillstabby in my game DESPITE my opening speech on what's acceptable, I'll kill you deader than dead.

If you want to play Lina Inverse (Chaotic Neutral's posterchild) I'll happily let you, provided you have the power and cleverness to pull it off, and it doesn't piss off everyone else playing the game. And if it does I'll probably quietly tell you where it needs to be toned down or altered to make it a happy fit.

Most players in my games have characters that last a whole campaign - even new players. But I don't ever hesitate to kill off even longstanding characters if they do something extremely stupid and pointless. And I DO give warnings on the way.

>> No.23417828

IMO, it sounds like you're the classic powertripping DM.

"I'll let you do this, I'll let this happen, I'll kill you, don't do something stupid."

That's really mediocre DMing man, you should be able to turn most actions into storyline gold without resorting to IC punishments.

Of course powertripping DMs never realize what they are because they're inevitably blindly self-righteous too.

My only advice is to just try and make the world realistic and don't get attached to your plotline. Go with the flow, you know?

>> No.23417871


>> No.23417994

>No, in that case a reasonable encounter happens with *a* pissed off druid or group of druids. Which they can potentially get past without a fight.
Hate to say it, but you're probably a dick.
Maybe not as bad as a masturbating railroader, but unrealistic IC stuff is just bad.
Any disputes about the fun of the players should be in OOC only.
If it's not impacting the fun of the players, why are you judging it unreasonable?

Just have the world offer a realistic reaction, don't modify that to punish or reward unrealistically.

>> No.23418142

No. If you're DMing and want to let a player be a disruptive murderhobo, do it. You play at your table and have all the disruptive murderhobos you want. Let the guy who plays a /d/ pony join too. No rules, no restraints. Just whatever the players want to do. They want to turn it into a murder-pony-scatfest? Yes, you can roll with that and turn it into gold.

Meanwhile I'll be running a campaign where there ARE limits to tolerable behavior for my players. Not onerous but strict, and where someone can play a game without worrying that other players are going to burn down an orphanage and bring the wrath of everyone down on them. My restrictions make better players.

Your approach of "anything goes" is stupid. But it's your approach, and you can do it if you like. I don't doubt there are players who prefer it. They can be half-panda moon wizard rapist murder hobos in your campaign. My approach holds players up to a basic, minimal standard and I get better players because of it.

I always make it clear OOC what is acceptable or not and leave players free to make the decision they like. Overwhelming retribution IC is not common or done regularly. It is saved for spectacularly stupid decisions on a large scale made after warnings have been given.

Look. I started during the AD&D era. I've played under jackass railroaders and people like you're accusing me of being. I'm no more fond of them than you are. I expect basic standards from my players and explain clearly what those are. Punishment only comes after a player does something very, very stupid.

So I've given some examples. How about you? How would YOU handle it if a paladin tried to set fire to Thay, a level one character charged a goblin army, someone went around randomly burning towns, or someone decided to burn orphanages for the lulz?

I'm pretty sure your answer will clearly demonstrate the difference between the sort of people that play my games, and the ones that play yours.

>> No.23418286
File: 40 KB, 400x398, inquisition-wheel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>My restrictions make better players.
>I'm no more fond of them than you are.

Oh man, this guy.

That's how it starts.

"I'm better than this pagan filth. My dick is bigger and more powerful. I make the LAW."

>> No.23418377

>Choo choo
>all aboard the railroad!

>> No.23418466

>Your approach of "anything goes" is stupid.
Anything always does go.
The world simply has a realistic reaction that I do not deliberately worsen or better for punishment purposes.
So yes, a moon wizard rapist and murderer can certainly exist.
I take his actions and weave them into an epic tale of entertainment.
If he should knowingly get himself killed, understanding the risks, then he dies.

I'm not going to send a "rape squad" that somehow mysteriously knew about his murders and vastly outlevels him.
That is a level of self-righteous dickery that would reduce player creativity.

If someone is investigating the murders, I'll roll for that, many times visible for the players to increase the tension.

Arbitrariness is can be a bane of roleplaying.

>> No.23418575

It's the polar opposite of a railroad. Do take time to learn the basic terminology before you attempt to join in on the discussion.

>> No.23418912

>If someone is investigating the murders, I'll roll for that, many times visible for the players to increase the tension.
This bears a particular point of mentioning, since it can be quite entertaining.
If I have a player who commits actions against another faction (even if that's the local anti-crime force), I will run out their response.
It will be appropriate to their capabilities, they will perform actions as if they were any other characters.
They can fail their investigation rolls, think a different person did it, whatever the dice might will.
I will craft the story around the actions of the players.

So as before, I don't ever have a single plot or a single 'bad guy', just a state of the world.
The players go about the business of shaping that world for fun.
There could be a faction that their characters might want to destroy, there might be multiple factions out to get them in turn.
It doesn't matter.

If someone wants to burn down orphanages, they burn down, I alter the town, assign an investigator, and we see what becomes of it.

If the other players don't like that shit, then we OOC talk about it.

>> No.23419043

Think about "experience point" for a second

it represents your character learning new methods and better perfecting the ones he already knows. it's not some mystical orb like in minecraft. all he's learning about is basic combustion, which he probably had to know about to start the fire.

>> No.23419064

What if he learned how to masterfully engineer a forest fire to spread the fastest and kill the most squirrels?

>> No.23419139

Hear, hear. This is the sane way to run RPGs. They're not video games or books, but open-ended storytelling.

>> No.23419141

no, its a railroad, but there's a switching station on the side. your saying the only way to get rewards is to complete pre-determined goals, but with choice of methods. that's a railroad.

>> No.23419174

then a little. but OP seemed to be focused on number of creatures, which implies that killing a creature automatically gives exp.

>> No.23419195

What if he crafted a gem of demonic soulsucking that rewarded him with power for death?

>> No.23419257

What if he WAS a demon?! They have those for players in D&D, right?

>> No.23419265

>does he get experience points for this?
>but what if he did?

that's whats going on now.

>> No.23419296

Well in theory the DM could always make it so he did. I could see an Infernal getting exp for setting bigger and better fires, depending.

>> No.23419302

No, railroad means that adventure has only a single path that the players must follow, with no deviations. The plot and outcome of the adventure are also predetermined by the GM.

What I'm talking about is an open-ended approach. What do you think determines the goals, but player input? The player tells me 'my character wants to do this', and if he succeeds he gets the XP.

>> No.23419360

yeah, but if you're just going to homebrew it so that it works out, why would you ask if it worked out?

>> No.23419361

It's a little more dull and unrealistic than simply awarding exp for actions that improve skill.

I mean, depending on what you're considering for an "I want to do this." Since that line can and does imply anything at all.

"I want to urinate."

If you're restricting the choosable goals, then you're basically railroading.

>> No.23419392

It's not a homebrew at all, these fine /tg/ers are stating that you gain exp for completing objectives. Who says razing a forest of all life isn't an objective?

>> No.23419463

The anon you are arguing with is not railroading. Stop abusing the term like that.

That anon appears to read through his characters backstories, identify hooks and goals that they would like, present them openly, and then see how his PC's accomplish goals that they *should* want to accomplish.

Now, if the PC's decide that they want to do things that are not amongst those goals, and instead of making new goals he punishes them, then it becomes railroading.

>> No.23419472

Of course the goals need to be theme appropriate - "I want to urinate" would be suitable goal for a game about an android wishing to become human, for instance. Usually discussing with the player for a bit makes it clear what they want, and usually that is their character getting involved in something cool.

>> No.23419491

no that's fine, maybe Homebrew isn't the word I was looking for. but the point is of course there are any number of situations where you could gain experience for a forest fire, but the orinal question asked "how much?" and the answer in an official sense is none. or atleast "however much the GM sees fit."

>> No.23419532

but he was saying that completing these goals was the only way to gain experience and reward. so inherently they are being punished for not pursuing them. and it seems that you are implying that the inspiration for an adventure somehow changes whether it is railroading or not.

>> No.23419539

The issue being what the DM uses to decide what "goals" are exp-worthy.

And if such things need to be stated before hand.

It's clearly more restrictive than simply awarding more gun-using exp for firing a gun often or skillfully.

>> No.23419612

I don't write adventures. I write a setting and NPCs, then let players loose in it. The XP is there as a tangential reward for pushing their character's agenda.

>> No.23419626

So what if he burns down an orphanage?

>> No.23419645

I disagree with this. 'Practice makes perfect' shouldn't be true, pushing personal agendas makes your perfect instead.

>> No.23419667

You know, this is something I really haven't liked:

Why is an orphanage considered a worse place to burn down than court house, or an adult male's sitting room with him in it? It just seems like bad form to consider one form of human life as more emotionally valuable than another.

>> No.23419699

how in any way would getting your divorced wife to love you again give you better gun handling abilities?

>> No.23419706

What of it? The local authorities would most likely start an investigation, or some maverick who really liked orphans could try to track the character down. Whether he receives XP for burning down the orphanage really depends on what his goals were.

>> No.23419739

>'Practice makes perfect' shouldn't be true,
What the fuck?
Are you saying practice doesn't improve your skills?
That's horrible.

If someone has dedicated himself mastering pistol combat, he's going to be getting exp as he uses his pistols to advance whatever goals he wishes.
I'm not going to tie his personal skill to some unrelated desire. That's disgusting.

>> No.23419767

That is EXACTLY how my games have gone. The problem is, none of the other players know better than to let the GM railroad them, its their first game. Every fight has been purposefully impossible so we have to beg his level 40 DMPCs to save us.

>> No.23419781

Time to run a /tg/ quest with the premise of being unable to improve your skills until you get more women to love you.

It's just perfect.

>> No.23419801

That's a thematically appropriate thing in several genres - the Hero Must Face His Past before he's ready to confront the antagonist is a common trope in movies and books. I don't see any problem with that.

>> No.23419809

>so we have to beg his level 40 DMPCs to save us.
All of my rage.
They need to write DM guides specifically to talk about collaborate storybuilding.
Not "I make them dance like puppets!"

>> No.23419843

Also, whenever someone tries to do something that isn't part of the railroad, the GM just offhandedly says "so you want rocks to fall on your head?"

>> No.23419847

Considering African people to be inferior devilspawn was appropriate in several genres for quite some time.

Culture evolves to be more helpful and entertaining.

>> No.23419873

No, the character's pistol skills improve alongside him as he progresses through his journey. They simply don't become apparent until he has passed through some appropriately dramatic challenge. See Rocky, for example.

>> No.23419879

Lynch him.
Just get together and deliberately use your power.
Force him to use the rocks.
Then find a new DM.

>> No.23419939

>not lung or throat

Do you even lift?

>> No.23419941

I don't quite follow? Saying that tropes in stories change over time isn't an argument against or for what I was talking about.

>> No.23419948

>some appropriately dramatic challenge
Again, quite foolish.
This is an old cliche that is simply not fun and breaks immersion.
It's hard for players to deal with such restrictiveness and still be supremely involved.

It is quite best to award exp and bonuses after each session based upon the occurrences within the session developing player skills. Not major plot points.

>> No.23419993

Every time I complain, he just tells me if I don't like it, find another group; But this group I play with is people I've been friends with for years, and there aren't really any groups around here anyway. The other guys in the group are just playing DnD because the guy acting as DM suggested it, and probably wouldn't go for lynching and finding a new DM. The DM's house is the common hangout for our group of friends anyway, don't wanna mess that up.

>> No.23420011

It's an argument that you should stop using old less-good tropes in favor more innovative cultural dynamics.

Tropes only change over time if you want them to.

>> No.23420036

Develop your IRC Cha score and whisper sweet something into the ears of the other players. Then get out the rope.

>> No.23420039

I disagree. Awarding XP to players after a major plot point is the most dramatically satisfying way. Of course I assume that the players spend that XP on skills they used a lot during the game, and why wouldn't they - they're obviously important for the characters.

In comparison if the GM gives XP only for skills that were used, it leads to nonsensical situations where players start to do things 'just because', que characters bunnyhopping everywhere to train their acrobatics.

>> No.23420044

A Druid/Bear Warrior, whose only vestment is his hat, and whose weapon is an enchanted shovel, lopes out of the forest. Massive oak trees crawl around the forest in his wake, the smallest in the shape of men, the largest with dryads hanging from their branches, all of them with expressions of rage. The bear rears up on two legs, holding the shovel aloft. He shakes his head as other bears emerge from the embers, stomping out active flames along with the trees, seeking vengeance upon those who foolishly burned in their woods.

Then, this sylvan army attacks.

>> No.23420069

Examples of new, better tropes please?

>> No.23420129

>after a major plot point
They are not mutually exclusive.
If they used and developed their skills to achieve that plot point...
That counts as practicing their skills.
Exp on route.

If one of the characters wants to spend narrative time training a specific skill, you can be certain he's going to get a bonus to improving that skill, whatever it may be.
This depends on the game and system of course, but I'm not going to say "all that effort didn't matter, you need to wait till you kill the boss."
That's horrible.

>> No.23420166

Than "the hero must face his past"?

How about the "hero" is a real human being who actually got over the regrets of the past to forge a better future?

>> No.23420228

That's just 'the hero must face his past', reworded slightly differently.

>> No.23420252

You have to be able to trust your players enough so that you don't believe "if I don't control the situation, it will devolve into chaos and retardation."

>> No.23420267

It's not real effort until after a dramatic plot point. For the same reason in movies you don't get a montage scene until your character has been defeated somehow.

>> No.23420291

Obviously not since being a well adjusted person, he's already gotten past the past, and it is not a present reminding influence on the current story.

>> No.23420321

It's not about control, it's about distributing XP rewards at roughly equivalent distances. For instance, in D&D it's been suggested that the characters should level up after every four sessions.

>> No.23420324

the way you bring up movies and their narrative arc really isn't helping your "not railroading" case.

>> No.23420325


>fire gains experience
>puts levels into wizard

were fucked now

>> No.23420361

I was talking about the statement "que characters bunnyhopping everywhere to train their acrobatics."
which obviously comes down to trust and control.

>> No.23420405

>For the same reason in movies
Listen, a PnP game is not a hyperdramatic movie with only one plotline, one antagonist, one protagonist, or whatever that linear bullshit they like doing is.
That is a boring railroad festival.
Do not restrict your players to only improving after some singular masturbatory scene.
They improve every day, because these characters are sentient beings.

A hard-fought battle culminating in glorious victory awards appropriate exp.
Your daughter getting blown up usually doesn't.

Fighting for your goals IS ALWAYS REAL EFFORT.
And you should treat any advancement of skill as such, not just "cutscenes."

>> No.23420446

Movies are a good reference point that everyone is familiar with, since 'roleplaying game' means so different things to various people. Also, I like games with strong cinematic themes.

>> No.23420469

that hardly addresses the issue.

>> No.23420475

So your suggestion for a trope better than 'the hero must face his past' is 'the hero has faced his past'? Because that's how I'm reading it.

>> No.23420536

He asked for a better trope, not something completely original do not steal.

A better trope is quite simply that the character does not have a dark and brooding past he must face.

But instead, no matter what happened, came out of the past as a rather cool dude.

And thus does not need to "face his past" in the current story.

>> No.23420556

Shit, a class 5 wildfire? Were looking at more then 100,000 acres burning, with no signs of stopping.

We're gonna need some aerial support, sen in smoke jumpers behind the fire to start working on hand lines, get some dozers digging dozer lines to block the path of the fire, making use of roads and other preexisting barriers to the fire.

Someone get the DNR and the BIA on the line.

>> No.23420575


I read this as "someone get the wildfire's DNA!"

>> No.23420582

As far as I can see the issue you're having is that the characters don't level up after every session?

>> No.23420591
File: 418 KB, 2560x1600, mother-cares-baby.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

How many experience points does my mother get for birthing me? If I can get big enough, I'm gonna kill a lot of monsters right?

Also, general child rearing tips
Is there a wizard spell that could change diapers?

>> No.23420606

What if they gained exp after every session? (Dark Heresy does this really well.)

>> No.23420643

that isn' it at all. it's about withholding rewards and experience until it fits into the narrative you have planned, which at its core is railroading.

>> No.23420700

I use Grailroading all the time. It makes players suffer and want more. I then extract sexual favors.

>> No.23420788

I disagree. Railroading would be forcing the players to a single path through a predetermined adventure.

I think XP should be doled out only after a major milestone in the character's agenda has been achieved. This usually takes at least a couple of sessions, depending.

I have nothing against that if it works, but I prefer giving XP out in large lump sums.

>> No.23420816

Prestidigitation cleanses any worn clothing, as one of its powers. Its many, many powers.

>> No.23420922

A system I sue is that after every session, the players get improvement points (Non dnd, non level based system) to improve their skills as they see fit. Generally for a normal session I give 8-12 IP, but if say it was a slow or short day, a not a whole lot actually got accomplished, then I'd give 5 or 6. If the players go balls to fucking wall and do something incredible or ridiculous, then I'd reward more.

Since there isn't a one to one reward for, say, killing individual creatues, then I don't need to worry about my players being murder hobos, which is nice because the way health works in my system, fights, even with low level enemies, can be fairly lethal.

>> No.23420925

Wow, that shit is OP - and it's a cantrip?!??!

Wizard confirmed for parenting master-class?

>> No.23420940

You sound evil.

>> No.23420952

Please, 'mana-transfers'. Were not savages here.

>> No.23421057

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to.

>> No.23421116

>this is how efreets are born.

>> No.23421151

I was also picking up on certain super villain-esque qualities to his method of writing.

>> No.23421216

It's just the way I start to write when an argument goes longer, with shorter more concise sentences - I try to reduce chances of misinterpretation.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.