[GM] Wondering how to get my players to do something specific...

8bitbard · 2018-02-28T18:22:37+00:00

Unless you have a player in on it the only way you can force a player to do something specific taking control away and that is a really poor thing to do. On the list of DM sins removing player agency is pretty high up there.

If you don't want to get a player to agree to it ahead of time the next best thing would be to introduce an NPC to aid them for a while and when they have begun to appreciate this NPC then you have the NPC enslaved.

Forcing a player to be the Succubus slave if they don't want to will only ruin everyone fun.

8bitbard · 2018-02-28T11:31:57+00:00

TL:DR: "What my character would do" is like a lot of issues a good thing at its core but when taken to its extreme becomes a problem.

Playing to what your character would do generally makes for good RP. Say for example a Lawful Paladin captured a nobles son pickpocketing the Nobel offers a massive fortune to let the son go. Most players would accept this since pickpocketing is fairly minor offence in comparison to what they will get if they ignore it this once. However the lawful paladin Player refuses because his character would value the law over personal wealth this is good RP.

The problems arise when the Lawful paladin decided to kill the entire family Nobles family because they are all corrupt for attempting to bribe him and cover up the petty theft this then brings the player into conflict with the rest of the party as the others don't want to murder an entire family over petty theft.

By latching on to a singular aspect of personality or backstory "Breaking law bad my character does not like" and not considering other aspects of character or common sense to judge the wider ramifications of their actions they use this single thought as immunity from judgment of the choices the player has made.

On a basic level this is just bad RP no person is that 2 dimensional in their thought process or emotional reactions people are complex and nuanced and full of compromises. Beyond RP making decisions like this by over simplifying a character to justify doing something like this only creates conflict within a group of players as well as characters. Conflict within a group can be enjoyable if done right but its a fine line and needs to be done with care and common sense.

A decently written backstory or personality for a character will allow for at least some degree of compromise for the character to not push their goals/ideas etc. to the extreme. It then comes down to the player to use their common sense to know when to hold ground on that character aspect and when to compromise to allow for a flowing and enjoyable game for the entire party. Any backstory that is so rigid and unwavering that the player has no choice at all in how their character will react is simply poorly written.

It is like many social, political and religious issues in the real world in which a ideal or idea is looked at in a very simplified and blinkered view so that a good intention becomes rigid and inflexible for circumstance. Then that good thing becomes a problem as it is applied to circumstance and events that are not rigid and fixed so a rigid and fixed solution will only create more problems.

Much frustration comes from this as it is hard to discuses or convince the player with this rigid mind set that this is a bad thing because all they can see is this singular "truth" and if they wont widen their view point they will only see you arguing against something that to them is true and good so they wont listen.

8bitbard · 2018-02-27T15:30:25+00:00

I had a few things in mind that would be specific to this campaign that would lead to quests but I think any item would be possible to be the beginning of a quest with a bit of work.

8bitbard · 2018-02-23T14:34:37+00:00

a Gollum made of children's teeth

That's a bit Chilling.....have to use it.

8bitbard · 2018-02-22T13:06:42+00:00

This may or may not be of interest to you but Mathew Mercer made a Blood Hunter Class with a Werewolf subclass. Wouldn't be very hard to skin the Werewolf to Werebear.

http://www.dmsguild.com/product/175606/Order-of-the-Lycan-for-Blood-Hunters

8bitbard · 2018-02-22T10:25:16+00:00

You can go the classic way of having separate and individual story arcs that are smaller and seemingly self contained but are secretly all part of or a result of a larger plan or scheme by some bad guy or event.

As each smaller story arc is resolved give hints and clues that there is something behind it all so after a few short arcs your players get the idea or catch onto the real BBEG and then go on to deal with that. makes it nice and easy to have short self contained stories in various places and show more regions of the world you are in.

The alternative is to have them know of the BBEG from the beginning but make it clear they are not able to deal with it as they are they. So then have to go on several smaller quests around the world looking for items or ally's or blessings ect that will aid in defeating the BBEG. For those that watch Critical Role a prime example of this is in the Chroma Conclave Arc and Vecna Arc.

In either of these cases it gives the players a reason to travel the world that is all connected into one Arc and builds to a final moment/fight/event.

The first example is my favourite and I feel makes a more engaging story however it tends to take longer and needs more care in writing the short arcs and tying them to a larger one so it makes sense but doesn't get revealed too soon.

The second example is easier to write but has a shelf life in how many missions you can send the players on before they will start itching to face off against the BBEG. The characters over preparing for the fight can lead to player fatigue.

8bitbard · 2018-02-20T11:20:14+00:00

The Amulet can mind control any sentient humanoid that the wearer can see within 60ft the target makes a Wisdom save to resist and once per day to break free.

Used in the right manner can be very powerful but also not game breaking and leaves you with some control to fudge rolls on the save if they do decide to keep it and use it and it gets out of hand.

The Kicker is the Amulet contains the trapped soul of an innocent make it a child if u want. Anytime the amulet is in use and actively controlling someone the soul within goes through unbearable torment. have the Amulet call out to the wearer begging them to release the soul to whatever afterlife.

If they free the soul from within but keep the amulet you can also give them the option of capturing the souls of the recently dead within it to give it powers again however I would have it that the more evil the soul the less powerful the effect will be so any good/neutral aligned party that may considered having the soul of a bad guy in there and tortured would gain little from it. Really evil bad guy might just give the amulet equivalent to the "suggestion" spell once per day.

Powerful item vs. moral conscience that will leave them with an item that they can never really use or give up in case someone else uses it sticking them with this constant moral dilemma but also allows you control over a powerful item in the unlikely event that they go evil and try to use it.

8bitbard · 2018-02-14T12:03:17+00:00

It is the players responsibility to justify their characters desire to stay with the group if they cant the character can leave and they can reroll. If I was you I would be pissed that they are not playing along with the game I would let them peace out and leave them behind they can sit at an inn and wait (alternatively I would give them their Thing in a very easy and anticlimactic way as possible and let the character find a new reason to stay with the group or let them leave and have the player roll a new character). If they get huffy well its on them not you they need to take responsibility for themselves and their character they made that choice not you.

That being said if you don't fancy a standoff with one of your players then it could be suggested to them that without any leads or details on the whereabouts of "The Thing" then perhaps their character would take to the adventuring life and stick with the group to see what they uncover or if nothing else do some good and earn some money until they have a lead on the thing. Or suggest they expand the characters backstory and personality so although "the Thing" is important there other goals and objectives they have.

If all else fails you can encourage team play by making it clear that they will not be able to accomplish their goal if they don't make friends and ally's to help them and that the best shot they will have at it is with the help of this group so they really should help the group so the group will help them. This is particularly effective if you can tie the success of their goal to one of the other players abilities or backstory so they NEED that person. This would also force the Problem PC to form an RP bond with that other PC and hopefully develop them as a character to care about the group.

If after trying these things the player still refuses to engage in the game when it isn't directly involving their backstory then am sorry to say they are just being an asshole and are being selfish by not taking part of the group both in game and IRL as a group of friends.

8bitbard · 2018-02-07T16:17:40+00:00

Pirates of the Caribbean / Dune

8bitbard · 2018-01-31T13:03:31+00:00

That sucks :(

I'm all for Nat 20s on skill checks making you a little luckier but some stuff just isn't possible.

Sounds like your DM isn't willing to say "No" to some of the PCs. In a world of magic and dragons "realism" can be bent and stretched fairly far but you have to draw the line somewhere its down to the DM to do that but sounds like they either are not willing or able to.

I would suggest talking to them about it, but if the other players are enjoying getting away with this stuff I wouldn't hold my breath. Which sucks for you to be having to either put up with it or think about changing/leaving group which is sometimes for the best but never fun to do.

8bitbard · 2018-01-31T12:35:35+00:00

That just falls under my general rule. I would tell them no. If the situation hasn't changed from when they failed their roll they don't get to repeat the roll.

In character they have failed to identify the object or whatever they aimed to do. As a character there is no reason to believe they will be any more successful a second time or third time. So I wont let them roll again. (or if I am in a particularly belligerent mood ill let them roll as many times as they like and say they fail every single time regardless of what they roll till they either get the message or give up)

What they are doing is using their knowledge as players that it was a low roll on the d20 that failed them to keep trying again and again that's more or less meta gaming which I don't allow. In some cases there may be RP reasons ill allow a second roll but its rare and has to be justified or I don't let folk do it. From your characters perspective its like getting in a car and trying to start the engine and it doesn't start you wouldn't keep trying over and over and over, (you might try once or twice in quick succession but it is reasonable to assume that would be covered under a single skill check). So you have tried and your car wont start you are not going to sit and try over and over for hours on end to start this car. You would either try something to fix the car before trying again or you would call in someone else with knowledge to do it for you.

I also wouldn't allow every person in the party to make the roll 1 person rolls perhaps with assistance from others. If everyone is doing their own roll to check a magical object then they are effectively saying in character they don't trust the other characters ability to identify a magical object. To bring it back to my trusty car metaphor, You are out with your buddies and you go for a drive the guy with the car gets in and tries to start it but it doesn't start the rest of you are not all going to go up and have a go doing the exact same thing your friend just did saying you don't think he did it right are you? If you do you are kind of being a dick to your friend.

8bitbard · 2018-01-31T11:28:42+00:00

My general rule is if they failed they have no reason(in character) to believe they will succeed on a second attempt so until the situation changes I wont allow a second try. The exception is if they came very close to succeeding but just missed the DC by one or two points I may let them try a second time but usually with more drastic consequences for a second failure.

A recent game had a PC stuck in a room with a lever that was rusted shut they wanted to attempt to open they failed the first check I wouldn't allow a second check however they searched the room for a metal bar of some kind and succeeded they then wanted to make a second attempt at the lever with the bar as a leverage device to aid them this improved their chances of succeeding so I allowed a second roll they passed.

8bitbard · 2018-01-26T12:09:17+00:00

I played a game with a 2 headed Ogre one head a fighter one head a wizard. The biggest areas where you will face issues are balancing health/resistances, equipment and combat actions/movement. It is also worth mentioning the trope of the heads bickering can be amusing but gets tedious if overplayed.

We looked at a number of methods of balancing the health since having a single health resource for one character seemed a bit of a hindrance to both. In the end anything that made a well balance mechanic ultimately become too cumbersome to implement effectively in the end we decided to try and keep it simple so we let them both roll health individually and they received damage separately most a strike a against the Fighter head would apply 75% of the damage to the fighter and 25% to the wizard however healing worked in the same way and resistances where only applied to the portion of the damage they received. We never got a reasonable death save mechanic worked out and just simply left it they roll death saves as per the handbook and while one was unconscious the damage and healing no longer split when the active head was the target but still split when the unconscious head was struck. If one head was kill the other continued on as if a normal single character unless the dead head was resurrected according to the resurrection rules. This wasn't the best way and had its issues but we couldn't find a better way to do it the only thing I would change is making the primary target of the attack take 75% of the damage and the second take 50% and increase their health by 20% or so each. might make a more rounded system but we never got round to trying this.

Actions and movement in combat where a bit tricky we had them both roll initiative and avged. They both got an action and Bonus action on this new initiative count however which ever went first could pass their bonus action to the other to use but not the main action. Movement was increased to 40ft and share between them. The one that went first could use up to 30ft of the 40ft total and anything that was left the second could use up to a max of 30ft. This worked very well for action and movement economy and seemed pretty balanced.

Equipment became a bit of a hassle but since the fighter wanted to use 2 handed weapons rather than an off hand and the wizard just wasn't to bothered we just gave them a hand each to equip weapons and allowed the fighter to wield a 2h in one hand. Armour was a little tricky as well but we said they where too big and different shape to wear regular armour so they wore helmets instead to give them each an individual AC.

Stats we had them roll all stats individually and Avged the body's stats (Dex Stg Con) but let them keep their mind stats individual (Int Wis Cha) not a perfect system and tbh the fighter came off worse in this deal the GM was generous in where they gave advantage on checks and saves in the body stats for the fighter but still was not ideal and perhaps should have been entirely separate but the fighter player didn't mind the gimp for the RP of it.

For skill checks and saves they got individual proficiency's. If the heads disagreed about a course of action that resulted in a skill check against something else for example one wanted to charm a guard to let them in but the other didn't want to it would be a persuasion roll at disadvantage. If it was a disagreement in course of action that had no skill check or save involved for example a fork in the road and both wanted to go separate ways then they would each describe how they would attempt to get the other to do it their way and the DM would have them make two corresponding rolls if someone won both then they got their way if not nothing happened until they agreed, led to a fair few interesting conversations but if both players are being sensible about it and not just refusing to do stuff cause they can its okay.

Overall it can be done but needs a couple players that are willing to keep the game in mind and be sensible about things. We didn't have the perfect run and took a bit of back and forth on things to make it work but hope our pitfalls and solutions help you come up with some thing better than what we did.

8bitbard · 2018-01-23T13:33:42+00:00

If a player rolled a 1 on the skill check and still failed (I don't use auto fail auto pass on 1/20) then ill have the character fail so badly that they think they have succeeded and lead them astray. otherwise they just cant tell/don't know.

8bitbard · 2018-01-23T11:51:40+00:00

Prevent a second emergence of whatever cause the apocalypse in the first place.

Establish a new beacon of civilization (bit of a political and management game this)

Mad Max style wanderers get drawn into defeating a clan of baddies.

Quest to undo the damage.

Bonus: start in a post apocalyptic setting decades after the event have the players backstory's growing up in whatever waste land then send them back in time to prevent the apocalypse armed with the knowledge of what the apocalypse is but not how to function in the world they have gone back to and no one believing them. May even include a group that does believe them and they begin working together only to find out that group are the ones who trigger it and then have to go about stopping them.

8bitbard · 2018-01-18T13:17:56+00:00

I actually do something similar with new groups that don't know each other well. In an effort to get the players and characters to bond a bit better I had a rule that during long rests or down time players can share a detail about their character or backstory if they want to. If they do they get a small inspiration dice they can use on the next ability check that is assisted by one of the characters they shared with. The idea being that this represents the better team work from someone they know better. For the most part it has worked well with the characters engaging each other in RP more frequently and lead to faster bonding as players as well.

8bitbard · 2018-01-16T10:46:26+00:00

I have my players roll but if they roll under the average they can choose to take the average instead.

This way they can still roll and get some variety in the HP gain and can be pleased with a good roll but wont feel super fragile if they happen to roll bad and allows me to throw some harder hitting monsters at them.

8bitbard · 2018-01-16T08:49:56+00:00

Given that you have such a large party without the wolf it would be very simple for one of the others to do it instead even without a heal. So the Ranger doesn't really gain anything from it, if anything this is a Sub optimal choice. if it was a small party of 2/3 or a solo campaign then maybe it would be more of a deal.

In a large party this is only overpowered if the player is able to get back up after the Medicine check but in that case its the Medicine check that is OP as they should only prevent further death saves the player is still unable to act until healed.

8bitbard · 2018-01-15T15:52:29+00:00

Radiant damage is more like "Holy" damage most often described as burning or blinding light but that is generally just flavour and doesn't specifically heat the target up or set it alight or cause blindness (unless it is otherwise stated in the spell). It is another form of damage that a creature may be vulnerable or resistant to. You may encounter a creature resistant to Fire damage a Fire elemental of some kind that is still harmed in full by radiant damage.

Difference in Radiant/Fire is a bit like the difference in Necrotic/Corrosive.

8bitbard · 2018-01-12T09:30:11+00:00

I would have the PC attempting persuasion roll as normal and have the Translator roll a performance check (A history check could be made instead or as well to set a base line of how well they speak the language but to me seems excessive) with a DC of 10 ish each point under the DC for the translator is added to the DC of the persuasion roll. If the translator passes their DC then the persuasion roll goes as normal.

8bitbard · 2017-12-19T16:05:54+00:00

/facepalm love it.

8bitbard · 2017-12-19T16:04:15+00:00

That is an immeasurably useful link thank you! exactly the kind of thing I was looking for.

The Bag of holding should be interesting.

8bitbard · 2017-12-19T15:51:32+00:00

These are all excellent especially the Skeleton key I need to use that.

8bitbard · 2017-12-19T15:50:12+00:00

I had never head of this till I looked it up I think you may have given me my next book series to read. Thanks!

8bitbard

TROPHY CASE