Tabletop Game Thread

[Vypernight]

When I used to run games, I'd make some dice rolls behind my screen and some right in front of the players.  I'd also make it look seeingly random, but in actuality, for those rare times that things weren't going the players' way, I'd fudge things to help them.  Since I'd boucne back and forth in my dice rolls, they never noticed.  Also, the fact that I was a rather evil GM (not trying to kill PC's, just making them hate me at times), they never realized they were being helped those rare times.

Of course, playing solo or same-side, you're 100% at the mercy of the dice.  One of the first times playing All Things Zombies, my character ended up surrounded by zombies 30 seconds into the game.  He escaped into a building, only for zombies to come flying out of the closet.  He killed them all, but then ran into two people who began arguing at the top of their lungs, attracting more zombies.  He nearly made it to the edge of the board when a car alarm when off.  The poor guy just had one mishap after another and ended up losing every single person who joined his group. 

[SCarpelan]

Yeah, it's quite an experience when the dice play the part of GM.

That's a big part of why I enjoy being a Paranoia GM. The hidden rolls are more of a guideline and everything works on the rule of fun.

The groups I am with are dead set against the GM fumbling rolls. If the GM decides something with a roll then that stays no matter the consequences.

I would not mind the GM adjusting a few things if he/she felt that the rule of cool requires it or the "real" result would ruin the campaign but I am in the minority with this.

Well, if my players don't realize I'm fudging the rolls when I feel like it they haven't understood what Paranoia is about. Of course, this requires that the players trust the GM to keep the sadism in an entertaining level and treat everyone equally unfairly. For example, I never fudge anything PvP related. In more serious games I never fudge rolls but I feel the occasional fudge is a big part of the whole players vs unfair world (and vs each other) that Paranoia is about.

Damn, I think it's almost two years since I've last GM'd anything. I really need to get back to my old notes and plans when I get my work related stuff done.

[Askold]

I made a new character for a privateer mini-campaign we are going to do.

Before I rolled stats (Which I had to do twice because despite using 4d6 discard lowest my first attempt had stats so horrible that I would have not been able to keep up with the rest of the characters, the GM still does not believe my luck with the dice despite having played with my for 2 years.) I already had a plan for what I wanted to do but after trying to pick skills it became evident that it would not have worked out.

My plan had been to make Jonathan (last name dependent on what class of society I would have rolled for him. Potter or Baker for worker family Beuamont or Blackwood or something for a noble) a spry and keen 15 year old midshipman full of adventure spirit and eager to make his way up in the British navy. Just like the heroes in those cheap novels he reads all the time.

...Except that the disadvantages of making a teenager would have meant that his skills are too lacking and he would have either died soon or simply been a hindrance to the "team." Might work out in a long campaign where he can increase his stats and skills but in a short campaign like this he would not have had the time to "grow."

My next attempt was a 22 year old lieutenant. (Dice rolls made him into the 1st LT on the ship, which was lucky and gave the perfect reason for him to be placed in command of boarding parties or "away missions.") Again my stat rolls meant that one stat had to be really low and I chose strength as the dump stat. Other than being rather weak he was slightly better than average in all except agility(which was 18) and a high courage score. After a bit fumbling while trying to choose his skills and personality I made him into a pretty good swordsman and a decent commander and seaman. He was also really skilled at intimidation and was the guy who would put an end into mutinies just by shouting and with creative and extremely graphic swears and insults.

...But again this character was redone when while doing the advantages/disadvantages it turned out that he was otherwise such an average and "normal" person. I mean, the other players had things like horrible burn scars, massive traumas and constant nightmares or were just extremely racist (all disadvantages) while my LT was just a married man who sent most of his paycheck to his young wife and had to wear glasses. Oh, he was also a brave (advantage) and honourable (disadvantage) man with a sixth sense for danger and a scottish nemesis (but getting a lifetime enemy out of a scotsman is not that hard. It is kinda suprising actually that this is the first character against whom a scotsman has sworn a vendetta.) Really, the only distinguishing feature about him are the glasses.

So I took out the intimidate skill and instead made him into a calm and reassuring officer who leads by example. He went trough a couple iterations but I think I will enjoy playing the character.

[Askold]

Such a pity that this thread is so dead but I need to rant a bit...

A character I play and about which I have written here a few times already was mainly defined by being an archer and a hunter. He did his part for the clan by going on hunting trips and trapping and bringing in meat and fur. When the clan (mainly the player party) went to battle he was the scout and an archer. He also learned how to sail because the clan recently got a ship and we needed someone to be able to sail.

Pretty good archer in fact, apart from the two other archer characters in the group he had no match in the clan.

...In our last session he and a few other scouts were moving ahead of the main group and he lost an arm in an ambush. Arrow practically destroyed it, there was so much damage that non-magical means had no chance of making the arm functional ever again. Then our healers took turns in fucking up the healing process and after numerous failures to stop the blood flow they finally chopped off his arm and burnt the stump.

This saved his life just barely but now I am stuck with an one armed archer... Looking at his skills the only other thing he was good at was sailing but he isn't much good at that either with just one arm... And it is not like he has any social skills either since he was more of a hermit/loner when he wasn't called to do something important.

AND the arm got chopped off above the elbow so he can't even tie a shield onto it properly!

The problem is that I just don't have it in my heart to abandon the character because this is just ONE of the many occasions where he survives horrible injuries. The first one with permanent damage, but still, he is a tough guy and I want to think of a way to make him useful in the game.

[Eiki-mun]

Some sort of prosthetic contraption maybe?

[Askold]

Some sort of prosthetic contraption maybe?

The GM already said that there is no chance of finding a magical cure for a missing arm (another player had a disabled arm and through a journey into the magical realm and help from a troll [Finnish troll, not a D&D troll] he was able to reduce the penalties from the injury, but he still had the arm, this one was cut off completely) and there are no prostechics that would function. It is a game set somewhere in the 600-800AD era (We have been a bit unspecific with the exact date) and though there is magic it is rare and apart from the gods and magical beings the shamans are quite weak compared to typical High-Fantasy.

I am trying to argue that the character should learn magic from having the third traumatic near death experience within the same year... Which is quite possible in that setting.

[Random Gal]

I have been having a major problem with trying to run or play in an ongoing campaign.

My area supports a number of gaming groups. Problem is, each one is a very tight-knit circle of old friends with 7-9 players that inherently locks out new players due to cliqueism and overcrowding. I cannot join one of the established groups, and my only option for gaming is doing the public Pathfinder Society sessions, with which I have grown dissatisfied due to lack of consistency (a season 3 scenario one week might be followed by a season 1 scenario the next week and a season 6 one the week after that, with a completely random assortment of characters each time) and DM inflexibility under the excuse of "We must play the scenario and use the rules EXACTLY AS WRITTEN because this is Society!"

So I have been attempting to form my own by recruiting people at Pathfinder Society sessions. Unfortunately, that has not gone well. PFS in this area is composed entirely of players from the aforementioned overcrowded gaming cliques who apparently can't get enough of their home games and want a little extra occasionally, so all attempts at recruiting PFS players are rejected with "I'm already playing in Society and 2-3 different campaigns, so I have no time for yours. Oh, and you can't join any of the games I'm in because we have way too many players already."

I also will not do PbP games; I spend far too much time isolated at my computer already and don't want to become even more socially withdrawn than I already am.

I currently only have three players, one is my best friend and the other two are complete newcomers that happened to randomly show up at a PFS game once. I had a fourth but she bailed out when I didn't immediately cancel a game due to some bad weather. So here we are, less than the minimum number of players to run a game, nobody who is free games and nobody who games is free.

What should I do if I want a consistent campaign?

[SCarpelan]

What should I do if I want a consistent campaign?

Isn't three players enough for a campaign as long as they commit to playing regularly? A friend has run a homebrewed D&D3.5/Pathfinder hybrid campaign with three regular players (me and two others) for a while and it has worked out well. The campaing has been on a break for a fairly long time but that's due to scheduling and inspiration issues, not because it didn't work.

[Askold]

Three players is enough for a roleplay campaign. Some games and campaign types might be problematic, but in many games three is plenty.

For example, Deathwatch with three characters? Works well. You might lack specialists like Techmarine or Librarian but the GM can just decide missions that won't require them. (Besides, even if the team gets sent to difficult missions the commanding officer would be stupid to send them on a mission where they require a specialist that they don't have. OR at least an NPC specialist would be included.)

[Random Gal]

Except that I'm playing Pathfinder, which assumes a standard party size of four. We're lucky in that a cleric, fighter, and inquisitor have most of the bases covered, but the effective party level is still only 75% of what it should be. For example, when the players face the BBEG of the first half of the campaign, they're expected to be level 5 and handling 5th level encounters with the occasional 6-7th level encounter regularly. The BBEG and his minions were to be equivalent to a 7.5; challenging, but not overpowering. However, with three players instead of four, their effective party level will be 3.75 instead of 5. Fighting the BBEG and his minions at that level would be an overpowering, nigh-impossible encounter.

I suppose I could reduce the level of some of the encounters, but then the in-universe stuff wouldn't make sense anymore. Why would a powerful half-fiend antipaladin's elite guards only be level 1? Or why would a high-level wizard have left behind only small elementals to guard the sealed portal to Hell instead of the medium ones he was going to use?

I'm currently thinking of giving them an NPC sorcerer for them to run collectively until I can somehow find a fourth person. I really don't like DMPCs though and am hoping that having them run and roleplay the character wouldn't make it into one.

[Askold]

a)


b) DMPC or NPC assistant is always an option.

c) Seriously, playing something other than DnD would solve this issue.

d) Change the enemies. If they can't match a powerful half-fiend then don't send them against a half-fiend and his elite guards. Make them start out against a bandit leader with a horde of goblins and other such easier enemies. If their fighting effectiveness is lower than a party of four then going against an easier BBEG (and other enemies) just seems sensible.

[Random Gal]

OK, I think I've got it figured out for now. I'll keep the existing stuff the same, but add more adventures in between what I've already designed to allow the characters a few extra level-ups. If I do find a fourth player I'll go back to the initial plans or make the remaining stuff tougher.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

Well, if my players don't realize I'm fudging the rolls when I feel like it they haven't understood what Paranoia is about. Of course, this requires that the players trust the GM to keep the sadism in an entertaining level and treat everyone equally unfairly. For example, I never fudge anything PvP related. In more serious games I never fudge rolls but I feel the occasional fudge is a big part of the whole players vs unfair world (and vs each other) that Paranoia is about.

Damn, I think it's almost two years since I've last GM'd anything. I really need to get back to my old notes and plans when I get my work related stuff done.

In the first edition of Paranoia I bought the GMs guide literally says "kill the bastards". The job of a Paranoia GM is not to be a fair arbitrator but the embodiment of The Computer arbitrary and batshit but entertaining and wanting you to be happy-and also kill you.

[Askold]

In my last session, of the other game in which my character isn't an one-narmed ex- archer, we managed to accomplish a lot despite having just half the players present.

One player's character was proposed to by a young knight. Seeing as he was completely unknown to us my character (Zoltan) decided to have a mock battle with him to see what kind of person he is.

...Zoltan broke his arm accidentally (technically the knight had a catastrophic fumble as he tried to block.) The other PC failed a following roll to see how she feels about the situation and the GM decided that she is madly in love with the poor knight who fought and suffered for her. (If her character had been a NPC she would have fallen in love with Zoltan instead, but doing that to a player's character ain't ok.) Another side effect is that everyone thinks that Zoltan is kind of a dick and won't play fair.

In other news, on character (the one getting married) is now a minor feudal lord and with it she gained a town under her control (with the other characters taking positions in the town hierarchy such as Zoltan as the chief of the militia.) We also went raiding outside the kingdom's border. And immediately after returning triumphantly we were told to go on a recon mission to the same place where we had just finished a short but brutal spree of robbery, vandalism and other related anti-social behaviour...

Also, much planning, logistics and other related matters to being in charge of a town.

Next session the Baron is gathering an army and going to war.

[Second Coming of Madman]

Damn, Askold.