3d6 in Order

Talk about nerdgames FOR NERDS.
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

3d6 in Order

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Mon Aug 31, 2015 5:43 pm

Spoony does a very good video about why randomness is a good thing in an rpg.And he give a really good advice.For a game that is not about winning(so not a crpg,not a competitive board game,but an actual role playing game),numbers are meaningless.And if you dont know how to craft an interesting character because you are new to a system,or afraid to gimp yourself,or cant think of a good flaw/bonus combination,randomness can really work for you.You really should give it a shot.
Steve C

Re: 3d6 in Order

Postby Steve C » Mon Aug 31, 2015 7:13 pm

Man that guy gets on my nerves. I'm pretty sure I've played and chatted with him back-in-the-day as well. He just rubs me the wrong way.
User avatar
Sudanna

Re: 3d6 in Order

Postby Sudanna » Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:57 pm

I like Spoony, but I completely and totally disagree with his enjoyment of randomness in character creation. That's a recipe for playing something that I simply don't want to play.
Xaossa

Re: 3d6 in Order

Postby Xaossa » Mon Aug 31, 2015 11:09 pm

Well, it is possible to simply scrap a bad character. The thing is, what you were doing symbolically was rejecting that character and everything unique and special about them.

Speaking of Video games, it sort of reminds me of Rogue Legacy, where you can pick from three different descendants, each with their own traits (good, bad, both, or neither)

Its kind of like....you are a playing a god, choosing a person to mark for greatness to oppose some future evil. But today, you only have a sea of humans (or whatever), each with a strange unique upbringing and genes that built up their stats in a chaotic fashion, to pick from. So, you are just waiting for the dossiers of potential candiates to contrive to meet up with the other PCs somehow and grow into a better hero. You are just sitting in a divine office and saying: "Alright. I'm ready. *sigh* Bring out the losers."
Xaossa

Re: 3d6 in Order

Postby Xaossa » Mon Aug 31, 2015 11:10 pm

Nalyd wrote:I like Spoony, but I completely and totally disagree with his enjoyment of randomness in character creation. That's a recipe for playing something that I simply don't want to play.


Roll 3d6 in order, then switch two? That's how 52 pages does it and was suggested for B/X in Dragon's Flagon and other blogs.
Last edited by Xaossa on Tue Sep 01, 2015 6:19 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Sudanna

Re: 3d6 in Order

Postby Sudanna » Tue Sep 01, 2015 12:26 am

No.
User avatar
Supahewok

Re: 3d6 in Order

Postby Supahewok » Tue Sep 01, 2015 1:33 am

There's definitely advantages to randomness in character creation. I find it tends to broaden my horizons.

For instance, this one time in 2e D&D, I rolled up a Grey Elf Wizard (home-brewed elf variant by my DM). Our DM told us we would have a 7th stat that we needed to roll for, but since we could swap numbers around he wouldn't tell us what the stat was until we had all set our stats in stone. I was lucky enough to roll an 18 and a 14. Now, I could've put that 18 into Intelligence, the smart play; Grey Elves got +2 Int, and 20 in a stat in 2e is near godlike. But I decided to play it risky; I put the 18 in the unknown stat, and the 14 into Int (16, with the race bonus).

Turned out that last stat was Luck. And having an 18 in luck (by far the highest of the party, the rest of whom had only assigned averages rolls to it) informed the way I handled the character. I originally thought he'd be kind of a snobby, arrogant know-it-all. And he was still that, but when I took the Luck into account, I decided that although he was intelligent, he wasn't a super genius like he thought himself. He was just able to lead a charmed life because he always seemed to just coast by. He got a 100 on his Wizard School Entrance Exam, despite being unable to read. Stuff like that. And eventually he got kicked out of school for finally causing a mess he didn't manage to slide by, for once.

Its not something that I'd planned on, but it ended up making my character and roleplaying stronger. And its less work on my part; rather than planning every facet of my character's life, I let the dice fall as they may, and let their results inform my character.

I suppose its not for everybody, but for me, it just feels more natural to create character traits from my character's development than try to fully construct an artificial being on my own. Like Spoony said, a book like he has has so many options which you just don't think of on your own because time and inspiration are finite. Plus, sculpting an RPG character for P&P gaming to my exact specifications just feels... weird and artificial. Throwing some spontaneity into the mix is like seasoning, and never fails to inform my roleplay.

But there's a limit, of course. 3d6 in order is only good for if you don't care what kind of character your playing at all. Any reasonable DM will let you assign your rolls to your stats. You want to play a Wizard, you can put your 17 in Intelligence and not keep it in Str. (Also, Spoony is dead wrong about 2e classes not needing certain high stats; high numbers in a class's prime stats got you an XP bonus, and there is absolutely no mechanical reward for a high Int fighter other than extra languages and NonWeapon Proficiencies, IF you're playing with them, and most do nothing in a combat setting which is a fighter's damn job. Same for wizards and high Str, and just about any other implausible class/stat combination) My main DM lets use roll 7 3d6's, drop the lowest one, and if your character sucks or is entirely average, you get a reroll. Just because you introduce random elements at character creation doesn't mean you have to be ruled by them; you put your good stuff where it belongs, and something else that's either below average or higher can inform how you play your character.

As for Spoony himself, he doesn't bother me too much, but I see how he bothers others. He nearly always acts like he's under attack, and feels justified lashing out in kind. Which to be fair, he's the guy making popular internet videos and reading their comments, not me. But I do wish he'd get off his high horse.
User avatar
Trix2000
Location: California

Re: 3d6 in Order

Postby Trix2000 » Tue Sep 01, 2015 4:33 am

Supahewok wrote:As for Spoony himself, he doesn't bother me too much, but I see how he bothers others. He nearly always acts like he's under attack, and feels justified lashing out in kind. Which to be fair, he's the guy making popular internet videos and reading their comments, not me. But I do wish he'd get off his high horse.

I don't have a lot of experience with the guy (don't watch his stuff), but this is the impression I'm getting. I think he makes a good point in the video, but it could have been worded better (and nicer).

Such a system sounds good to me because it opens up bigger possibilities for weaknesses in characters, which I think can be more important than strengths sometimes. I feel like it's too easy to want to make a character 'good' or 'optimal' (I know I often do), even if you don't actually min-max things. How often do we see characters with really significant drawbacks that aren't simply "can't hit things with weapons well" or "can't use magic"? How often do we see characters with very low scores in something (the point about nothing being lower than 8 or 10 rings true to me)?

But I do think keeping it optional is the best way to go. Sure, it might help make more interesting characters, but it should be just a tool - not the last word in character building. Certainly, I think there are many roleplayers who don't NEED this sort of thing to make good characters.

One thing I'd also like to note is that a good GM should be able take these non-standardish characters and craft a good experience with them in mind. Any sort of 'balance' should end up in the encounters the players face (both combat and not), such that every character gets the opportunity to show their pros and cons.
User avatar
Sudanna

Re: 3d6 in Order

Postby Sudanna » Tue Sep 01, 2015 7:58 am

If optimal or near-optimal chracters are all the same, that's a flaw in the design of the game. Asking players to be worse at the game because it's not interesting otherwise is ridiculous. Make/play a game with multiple equally viable options.
Steve C

Re: 3d6 in Order

Postby Steve C » Tue Sep 01, 2015 12:07 pm

There are multiple problems with "just roll 3d6" that Spooney completely failed to address because he belabored on the emotional push buttons (like always) instead of real arguments. Rolling 3d6 straight plus rolling on extended background table is great if you have no idea what you want to play, and don't care. Very importantly that is ALL it is good for. It is a great way to deal with apathy in players and spice things up when they are lacking. Most of the time pure randomness will just get in the way.

3d6 straight also throws party balance out the window and I'm not talking about good/bad stats like Spooney was-- I mean party roles. If the one guy who wants to play a cleric can't play a cleric then the party isn't going to have a cleric. That sort of stuff will be a problem. Spooney talks about characters as though they are made in a vacuum with no consideration for the campaign as a whole. The party could be balanced if everyone was playing a paladin because the DM is planning a campaign where all the PCs are paladins on a crusade and having to deal with difficult morally grey issues of right vs wrong than stat issues. Doesn't matter that 'paladins are rare' - what is common or rare in the game world completely falls on the DM's shoulders. People shouldn't be comparing across DMs and campaigns for what is rare and special, only what is within a particular campaign world.

Most players that are excited already have a very specific idea for a character with a full history, flaws, etc and leaving it up to random chance means that whatever they want will simply not be possible. It does not matter how many mulligans they have because it wasn't about good vs bad. It was about idea vs no-idea. A DM that wants to kill player interest before the campaign even begins? Sure then listen to Spooney. Even if pure randomness does not force the player to accept a character, it will force the DM to accept it because if he doesn't, he's a hypocrite.

Pure randomness in character creation can work and be fun. Some systems use that as the linchpin of the system (Hackmaster comes to mind). However Spooney didn't argue that in the video. He argued why pure randomness was "right" and did not do a very good job of it.
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: 3d6 in Order

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Tue Sep 01, 2015 1:06 pm

Steve C wrote:If the one guy who wants to play a cleric can't play a cleric then the party isn't going to have a cleric. That sort of stuff will be a problem.


Yes it will be a problem if you play tomb of horrors.Or if your goal is to beat the game.But if your goal is to have fun with interesting characters in an interesting setting,then it will not be a problem.

And of course,with a rigid gm who is fond only of throwing a bunch of fights your way,your stats will be crucial.But what people forget,especially in the era where hack and slash crpgs are plentiful,is that having a fight should be rare and epic.There is a reason why you can buy all sorts of shit in shops to prepare for your next encounter.There is a reason why you can have multiple seasons clearing just a single dungeon.But if you have a bunch of people who are practically gods and who can rain death and destruction with mere 15 minute rests in between two fights,youll never even glimpse that other play style.

Steve C wrote:However Spooney didn't argue that in the video. He argued why pure randomness was "right" and did not do a very good job of it.


No,he didnt.He argued why its not TEH WORST THNG EVA! like people are talking about it.Its interesting,and it should not be dismissed just because "but its haaaard".
Steve C

Re: 3d6 in Order

Postby Steve C » Tue Sep 01, 2015 3:22 pm

No,he didnt.He argued why its not TEH WORST THNG EVA! like people are talking about it.Its interesting,and it should not be dismissed just because "but its haaaard".

That was his premise, but he did not make the case because it was a logical fallacy. The argument he did make (like "but its haaaard") was entirely a strawman and appeal to emotion. Players don't say it's "TEH WORST THNG EVA". What they do say is there's a very common list of criticisms that Spooney would know and never addressed. He spent the majority of time talking about a large set of random background tables not even from Ad&d. Tables that don't care if straight 3d6 or 4d6 or any other stat generation was used or if the random tables were used as inspiration to pick and choose something interesting. The majority of the video had nothing to do with 3d6, and what did was not convincing.

Spooney claimed 3d6 was a good system and insulted anyone who disagree with him. Then he made an argument why flaws and randomness can inspire creativity. Those things do not follow because you can have flaws and randomness without 3d6. He could have spent his time attacking point buy systems, or a host of other valid arguments which he did not make. As Trix2000 said, the video could have been worded better (and nicer). But I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on what Spooney said and how he said it.
Steve C

Re: 3d6 in Order

Postby Steve C » Tue Sep 01, 2015 4:04 pm

If Spooney had made a video attacking the ubiquity of the point buy system in modern table top gaming, I'd be right there with him. That's an argument I can get behind. I say that even though I was on the team for creating that specific system.

I was part of a 5-6 man team of what amounted to "white hat hackers" trying to find ways to break the D&D 3.0 character creation rules for the RPGA before the first PHB was published. (Full credit goes to Cisco Lopez-Fresquet for coming up with the point buy system everyone knows today.) The goal of point buy was to solve a specific problem in the new world wide Living Greyhawk campaign. The problem being was everyone min-maxed with super high stats and dump stats in the existing Living City campaign. There were a limited number of viable builds. Players really ended up being forced to have stats like that even when they did not want to.

The point buy system gave a greater range of viable builds given the constraints of a shared world where you absolutely cannot allow players to roll stats at all. Our goal was to make stats more average because it non-intuitively increases the number of options to players in a system without randomness. There's no longer any "one best answer". Instead it becomes a limited set of answers. Importantly it is finite and not random.

We were pleasantly surprised to see the point buy system make it into the PHB. We did not expect that as it was going to be a house rule just for the RPGA. If Spooney had made the argument that point buy restricts choice by creating a limited set of possible characters; thereby making things average and boring-- well that's right! It was created to solve a very specific issue that most DMs didn't have. It was never intended to be the default way characters are created for 15+years in home games. Home games where DMs can monitor rolls, and work around randomness.
User avatar
Trix2000
Location: California

Re: 3d6 in Order

Postby Trix2000 » Tue Sep 01, 2015 5:00 pm

Nalyd wrote:If optimal or near-optimal chracters are all the same, that's a flaw in the design of the game. Asking players to be worse at the game because it's not interesting otherwise is ridiculous. Make/play a game with multiple equally viable options.

My point is that 'equaly viable' doesn't have to involve things like class balance at all, provided the GM is savvy enough to work with the existing characters. So long as the players can come up with halfway decent characters/personalities, a good GM can create an experience that plays off all of them in equal measure - both their talents and their alignments/beliefs/personalities. Like if one player is more powerful in combat than the rest but has a social stigma making it hard for them to interact with most people outside the party (the concept of the strong, dumb orc warrior comes to mind...). Or having a statistically less powerful fighter around but having anti-magic crop up with some regularity the setting. These are pretty general not-well-thought-out examples, but I hope that gets my point across.

The only time I think class balance really factors in is pure hack-n-slash, but even then I could see a GM constructing encounters in such a way as to favor different approaches (giving each player their situations to shine and struggle with, even within a single encounter).

In the end, I feel like the real interesting parts of roleplaying aren't all that quantitative, so the numbers only matter from a mechanical standpoint.


Steve C wrote:There are multiple problems with "just roll 3d6" that Spooney completely failed to address because he belabored on the emotional push buttons (like always) instead of real arguments. Rolling 3d6 straight plus rolling on extended background table is great if you have no idea what you want to play, and don't care. Very importantly that is ALL it is good for. It is a great way to deal with apathy in players and spice things up when they are lacking. Most of the time pure randomness will just get in the way.

I think it can be helpful even if you have some of a character concept already, though perhaps not in the exact form Spooney describes. As I kind-of said before, it's easy to come up with an ideal - the archetype that we want to play - so I think some randomness can help in adding nuances to that ideal that you'd otherwise not consider.

But it's still only a tool, and one that doesn't need to be used if you don't want to.
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: 3d6 in Order

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Tue Sep 01, 2015 7:08 pm

Steve C wrote:Players don't say it's "TEH WORST THNG EVA".


Have you read the comments back when he made the video when he first mentioned "3d6 in order"?They absolutely do say it.Often.

And what happened to agreeing to disagree?I guess you disagree with that.
Xaossa

Re: 3d6 in Order

Postby Xaossa » Wed Sep 02, 2015 10:02 am

I have to agree with what Spoony said about it probably not being appropriate for more modern systems like 3e, 4e, and pathfinder. It's not.

A 3e Paladin requires a positive charisma mod. to make use of his class abilities. A 3e Spellcaster cannot even use *cantips* without the casting score above 9, and needs at least 19 by the time he's level 17 to cast the highest tier spells. Or you need more int. to afford more skill points or you won't qualify for all those feats which are prerequisites for the prestige classes your "build" calls for by the level you need it. You aren't just "sub-optimal", your character simply doesn't work without you fine-tunning everything and having already reached certain milestones in preparation for other milestones yet to come.

In 4e, you kind of are limited to "just sucking", but due to the quickly ascending armor class (and other types of armor class) bonuses and hit point totals, and since there is no such thing as an "armor class-bypassing" spell anymore, you need max out your prime attribute to have "level appropriate" attack and damage bonuses. Worse, your class subtype usually has a "secondary" attribute that all of your attack's side-effects are based off of. You cannot be a telekinetic psion, and actually push/pull enemies, without a good wisdom score, so we are back in the same boat as 3e.

So, if you WERE to roll scores randomly for a modern system, and in order, you'd need a system were you treat 10 as the minimum. You know, as opposed to 3.

But, when you have a system where stupid wizards can actually cast (intelligence will still help of course), set in a world where you get more XP from hauling (sneakily smuggling?) gold out of the dungeon than from combat, and a good deal of the monsters are just there to fuck with you (XP drain, Petrification, magic armor rusting), and change a bunch of present-day conventions about when and why PCs fight monsters, maybe a system a little less build-y, a lot of expectations which used to mandate "encounter balance" tend to fly out the window.

Its a special place where anyone could become a hero. Even if they were jinxed by the gods with all the abilities being dead wrong for their class.
Last edited by Xaossa on Wed Oct 07, 2015 3:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Steve C

Re: 3d6 in Order

Postby Steve C » Wed Sep 02, 2015 3:46 pm

I ran an Ad&d 2ed campaign where the PCs were all kobolds. I believe stat generation was 2d6. I'm certain there were a couple of checks too where if you failed then that kobold never grew up. Like a charisma check to see if the other kobolds decided they hated him enough to kill him. I'm sure at least a couple of the PCs failed too and had to start again. That kobold died in character creation. Which wasn't a big deal for the player but it did mean that their kobold lair of 2-3 dozen kobolds were down a guy for later.

Everyone's PC sucked and they knew it. They sucked so bad that having a non-weapon proficiency like fire-building was a really powerful and highly valued skill. I think some didn't even have a class since they did not have any stat above a 9. Knowing that they sucked meant they knew they could not win any direct confrontation. They had to think laterally to overcome any difficulty. It was good fun for all. However my players were open minded to try being kobolds themselves. I planted seeds years earlier where the players had their asses handed to them by kobolds who wouldn't engage in direct confrontation.

I completely agree that bad stats and a bit of randomness can be a lot of fun. It just has to be used very VERY carefully. I've seen it go wrong more times than I've seen it go right. "I don't like my character," is the exact sort of thing that can destroy a campaign and make a gaming group fall apart.

I'm not convinced it is even possible to have a 3.5ed or 5th game where bad stats are possible and that possibility is the norm. Like Xaossa said there a lot of milestones. The systems don't really support it. It's more likely to cause friction than it is to broaden horizons. If something gets under someone's skin then it can be the sort of thing that makes them decide they don't want to play anymore. I will admit I could be biased though as I don't really like 3.5 or 5th.
Xaossa

Re: 3d6 in Order

Postby Xaossa » Wed Sep 02, 2015 8:09 pm

Steve C wrote:I ran an Ad&d 2ed campaign where the PCs were all kobolds. I believe stat generation was 2d6. I'm certain there were a couple of checks too where if you failed then that kobold never grew up. Like a charisma check to see if the other kobolds decided they hated him enough to kill him. I'm sure at least a couple of the PCs failed too and had to start again. That kobold died in character creation. Which wasn't a big deal for the player but it did mean that their kobold lair of 2-3 dozen kobolds were down a guy for later.

Everyone's PC sucked and they knew it. They sucked so bad that having a non-weapon proficiency like fire-building was a really powerful and highly valued skill. I think some didn't even have a class since they did not have any stat above a 9. Knowing that they sucked meant they knew they could not win any direct confrontation. They had to think laterally to overcome any difficulty. It was good fun for all. However my players were open minded to try being kobolds themselves. I planted seeds years earlier where the players had their asses handed to them by kobolds who wouldn't engage in direct confrontation.

I completely agree that bad stats and a bit of randomness can be a lot of fun. It just has to be used very VERY carefully. I've seen it go wrong more times than I've seen it go right. "I don't like my character," is the exact sort of thing that can destroy a campaign and make a gaming group fall apart.

I'm not convinced it is even possible to have a 3.5ed or 5th game where bad stats are possible and that possibility is the norm. Like Xaossa said there a lot of milestones. The systems don't really support it. It's more likely to cause friction than it is to broaden horizons. If something gets under someone's skin then it can be the sort of thing that makes them decide they don't want to play anymore. I will admit I could be biased though as I don't really like 3.5 or 5th.


I'm not certain about 5th being as demanding as the other systems. For one thing, spellcasting isn't quite so demanding. Wizards have a proficency bonus to make up for low intelligence, and the touch AC/saving throws of monsters are just a little sporatic. If they are strong with one ability save, they'll probably be hilariously weak in another. The problem is things like the Paladin's divine sense per day, which requires a non-negative charisma modier or else you'll be stuck with 0 uses! So, yeah, the minimum really is 10 (and ideally 12) if you insist on rolling in order for a game like that. Maybe have a downtime ability that allows characters with subpar abilites to spend gold to catch up (which sounds a lot more interesting than "training levels.")

The thing is, just don't let characters sit there and suck with no ability to improve. Even third edition wouldn't be so bad if you could spend money on missing prerequistes for your feats and prestige classes, just to act as a pressure valve. Unbalanced? Too soon? Defies wealth-by-level? *clicks tongue* Where's your sense of self-balancing gameplay?

(besides, I think Magic mart is way worse for balance)
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: 3d6 in Order

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Wed Sep 02, 2015 8:22 pm

Thats precisely the thing with later editions:They moved from role playing into the territory of roll playing.And when you get to refresh your whole level pool between two fights,and the dungeon is nothing but a bunch of rooms with fights in them,of course you want an ubermench as your avatar.No amount of preparation will surpass that raw "talent" given to you by your starting abilities.

But you cant really blame them for doing so.After all,its always the dice and rules and minmaxing and grappling that gets mentioned the most when talking(or joking) about an rpg.Its the most noticeable thing.So why wouldnt they focus on that?
Xaossa

Re: 3d6 in Order

Postby Xaossa » Wed Oct 07, 2015 8:21 pm

Steve C wrote: "I don't like my character," is the exact sort of thing that can destroy a campaign and make a gaming group fall apart.



Actually, I kind of also think that railroad-plot based games make that trap worse. Sure, you have a high-level character, but even if your DM is using an old system and requires you to start over at level one, adventuring with a party of high-level guys is the fastest way to level, thanks to the exponential XP curve and the fact that they might be fighting with a group of 1 HD burning-oil-flinging hirelings anyway.

But the real problem is that your character, for whatever reason, is tied to the plot and there's no way to painlessly retire him. Or maybe the rest of the group likes him or relies on the niche his class fills in the party. I mean, sometimes you get a plot like one I was in.

It was a Zodiac Final Fantasy RPG game run by my friend that was kind of like your kobold game, Steve C, except that the goblins were good...ish. They were going to be fighting against evil humans and world-threatening demons to help lots of monster types with their Planeteer powers given to them by the freaking Goddess of Light. And I mean that Planeteer bit, each player character (and a sentimental, emotional DMPC who cried over the obviously-planned matyrdom of a random NPC we met just ten in-game minutes ago, whose race's historic generosity and heroic aid towards the goblin race we were exposited at about twelve in-game minutes ago) was each given a different mark from the immortal protector of the world to help her reinforce the element-themed seals before the force of darkness destroys the world.....

...and we were told NOTHING about these tonal assumptions before the campaign started.

Everyone made kind of typical D&D-style goblins assuming a raid-the-caravans type campaign or, you know, something. Myself, I just wanted to try out a new build and tailored it to a kind of bland personality that I quickly grew to hate. I was made the leader.* Then we got some new players (with marks of Thunder, Light, and Shadow to add to our marks of Wind, Earth, Fire and DMPC/Water/Ice) who apparently WERE informed about the type of campaign this was, and I found myself feeling like my character was under constant surveillance by the DMPC and the GOD VOICE WHO HAUNTS US AND FORCES US INTO SHARED DREAM CONFERENCES and I felt like every little problem was my responsibility somehow and DID THE PALADIN-ESQUE LIGHT-PLANETEER REALLY JUST PROMISE ALL HIS FUTURE SHARES OF THE LOOT TO THE THIEF JUST TO GET HIM TO NOT DISROBE THE UNCONSCIOUS ENEMY WHILE LOOTING THEM? Unable to give any more fucks, I dropped out shortly after.

But seriously guys, don't make your PCs (I mean like, those specific PCs at that moment) the "chosen ones" in the first or second session. It never ends well.

Anyway, the point I was trying to make is this: As opposed to that whole chosen one thing, you need to be somewhat flexible about who lives and who dies and just disappears for no reason. It can really help people switch characters (hello there, topic, good to see you again!), or say, quit the game in a timely and guilt-free manner instead of poisoning it by being a matyr nobody knows to appreciate. And for goodness sake, be creative about getting new people in play without waiting half the night to resolve boring exposition scenes! ("Okay, time to start the game. New player, you are now with the party on the 3rd floor of the dungeon. Quick! How did you get there?"), at least until some player has shown actual interest in steering the plot and being a central driving force (and hopefully, sticking around for the rest of the campaign.)

*-well, I guess I tried to hold the campaign together when the drunkard Earth Planeteer Goblin was actually arguing with the freaking Goddess of Light in her introductory scene about whether or not the party was actually going to be used . However, I totally agreed with the player. This didn't matter, as somehow my blandness was taken for responsibility and the shaman-guy of the goblin tribe gave me the leadership job.

Return to “Tabletop Games”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest