Search results

Yikes. I'll be honest, if I didn't have several RL friend circles to play with, I would have been out of the hobby a long time ago. I enjoy RPing a lot, but not enough to hunt down games like a Tinder date.

To be fair, I believe @Lanefan is running (roughly) weekly games that go for real-life decades, with many hundreds of sessions; I don't think their time being overly precious is a major constraint on their play choices.

For me, I like the mechanical aspects of warlocks much more than I like their baseline narrative. As such, when I've run warlocks, I've reskinned the character's narrative away from the "pact-patron" concept. To my mind, reskinning class narratives to make a character your own is just a...

I mean.... this seems to assume a social contract where the DM is the one doing all the invites and hosting the social gathering, such that they have the authority to withdraw invitations. It definitely seems to not describe groups where the group cohesion comes first, and if one game doesn't...

No.

The OP of this thread specifically mentioned D&D, so it's certainly in bounds for this thread. That being said, a lot of people tend to conflate "Is this technique valid" with "Is this technique valid for D&D?", when those are two distinct questions.

"Off the rails? We're on a safari!"

Tenser's Basilisk Thunder Dave Unscented Servant Which Bolt?

Harm Person Shame Blade False Wife Create or Destroy Tater

Leomund's Tiny Hat Mordenkainen's Maniac Mansion Drawmij's Instant Sandwich Beard Blade of Your Mother-in-Law is Moving In Storm of Petty Revenge

Maybe there's a support group. I would set one up, but that's too much prep. :)

I know some people are in situations where they just have to sign up for a GM's game and hope for the best, but that just seems awful to me. My groups talk about "Who's DMing next? What system? What kind of game are we doing?" for weeks before we start a new game. If I had to join groups...

Broadly, yes.

For sure. I'm just saying that misalignment frequently occurs because GMs who are more experienced with previous editions (or the concepts from them) assume that the tropes of those consequences occurring are more widely understood and assumed than they actually are. "Of course your warlock's...

I mean, if I were to generalize this concept, it's that I don't want to feel like my character is static over a period of more than 3-4 sessions. The gameplay should vary as my character encounters new situations.

I deduce it was Colonel Mustard, in South America, with the 12 armies.

That's one of the main reasons I'm enjoying the system. My normal approach of roll up to the table, read a quick summary of the last play session and go, works even better here than it does for D&D.

I don't know. I feel like it's less about "gotchas", and more about DM's bringing in experiences from earlier versions that some classes are more powerful than others, and needed to be balanced by adding roleplaying restrictions and complications. Paladins are the poster child of this...

Easy enough.

No.