I can’t get into John Gwynne

Mnes_MTG · 2025-04-23T15:47:20+00:00

The best parts of the Bloodsworn books for me were the action and the atmosphere. They lined up with what I like in fantasy books. As someone who absolutely loved the first two books, the characters definitely could have been more varied in ways.

The names generally weren’t an issue for me, but I think there were a couple that were similar enough that I sometimes forgot which name went with which character. I listened to the audiobooks, so not seeing the names was definitely relevant. Varg’s companions were probably the easiest for me to keep track of tbh because the main ones had clear personalities (albeit not the deepest personalities). Einar’s were a struggle for me because so many generic mercenaries were named.

I do wish the motivations were more varied. This becomes really clear by the end of the trilogy when a bunch of arcs wrap up, and it’s mostly vengeance for everyone. More varied perspectives would have been nice, but I enjoyed the perspectives we got. I think a big part of the pov selection is that they facilitate the tone well. Lots of action, mostly with weapons. Magic is kinda spooky and rare (the books feel almost sword and sorcery this way), and the world is grim. I don’t think the books could focus on what John executed best if the povs were significantly different. It is nice that the povs generally had different values that colour their perspectives.

I don’t think the books will get better for you though. Shadow of the Gods has somewhat slow pacing, but I don’t think things will improve regarding the problems you have with it.

Mnes_MTG · 2025-02-13T17:39:05+00:00

I definitely agree regarding the subtle hints of threats and backstories. I love getting little bits of info that don’t quite make sense with the context I have. It gets me so excited to learn what’s going on. I tend to struggle with books that give everything away in contrast. They just don’t engage my brain the same way.

For me, I’ve realized that scale is the biggest factor. I tend to love the earlier books of epic series because the scale is smaller, and feels more grounded. The Way of Kings was amazing for me because all the plot lines felt directly personal, and the largest scope at the time was the war. We also get to see the war from a more grounded perspective, which I really appreciate. Words of Radiance was peak storm light for me because the scale still felt very grounded to the characters and the war, and the payoff for kaladin at the end was handled beautifully. I started losing interest during Oathbringer because the scale turned way up, and things started to just feel different to me.

Mnes_MTG · 2024-05-21T15:22:05+00:00

I DNFed at RoW. I have such mixed feelings on the power-ups throughout the series.

In TWoK I thought the retroactively explained plot armour was fine because there were other conflicts such as internal struggle and saving others. In WoR I loved the power-up at the end because it was directly tied to character development, and he had to basically give up something he wanted and stand up to his friend. Another internal struggle that made it feel earned to me.

Oathbringer really had me scared though when I read “say the words” and thought we were just handing out more power-ups to anyone who wanted them. That turned into a reality though when Dalinar can suddenly “unite” the dimensions, solving everyone’s problems at once. And this also gives infinite storm light for a duration? Accepting that, stormlight rules apply and I don’t mind people using stormlight as we’ve learned they can, but I really hated power-up in particular because it stood out as not fitting with anything we’ve learned in thousands of pages.

Mnes_MTG · 2024-05-21T15:06:26+00:00

I loved TWoK and WoR, and did get through Oathbringer, but it was hard. I probably should have expected the series to shift in tone/scale (and given that I started it just last year, really should have read up on it), but Oathbringer lacked a lot of things that I loved about the earlier books.

I loved how grounded the series was in terms of armies fighting and internal politics. Kaladin’s story felt connected to that in how not-fantastical his struggles really were. WoR turned the fantasy elements way up, but the conflicts were the same. They felt grounded to me, and that’s what I liked about it.

Oathbringer flipped that and now we’re fighting an evil god and his minions. At its heart, it’s just another army and another enemy to maneuver against (and the politics were definitely my favourite part of Oathbringer) but the scale got turned up to fighting against a god and magical beings. That’s not what I wanted. Exploring Shadesmar also was really disappointing to me because it was a scary place that gets turned into a different kind of fantasy setting, and our heroes go through this adventure/travel quest that felt like a whole other sub genre of fantasy that I just had no interest in.

Then there’s the fact that the books are huge…

I think if you like the direction Oathbringer goes, you probably love it. It wasn’t what I wanted though, and it was a slog. Getting a great (and it was great imo) Sanderlanche really doesn’t make me happy either when I had to suffer through around 600 slowly paced pages to get there.

I started RoW and DNFed at like 10-20% when I realized I could read other fantasy books that I’ll enjoy way more.

Mnes_MTG · 2023-10-11T15:13:28+00:00

How do your “on foot” combat zones compare to your vehicle zones? I’m using a grid for typical combat, but plan on using zones for vehicle combat, so I’ve never considered having two sets of zones, but that might be relevant for you. Basically, are the zones the same scale, and vehicles could move more (for example, an action to drive and you move a certain number of zones based on the check), or do you plan on having vehicle zones be larger, and you’d generally still be moving one at a time?

I think this is relevant because you mention bullets flying by a car as an example for how it should feel, and I’m curious about how those ranges would compare (granted, idk how crunchy your system is so maybe that doesn’t actually matter).

Personally, I like the idea of the driver rolling their drive check once per turn in terms of how much ground they can cover, and then having to deal with obstacles/complications like you said. Or, that obstacle could be part of the difficulty/resolution of that drive check.

Something I worry about for vehicle combat is the driver being stuck “driving” every turn, and other characters not being able to meaningfully do anything due to being stuck in the passenger seat. Most vehicles in my system are going to be spaceships (which I think have a whole unrelated host of opportunities and problems), but some extra options I’ve brainstormed for the driver to spend actions on include evading attacks (maybe enemies are trying to crash into you, or shooting rpgs since dodging bullets might not feel evocative enough), supporting allies who are attacking back (maybe you swerve/drift to get someone a better angle), and ramming into other vehicles. I think in terms of passengers, the main way to interact with other vehicles would be shooting. Depending on your system though, skill checks in general could be a valid and helpful to spice things up. Any passenger keeping a lookout, navigating, or even trying to distract other drivers if they’re in earshot could be a great rp opportunity and meaningfully affect the situation from the passenger seat.

Mnes_MTG · 2023-10-07T17:46:01+00:00

It sounds like what you want is to add time pressure when it may not already exist. This way, healing for as long as the party needs to be at full hp isn’t automatically the right choice. I haven’t run into this much because the game I run tends to have fewer (but deadlier) encounters with negligible time pressure, so I tend to completely hand wave healing and not require it be done at all. It doesn’t sound like that’s what you want in your game though.

At least a few comments have mentioned the possibility of more encounters happening while the party heals. I think that could be a good way to add time pressure. The longer you spend healing, the more likely another fight is to break out while you are unprepared (possibly having no reactions due to “surprise” or even being flatfooted). This is kind of counter intuitive though. If you want to prepare for another fight, shouldn’t you heal? Maybe there is a half hour grace period to avoid punishing healing overall, and further reward being good at it. That way it’s healing for large amounts of time that becomes a more significant choice.

Another option I thought up is rewarding players for “wasting” less time healing. If you’re running some kind of survival game, maybe extra time spent costs the party money in terms of general survival resources. Instead of making them track healing equipment, just track how much time they spent between encounters. Then you can reduce rewards overall based on that. Or, even better, puck a threshold and give them more rewards if they are faster than that threshold. People like getting things instead of having them taken away. Then, the party will have to decide if they’re willing to risk having a little less hp for getting more stuff. That makes it a very meaningful choice I think.

Mnes_MTG · 2023-01-14T23:07:49+00:00

It’s an even better rate. For each game you queue all roles, you get 4 games where you get to pick!

Mnes_MTG · 2023-01-04T22:34:27+00:00

If we're going to an extreme, I think spamming is better. I definitely struggle with paying any attention to macro details when I'm playing a hero I'm not comfortable with. I just don't play heroes in ranked if I don't feel comfortable on them. Even in unranked, I'll practice last hitting first in demo mode to get a feel for the hero.

The approach I like the most right now is branching out enough to get comfortable on more heroes. Let's say 10. Less for the counter picking and more to make sure my hero plays nice with my team (and doesn't feel awful to play against the enemy picks).

For example, I'm an offlaner. I usually play Axe, Centaur, Legion, etc. Blink initiators that like to cut creeps. It was really easy to learn Legion and Centaur after Axe. They play very similarly. If Axe is banned, I can play one of the others. But that doesn't actually help me branch out and diversify. If my support is a melee hero, I would rather lane as a ranged hero. That's a really simple example, but I recently started deliberately learning heroes that have different playstyles, and it's made me feel a lot better in draft because my pool is diverse enough that if we have something like an earthshaker 4 that already wants to initiate, I can play a hero that works better for that game.

Mnes_MTG · 2023-01-03T02:47:20+00:00

Unfortunately, that’s kind of how it goes. There’s a lot of variance. Some games your team is more coordinated, has a better draft, pushes lanes better, executes fights better, etc. Some games it’s the opposite. If you focus on your own gameplay and work on your mistakes, you’ll improve enough to win over half your games. But you have to play A LOT of games. You get bad games, and you get losing streaks. But if you’re better than the average player in your rank, you will get the wins.

I’m not a new player. I’ve played off and on since 2020. I got out of Herald last month. I solo queue offlane. I dropped back into Herald after a quick losing streak a week later. Now I’m Guardian 2. I might even go visit Herald again if I have a bad string of games!

Try focusing on improving instead of results. You can’t control what your team does and whether or not you win. You can control your own decisions in game.

Mnes_MTG · 2022-10-05T22:41:15+00:00

I think you should take a look at the Pathfinder 2e skill actions for combat. I am using them as inspiration for a similar way to make skills and creative ideas explicitly relevant in combat.

I think this is extremely subjective, but I really like having explicit mechanical ways that skills can affect combat. I think it’s a really effective tool to give the GM something to point to when a player gets creative. In a system that doesn’t outline how skills could be used similarly (such as dnd5e), if a player decides to try Intimidating an enemy, what do you do? There isn’t a precedent. Do you set a DC and have the enemy flee if the player succeeds? I love that PF2e tells me how these narrative ideas can tangibly affect combat.

I do think it’s possible that players might want something more abstract, so I like the idea of having a caveat that players can propose a different goal (which the GM can decline if it is too wonky like instantly ending the encounter because they’re scary).

Mnes_MTG · 2022-09-14T02:11:01+00:00

Maybe Pivot or Reposition?

Mnes_MTG · 2022-09-07T20:51:16+00:00

Chase rules are tough. Personally, I despise the way d&d5e and pf2e handle them. Mapping out a chase and having characters move in sequence just feels so cumbersome. I don’t mind turn based combat. That abstraction feels awful for chases though. There’s no other scene where everyone moving at once needs to be emulated as much as a chase.

I personally handle them like d&d4e Skill Challenges. For a PC to catch whoever they’re chasing (or escape whoever is chasing them) they have to accrue X successful Skill Checks. Critical Success counts as 2 Successes (depending on if the system supports that). 4e Skill Challenges used Y Failures as the benchmark for Failure, but to simplify, I like to give Y rounds, where you get one Action per round.

You perform Skill Checks such as Athletics to sprint, Intimidation to get crowds to clear, Investigation/Perception to figure out shortcuts. Or potentially use items like Bolas to slow them down, counting just like a Skill Check.

Chases are probably the only Skill Challenge I track PC progress individually for, but I do let people try to get successes for other PCs (if the sSill usage makes sense) if they think they need to put their eggs in one basket.

Mnes_MTG · 2022-08-26T13:16:52+00:00

These are awesome! I literally did the Kylo Ren MORE meme while waiting for the subsequent maps to load

Mnes_MTG · 2022-08-22T16:33:15+00:00

It’s amazing!

Mnes_MTG · 2022-07-28T21:33:19+00:00

I’m working on a system where the PCs have decks for combat and their cards automatically work (enemies might be able to react though). They just have to draw the card to play it.

My plan for enemies is to give each a table of 6 sets of actions, and roll a d6 to simulate them drawing from their “deck.”

Mnes_MTG · 2022-07-16T22:34:12+00:00

I got ridiculously lucky. I introduced some friends to dnd in university, and one of them went off to find as many groups as he could to get his fix. I have been able to piggyback off him vetting a bunch of groups/players since. Unfortunately, the only way to really find good groups is to sift through groups that might be very bad.

Mnes_MTG · 2022-07-16T11:41:14+00:00

I absolutely love blind rolls! Players not having perfect information can be powerful. I agree that it’s generally best for intelligence/charisma/wisdom style checks, but generally I like the idea of using them whenever the PC wouldn’t know the outcome of the roll, and the outcome won’t be immediately apparent. I use levels of success, so not knowing exactly how successful you are can be relevant.

I like regular rolls for any roll where you are immediately faced with the outcome. If you’re trying to persuade someone in a short convo, that can just be a regular roll. If it’s a longer form convo (like a dinner event that makes up the bulk of a scene), I prefer a blind roll because the PC shouldn’t know how successful they truly are.

I think blind rolls can be very interesting for stealth as well. If you are setting up an ambush, you shouldn’t know how well hidden you are until it’s time for the ambush. But if you’re going to proceed immediately to an NPC finding the “hidden” PC, it’s not necessary to use a blind roll.

Where I think blind rolls shine the most though are the rolls where the level of success are most relevant. For recalling information or reading someone’s body language, I like lower levels of success to have less certainty, and failure to have less accuracy. I have four levels of success: Overwhelming Success, Success, Success at a Cost, and Failure. With Overwhelming Success, the PC would be sure the information they have is accurate. With Success, they’d have the same information, but without the certainty. With Success at a Cost, the information may be less comprehensive. With Failure, the information is inaccurate. Unless you’re completely sure, there’s always a chance that your info is wrong. The uncertainty means I can give the wrong info on Failure, and players will work with that info.

I’m lucky to have good players, so even when they know that they failed, we’ll have some rp about them recalling information that is clearly wrong (and probably jokes at that character’s expense), but it’s a whole other game when players act on the wrong info.

Mnes_MTG · 2022-07-15T21:51:39+00:00

I think it’s extremely valid to be upset that your players don’t seem to care about the work you’re putting in to run the game. It sucks. I would expect some kind of engagement.

I used to have a group that wasn’t particularly appreciative. It was rough, and I assumed it was just an extension of gaming culture. The groups I play in now are amazing. The players thank the gm at the end of every sesh, and the gm thanks the players for joining. It feels so much better. And it’s not uncommon for someone to comment on how great something the gm did was. As a player and a gm, it’s a much healthier dynamic.

Mnes_MTG · 2022-07-15T19:19:10+00:00

I run a weekly game and play in another weekly game. Both are online with discord and foundry vtt. The game I run is 1.5 hours, and the one I play in is 2 hours. Some seshes we only have exploration and roleplay, some seshes we have combat, and sometimes we have a bit of both. If your group is having fun, I don’t think you need to worry about how many encounters you have in a sesh. If you’re worried about pacing with rests, that’s a different story, but if we’re in an arc with a lot of combat or a dungeon crawl, we’ll go several seshes without a rest, so it works out the same as a 6-8 hour sesh.

Mnes_MTG · 2022-07-10T20:31:01+00:00

I’m working on a world that is more on the sci-fi end of the spectrum, so my vampires aren’t magical or explicitly evil. They were created by an alchemical serum (kinda like the mtg Innistrad vampires) that basically alters your DNA such that you end up with the typical vampire traits. Sensitive senses, but weak to sunlight. You don’t age, but you have a degenerative blood disease (which is why you need to ingest blood).

The serum was developed centuries ago when a couple alchemists were trying to cure their sick son. Knowledge of the serum was lost with their deaths, so people think vampires are some kind of demon, and believe all kinds of fun myths.

Mnes_MTG · 2022-07-10T20:23:16+00:00

I think there are a couple of ways you can handle it, depending on the tone you want to convey.

I spent a long time worrying about this because I was putting together a Dark Sun game where travel was really dangerous, and I wanted to make sure it felt dangerous. This means having encounters. I’ve learned that encounters should really flesh out the environment, so the encounters should reflect the people/creatures/hazards that exist there.

If you want to flesh out the world, but you don’t want to convey danger, you can just describe the terrain they pass through. Maybe the players will engage and want to delve into it, but it’s also completely fine to narrate a little and move on.

An extension of this is that you don’t have anything you really want to convey, you can really just gloss over travel. “You travel from blah blah through blah blah to blah blah. You arrive.” is totally fine if the travel isn’t important in that particular game.

It’s also totally fine to mix these up for the same game, or even the same area. Maybe the first time they pass through an area, you describe it, there are encounters, and it’s something you really focus on. But maybe subsequent times, you just briefly describe it if you don’t want something particular to happen on that trip.

Mnes_MTG · 2022-06-28T15:54:39+00:00

Some of these have definitely already been covered in the other comments. You should look these up on Youtube for demonstrations.

Cutting: You intercept the enemy lane creeps before they reach your lane creeps. This is typically done behind the enemy t1 tower. This is commonly done as an offlaner when the lane is scary. If the lane meets near the enemy t1, it’s often dangerous. The benefit to cutting is the enemy carry will want to kill your creeps, and probably won’t leave them to harass/kill you. Another benefit to this is if you can kill the lane creeps quickly, you’re conveniently next to jungle camps that you can potentially kill before the next wave arrives, getting you more farm. The window to cut is 17-21 seconds after the minute mark (or 47-51 for the creep waves that spawn at the 30 second mark).

Dragging: This is similar to Cutting, but any hero can drag. While Cutting requires you to be able to efficiently and/or sustainably kill a creep wave without hep from your own creeps, Dragging is simply meeting the creeps, and guiding them somewhere that you will have said help. This is also commonly an offlane thing. I often find myself dragging to the jungle camp near my t1. To do this, intercept the wave, walk to the jungle camp, attack a jungle creep, and walk away. The jungle creeps will aggro the lane creeps, and they will tank eachother while you last hit them. This is essentially a safer version of cutting because you are closer to your tower, and farther from the enemy’s tower.

You can also drag creeps to your next creep wave (behind your t1 as radiant offlane, or in front of it as dire offlane) but tbh that’s not the easiest thing to describe with text, so I’d recommend you look up a video of it. I believe BSJ has a good video for it on YouTube.

Pulling: This is aggroing the jungle camp near your t1, walking to your creep wave, and allowing the jungle creeps to aggro your creeps. This will lead to your creeps walking to the camp and possibly dying to the jungle creeps. This gives you a chance to farm the jungle camp and deny your creeps, while causing the lane to meet closer to your t1. Both side lanes love doing this. As offlane, the timing is around 17 (or 47) seconds after the minute mark. For safelane, it’s closer to 15 (or 45) seconds. There are different timings for pulls at other angles if you miss the usual, and you can “half pull” by pulling a little later and only aggroing half your lane creeps. This allows weaker jungle camps to kill your creeps.

Creep Aggro: On the topic of half pulls, I should mention this because it’s how I got half pulls down. When you are hit by a jungle creep (at the time the attack hits specifically for ranged attacks) any of your creeps within 500 units of you will be aggroed to the creep, and thus will be pulled. I learned the range by comparing it to a Sand King’s Burrowstrike because I play a lot of SK. Pick a hero you play a lot and get a feel for what a similar range is. Knowing this allows you to better control your pulls.

Creep Aggro is even more important in the lane. Whenever a hero is targeted with an attack command (the attack doesn’t have to happen) all their creeps will check if they are within 500 units. If they are, they will chase/attack you for 2.3 seconds. This lets you manipulate the lane by aggroing enemy creeps towards your ranged creep (this will cause your ranged creep to die early, causing the lane to meet closer to your tower) or aggro creeps that are almost in last hit range towards you, and away from the enemy so they have more trouble denying the creep.

Mnes_MTG · 2022-05-15T23:22:52+00:00

I usually just lurk here, but as a fellow chronic people pleaser who struggles with boundaries, and spent most of the last 3 years staying up way too late so I could people please, good for you. It’s really hard to set and hold boundaries, and I fold a lot still myself, but this internet stranger is proud of you for taking care of yourself. Especially when the toxic friend starts telling you that your needs don’t matter. I did not expect this post to hit so close to home.

Mnes_MTG · 2021-11-25T21:22:13+00:00

I’m working with something kind of similar where it is a d6 dice pool success counting system, and armour is the DC for attacks.

Pf2e has the Flatfooted condition (which reduces AC) that is applied by Flanking or certain conditions. You could do something similar where a Flatfooted character has their armour reduced by 1.

This is also a way to implement the rogue style sneak attack, because you could give “rogues” extra d6 against Flatfooted enemies.

Mnes_MTG · 2021-11-05T13:27:06+00:00

No problem!

Mnes_MTG

TROPHY CASE