Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Critical Role Episode #26 - spoilers!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7465136" data-attributes="member: 6919838"><p>Glad we got past that bit - thx to those who looked it up.</p><p></p><p>At my table, i have not infrequently used disadvantage on initiative checks to represent a character who is hesitating for various reasons including fright but not FRIGHTENED. But at that event they blew past the init rolls pretty quick.</p><p></p><p>I myself think the idea of only roleplaying the character in ways that don't affect the group is a sort of surrender the role to the roll mindset. Nott drinking herself into drunk stage during a dungeon crawl which directly impacted looking for traps is another case well ensconced in the CR gameplay this season already that i recall (effects again worked out with GM buy-in - just like here.) </p><p></p><p>And i do not think its unrelated that at the same time the issue of role vs roll applies for the player flaw disad issue is brought up the other point of the Gm "dialing it back" was a separate point issue raised... because that showed me also at their table that the Gm also played the character (role) with Loranzo over the Roll (combat kill Xp) when lorenzo carried forward his focus on Keg at the end with allowing the party to survive and go spread his reputation. </p><p></p><p>If you are playing with a Gm who plays ruthless by-the-book game/roll first and foremost, its doubtful you will see taking an actual penalty *that will matter* inb combat for something as unimportant as "role." if its all "transactional" gaming where the closest to role is "i will give you an inspiration if you..." negotiation art-of-the-deal, doubtful you will be just doing sub-optimal on your own... get the deal in writing first.</p><p></p><p>On the other hand, if you have seen your Gm do it as well, if you have seen it play out before as not going to savage you and crush the event if you take a penalty that matters, etc etc etc then such things become something more folks are comfortable with and it becomes a routine part of your gaming play.</p><p></p><p>As seen at the even, not just the Gm but pretty much everyone at the table responded with "oh yes sure" with no hesitation.</p><p></p><p>I think context of the table is also a big element here.</p><p></p><p>I would have no hesitation as Gm in this case with long term players and a long running game with how things played out. </p><p></p><p>if it were a pick-up game in a FLGS with a bunch of strangers, i would have responded to the player with a more moderate suggestion such as "Hey, sure, but what about taking the penalty on your initiative instead of your attacks... shows hesitation - cuz the foghting itself is more ingrained and trained and fear in fight is normal. Would that sound good?" </p><p></p><p>As it was that penalty was irrelevant as others have pointed out.</p><p></p><p>But, to me, in many games i have played in and ran, whatever mechanic is used for role-playing flaws, the stronger normal tendency in games is to reward *actual* penalties not just cosmetic lip service to penalties. Many point buy flaw systems have defined problems like "takes extra damage" or other such penalties right alongside the psychological issues. </p><p></p><p>To me the biggest single issue that affected the outcome was the combo of Nott being out of the fight (so his rogue sneak damage pincushion was lost) and to a significant degree Molly's taking himself out. Not sure either would have turned the tide but it sure would have made a different series. </p><p></p><p>Like many battles, it was lost before it began.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7465136, member: 6919838"] Glad we got past that bit - thx to those who looked it up. At my table, i have not infrequently used disadvantage on initiative checks to represent a character who is hesitating for various reasons including fright but not FRIGHTENED. But at that event they blew past the init rolls pretty quick. I myself think the idea of only roleplaying the character in ways that don't affect the group is a sort of surrender the role to the roll mindset. Nott drinking herself into drunk stage during a dungeon crawl which directly impacted looking for traps is another case well ensconced in the CR gameplay this season already that i recall (effects again worked out with GM buy-in - just like here.) And i do not think its unrelated that at the same time the issue of role vs roll applies for the player flaw disad issue is brought up the other point of the Gm "dialing it back" was a separate point issue raised... because that showed me also at their table that the Gm also played the character (role) with Loranzo over the Roll (combat kill Xp) when lorenzo carried forward his focus on Keg at the end with allowing the party to survive and go spread his reputation. If you are playing with a Gm who plays ruthless by-the-book game/roll first and foremost, its doubtful you will see taking an actual penalty *that will matter* inb combat for something as unimportant as "role." if its all "transactional" gaming where the closest to role is "i will give you an inspiration if you..." negotiation art-of-the-deal, doubtful you will be just doing sub-optimal on your own... get the deal in writing first. On the other hand, if you have seen your Gm do it as well, if you have seen it play out before as not going to savage you and crush the event if you take a penalty that matters, etc etc etc then such things become something more folks are comfortable with and it becomes a routine part of your gaming play. As seen at the even, not just the Gm but pretty much everyone at the table responded with "oh yes sure" with no hesitation. I think context of the table is also a big element here. I would have no hesitation as Gm in this case with long term players and a long running game with how things played out. if it were a pick-up game in a FLGS with a bunch of strangers, i would have responded to the player with a more moderate suggestion such as "Hey, sure, but what about taking the penalty on your initiative instead of your attacks... shows hesitation - cuz the foghting itself is more ingrained and trained and fear in fight is normal. Would that sound good?" As it was that penalty was irrelevant as others have pointed out. But, to me, in many games i have played in and ran, whatever mechanic is used for role-playing flaws, the stronger normal tendency in games is to reward *actual* penalties not just cosmetic lip service to penalties. Many point buy flaw systems have defined problems like "takes extra damage" or other such penalties right alongside the psychological issues. To me the biggest single issue that affected the outcome was the combo of Nott being out of the fight (so his rogue sneak damage pincushion was lost) and to a significant degree Molly's taking himself out. Not sure either would have turned the tide but it sure would have made a different series. Like many battles, it was lost before it began. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Critical Role Episode #26 - spoilers!
Top