How to prevent one of Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories: PC Edition

[Talakeal]

O.o

Why are you paying for abilities that you will never use? Can't you just not take any crafting abilities if you don't want to?

There is a difference between a flaw that removes or hinders something that is part of your character and gives some compensation for it and a flaw that removes or hinders something that was never part of your character and gives some compensation for it.

In the first case, your character is (hopefully) equally powerful with and without the flaw. In the second case, your character is more powerful with the flaw than without. Most flaw systems try to achieve the first result. If yours doesn't, you should let Brian know.

A specialist wizard that bans evocation shouldn't be forced to take magic missile. Something from their class has been taken away and they get more spell slots to compensate. It's a trade-off.

What you wanted to do sounds a lot more like a wizard who takes a flaw that prevents him from ever wearing heavy armour in a system where wizards don't wear any kind of armour anyway. In other words: a freebie.

There is a difference between
a) Okay, I don't want to use evocation spells, so I am going to take an option that completely removes that feature from my class, thus making it less versatile, and I'll get more spell slots in exchange; and
b) Okay, my wizard can't wear armour anyway, so I am going to take this option that makes my character unable to wear armour and gives me goodies in exchange.

Now, I suspect that what you want to do doesn't quite fit in the model of taking a freebie, because you said that you're paying for crafting abilities. So I imagine that something else must be going on. But this is what it sounds like from my side of the screen.

In brief:

You can perform a number of actions during each downtime session equal to your wisdom modifier, and this is factored into the value of wisdom compared to the other ability scores. My character has an extremely high wisdom score.

The flaw I have taken reduces the character's effective wisdom score for the purposes of number of actions taken during downtime.

By wanting to play a high wisdom-non crafter I am playing an inferior character to, say, a high strength non-crafter.

[zinycor]

I suppose its a difference of philosophy then. I think flaws should make the character mechanically less effective, either by taking away options or reducing their effectiveness.

I believe you are right, there are differences in philosophies at play here.

Personally I believe flaws should be more about role-playing disadvantages and facilitate character concepts.

In my experience the best flaws are things like addictions, vows, phobias, psychiatric illnesses, etc. Which are things that are significant for the character, while not being that damaging to the mechanics.

I agree with the others and Brian, having your character take a crafting flaw isn't cool unless you actually are a crafting character.

[Friv]

In brief:

You can perform a number of actions during each downtime session equal to your wisdom modifier, and this is factored into the value of wisdom compared to the other ability scores. My character has an extremely high wisdom score.

The flaw I have taken reduces the character's effective wisdom score for the purposes of number of actions taken during downtime.

By wanting to play a high wisdom-non crafter I am playing an inferior character to, say, a high strength non-crafter.

This may be a bit off-topic, but as a general suggestion from playing other games with downtime actions: If you want the downtime minigame to be a big part of the game in this way, you should include ways for everyone to take part in downtime actions, not just crafters. Have downtime actions to gather information from townsfolk, or to make a new friend who might help you out, or to train for a fleeting advantage in the next dungeon, etc. If that happens, losing downtime actions is actually a viable flaw for any character, not just crafting characters.

[Talakeal]

In my experience, the best flaws are things like addictions, vows, phobias, psychiatric illnesses, etc. Which are things that are significant for the character, while not being that damaging to the mechanics.

If they don't have any mechanical effects, how are they flaws at all though?

I agree with the others and Brian, having your character take a crafting flaw isn't cool unless you actually are a crafting character.

To me that logic is totally backwards; its like saying "You can't take a pacifist flaw unless you are playing a warrior," "You can't take blind unless you are playing a lookout," "You can't take lame unless you are playing a runner," or "You can't take mute unless you are playing an orator".

The purpose of these flaw is to limit the character's options and abilities, and they do, forcing the player to throw away resources on top of the flaw just makes them weird and inelegant.

This may be a bit off-topic, but as a general suggestion from playing other games with downtime actions: If you want the downtime minigame to be a big part of the game in this way, you should include ways for everyone to take part in downtime actions, not just crafters. Have downtime actions to gather information from townsfolk, or to make a new friend who might help you out, or to train for a fleeting advantage in the next dungeon, etc. If that happens, losing downtime actions is actually a viable flaw for any character, not just crafting characters.

This is absolutely the case for my system, although my particular character does not have any skills or abilities that will be consistently useful in such a situation.

[Koo Rehtorb]

This is sort of a good example of why flaw systems that give you extra "build points" or whatever are dumb and don't work. They just turn into an exercise in trying to weasel taking problems that don't matter as much as the bonus you get from them. If you're anemic life doesn't spontaneously give you better hearing to compensate.

The good flaw systems reward you with some sort of metacurrency whenever your flaw inconveniences you in actual play.

[MrSandman]

In brief:

You can perform a number of actions during each downtime session equal to your wisdom modifier, and this is factored into the value of wisdom compared to the other ability scores. My character has an extremely high wisdom score.

The flaw I have taken reduces the character's effective wisdom score for the purposes of number of actions taken during downtime.

By wanting to play a high wisdom-non crafter I am playing an inferior character to, say, a high strength non-crafter.

Okay, that sounds a lot different now, thanks for explaining.

Aren't there other downtime activities that you'd like to do? If so, then said flaw could actually limit your character in some way, and thus be justified.

[zinycor]

If they don't have any mechanical effects, how are they flaws at all though?

I didn't say they shouldn't have any mechanical effect.

To me that logic is totally backwards; its like saying "You can't take a pacifist flaw unless you are playing a warrior," "You can't take blind unless you are playing a lookout," "You can't take lame unless you are playing a runner," or "You can't take mute unless you are playing an orator".

The purpose of these flaw is to limit the character's options and abilities, and they do, forcing the player to throw away resources on top of the flaw just makes them weird and inelegant.

Why is limiting character's options a purpose? In my opinion the purpose of flaws should be to help create memorable characters... I don't see anything memorable about a warrior who is slow at crafting.

[Talakeal]

Why is limiting character's options a purpose? In my opinion the purpose of flaws should be to help create memorable characters... I don't see anything memorable about a warrior who is slow at crafting.

That is actually a decent point.

Let me rephrase it:

The purpose of having rules for flaws is to offset the mechanical disadvantages imposed by RPing a character with some sort of disadvantage.

I am playing a character who was raised as nobility and trained to fight at the exclusion of all else, with a team of servants to provide and maintain her equipment for her. I do not feel that it makes sense for such a character to have either the skills or the temperament to engage in manual labor.

Part of the value of the wisdom attribute represents patience and dedication, and as I have a very high wisdom score I am entitled to craft a lot of items, which I will never do. Thus I feel it is appropriate to provide some mechanical compensation for me choosing not to use a resource I am entitled to.

This is sort of a good example of why flaw systems that give you extra "build points" or whatever are dumb and don't work. They just turn into an exercise in trying to weasel taking problems that don't matter as much as the bonus you get from them. If you're anemic life doesn't spontaneously give you better hearing to compensate.

That's really an argument against point by system rather than against flaws. One could say the same thing about putting an 8 into Intelligence and a 16 into strength, in real life being dumber doesn't automatically make you stronger!

Its a trade off between verisimilitude and keeping the players on a "fair level", and I feel there is a spectrum rather than one right answer.

The good flaw systems reward you with some sort of meta-currency whenever your flaw inconveniences you in actual play.

That method has its advantageous and its disadvantageous.

For example, it seems weird to me that if I choose to attack Superman with kryptonite, I should have a tangible advantage in the fight. If he is getting some sort of meta-currency which he uses to defeat me anyway, the whole thing is kind of pointless and hurts verisimilitude.

[zinycor]

That is actually a decent point.

Let me rephrase it:

The purpose of having rules for flaws is to offset the mechanical disadvantages imposed by RPing a character with some sort of disadvantage.

I am playing a character who was raised as nobility and trained to fight at the exclusion of all else, with a team of servants to provide and maintain her equipment for her. I do not feel that it makes sense for such a character to have either the skills or the temperament to engage in manual labor.

Part of the value of the wisdom attribute represents patience and dedication, and as I have a very high wisdom score I am entitled to craft a lot of items, which I will never do. Thus I feel it is appropriate to provide some mechanical compensation for me choosing not to use a resource I am entitled to.

So will you be playing this character as the sort of person who expects others to do chores for her? Cause that seems like a memorable character... But not really the sort of character that I believe your group would enjoy.

[Talakeal]

So will you be playing this character as the sort of person who expects others to do chores for her? Cause that seems like a memorable character... But not really the sort of character that I believe your group would enjoy.

Mostly. Depends on the chore though.

I expect we will have a lot of undead servants to handle menial tasks for us.

[zinycor]

Mostly. Depends on the chore though.

I expect we will have a lot of undead servants to handle menial tasks for us.

Wouldn't using the zombies bother Bob?

[Kane0]

Here are my suggestions:

- Ditch alignment entirely, personality and world perspective always break it at some point. 5e has traits/bonds/flaws which is a bit basic but works well.

- Take a flaw that actually affects you. Not because of anything to do with your system, but because the DM told you to.

- Talk with your table on your party composition and motivation for teamwork. Your DM has already told you its up to you, so get it done.
If you dont want to be any sort of crafter and crafting is a big deal, that needs to be talked about with the others.

- i dont see how being a defender fighter should stop you from some social or ranged abilities

- dont worry about brian doing bobs bookwork or everyones wisdom and encounter design. Thats not your problem, that is between brian and bob. If he asks you for help, answer purely mechanical questions (because youre the designer) and direct him here or some other 3rd party for everything else (because the bias on all sides is incredibly strong).

- save any changes to your system for the end of the campaign, just collect notes. You arent the DM or the designer, you are the player and playtester

[Quertus]

I'm glad to hear that you recognize the superiority of the Lawful Evil alignment. Welcome to the team.

Lawful Evil is all about supporting the team - and, in that vein, from what you've said, I do have a few concerns.

------
System concerns
------

Why, if you are creating your own system, did you keep alignment? It really only serves to obfuscate the larger problems, like having a personality, or creating a cohesive party.

Why did you create a system where "craft or be underpowered" is something you'd hear the designer say?

------
Party concerns
------

Your party needs a reason to work together. Heck, they need something to do. Maybe it's just "walk around, kill monsters, loot the dead, animate the corpses". But, whatever it is, you should probably figure out what is, and make sure everyone is onboard with it.

Brian wants party unity to be the players'concern. You planned exactly one way that you thought the party would work (Bob hires party), based not on facts about Bob's character.

Sarah's pixie will often be out of range of the party? Why? Because you think she'll get ganked while scouting? Or some other reason?

------
Player concerns
------

You haven't even started the game yet, and you've already instilled the GM with reason to believe that you will be a problem back-seat GM.

Bob wants to play a Necromancer, but offload the bookkeeping to Brian.

------
Suggestions
------

Bob can do the bookkeeping, or he can play something else. This is not negotiable (unless someone at the table enjoys that sort of thing, at which point, it is). This is a game, to have fun, not an opportunity to force drudgery on someone else. That said, Bob might think that he's doing Brian & the group a favor, letting Brian handle the undead in a more "narrative" fashion (which would be much faster). If that's the case, y'all should explicitly discuss it, and see if Brian is onboard.

The undead hoard does not shrink. Natural animals will usually instinctively avoid it; any stupid (or sick or desperate) enough to not do so will get eaten, and added to the hoard. The hoard will naturally grow over time if left unattended. This assumes that the Necromancer's limiting factor is bodies to animate, not mana / spell slots. Point this out - to yourself, at least - then be happy with the reduced bookkeeping of just leaving the undead hoards unmolested in the wilderness.

Everybody had different 1st choices for starting country (and choose those for their origins), but shared a 3rd choice (then their characters met there)? Is it reasonable to assume that the party will remain in this single 3rd country? This is something y'all should probably get on the same page about, if possible.

No one can craft? Great. Either don't play that minigame, or… nah, just don't play that minigame.

Find out from the GM (Brian) where on the sandbox / railroad / linear / player-driven / etc spectrum(s) he expects the game to be. Then talk with the other players to give your characters the necessary amount and type of connections to work with that framework. Which, mind you, can be as simple as "4 strangers meet in a tavern, and sit at the same table", to as complex as weaving interconnected backstories & prophecies.

[Quertus]

So, it seems that there's a lot of talk about the concept of flaws.

Talakeal, I would recommend that, for the next version, you redesign your system with lots of different potential downtime activities, not just crafting, so that characters like yours can utilize the downtime with things that they actually would do, and remove these… problematic types of "flaws".

In other words, is the flaw fair? Maybe. But some people intuitively don't think so. The easiest answer, IMO, is to simply design the game such that the flaw is unfair, then remove the flaw.

What should flaws be? I don't have an answer to that. What do you want them to be? Maybe we can work from there to an implementation that actually achieves your intended purpose.

[Talakeal]

Honestly, at this point I don't think I even want to play amymore. It actually sounds like all of the responsibility of DMing with none of the creativity.

Talakeal, I would recommend that, for the next version, you redesign your system with lots of different potential downtime activities, not just crafting, so that characters like yours can utilize the downtime with things that they actually would do, and remove these… problematic types of "flaws".

Care to throw out a few suggestions?

[zinycor]

The purpose of having rules for flaws is to offset the mechanical disadvantages imposed by RPing a character with some sort of disadvantage.

The more I read this... the less I understand it...

[NichG]

I think this is the wrong discussion to be having, with regards to the subject of the thread.

Since Talakeal is the designer, his view on what a flaw should do and what is valid is basically authoritative. However, from the point of view of how to prevent a gaming horror story, pushing this point at the table - correct or not from a philosophical game design perspective - is exactly what should not be done.

Brian may be wrong from the viewpoint of system intent, but has made a ruling. Debating it might gain a bit of power for Talakeal's character, but at the cost of increasing stress for Brian and likely for anyone else witnessing the debate. So if the goal is to stabilize the game, let it go. If that will create serious issues in the ability of your character to do what's expected, ask to move some of those Wisdom points to another stat.

[zinycor]

I think this is the wrong discussion to be having, with regards to the subject of the thread.

Since Talakeal is the designer, his view on what a flaw should do and what is valid is basically authoritative. However, from the point of view of how to prevent a gaming horror story, pushing this point at the table - correct or not from a philosophical game design perspective - is exactly what should not be done.

Brian may be wrong from the viewpoint of system intent, but has made a ruling. Debating it might gain a bit of power for Talakeal's character, but at the cost of increasing stress for Brian and likely for anyone else witnessing the debate. So if the goal is to stabilize the game, let it go. If that will create serious issues in the ability of your character to do what's expected, ask to move some of those Wisdom points to another stat.

That's a very good point, So, Tal... Would you like to receive advice as a player, as the designer, or are you ok with getting both kinds of advice?

[Quertus]

Honestly, at this point I don't think I even want to play amymore. It actually sounds like all of the responsibility of DMing with none of the creativity.

Engaging in a social activity does, indeed, involve a certain responsibility.

Care to throw out a few suggestions?

Oh, since you're interested, happily! But, IIRC, someone already did. Hmmm… found it:

This may be a bit off-topic, but as a general suggestion from playing other games with downtime actions: If you want the downtime minigame to be a big part of the game in this way, you should include ways for everyone to take part in downtime actions, not just crafters. Have downtime actions to gather information from townsfolk, or to make a new friend who might help you out, or to train for a fleeting advantage in the next dungeon, etc. If that happens, losing downtime actions is actually a viable flaw for any character, not just crafting characters.

So, gathering information, making (& maintaining?) relationships, training. On top of "crafting". What other things do my characters do in downtime? Hmmm… write books, perform experiments, PR, train others, spell research, monster/Pokemon breeding, run businesses, run cons, steal, meddle in politics, start rumors, squelch rumors, decipher maps, translate ancient texts, drink / use recreational drugs, party, go wenching, just hang out, get a job, beg, arrange marriages, tend to the sick and injured, public works, perform, boast, pray, murder hobos, hunt, gather, dig up corpses, animate corpses, trade, rest.

That sounds like a good list, pulled from 5 or 6 of my characters (from several systems, but mostly D&D). Let's start there.

Not all downtime activities are created equal. But I'm guessing you want a roughly balanced final product?

So, you've got "crafting". Which adds resources. Well, you can add "hunting", "gathering", "scavenging", "working", "begging", "scamming/cons", "theft" as additional resource-adding activities. They should be "different, but equal" if you want to maintain game balance.

Resources can be spent to buy (rent) soldiers to help clear dungeons in your game, right? Well, "befriend" could do the same thing, right? Another "different but equal" resource.

Put a price on permanent soldiers, and you've not only got another use for the "befriend" pool, you've made it easy to compare to the various "scavenge bodies" (for animation) techniques / "Pokemon breeding" / etc to the balance baseline. Heck, one could even argue that "wenching" builds up a pool of bastard children that one could "I never knew my father" "Luke, I am your father" go and collect for a similar pool.

It might be harder to balance a pure money value of fame, or good PR. And some of the other outcomes of actions are information, plot hooks, changing the political landscape, and improving (or reducing) the "value" of a town/area (morale, infrastructure, etc). Unless your system has handy price tags associated with those, it'll have to be a "make a guess, and wing it - tweak it in the next version" scenario.

Note that there's some overlap here: someone hunting inherently produces a corpse, for example, or someone performing can improve morale / affect politics, make money, and watch certain areas. Go synergy! Whereas other activities can have negative synergy, like how begging might reduce fame/PR, or how illegal activity would do so… if you get caught.

Balancing all these, with their various resources and chances of downsides, would produce a rich downtime system, wherein the inability to craft would not be such a significant disadvantage.

[Quertus]

I think this is the wrong discussion to be having, with regards to the subject of the thread.

Since Talakeal is the designer, his view on what a flaw should do and what is valid is basically authoritative. However, from the point of view of how to prevent a gaming horror story, pushing this point at the table - correct or not from a philosophical game design perspective - is exactly what should not be done.

Brian may be wrong from the viewpoint of system intent, but has made a ruling. Debating it might gain a bit of power for Talakeal's character, but at the cost of increasing stress for Brian and likely for anyone else witnessing the debate. So if the goal is to stabilize the game, let it go. If that will create serious issues in the ability of your character to do what's expected, ask to move some of those Wisdom points to another stat.

This is… tricky.

Talakeal, which do you care about more: your system, or your gaming group?

Because the advice above is very wise.

And, even if you go along with the group (which you already failed to do correctly), and later change your system based on how they've abused it, you'll need to correctly play the social minigame to not come off badly.

The group is playtesting your baby. But have you sewn the seeds correctly? Is that the way that they view this? Or will you changing your system based on your experiences just be viewed as sour grapes?

Did you have the group give feedback on the system at the end of the game that you ran? Did you listen to and make changes based on their feedback? Or did you ignore their feedback, like when they said it was too hard, and you replied with "it was exactly as hard as I intended"?

If you want to prevent another horror story, these are the subtle differences in your actions that can make that happen.

(EDIT: for example, personally, my instincts would be to amend the system such that the GM is not entitled to make rulings contrary to the intent of the system. Granted, being me, that probably would have been in the rules to begin with - but I would likely include what happened (B. denying you a flaw) as an example of how not to use the system. Which almost certainly wouldn't go over well with your group.)

[Talakeal]

And, even if you go along with the group (which you already failed to do correctly), and later change your system based on how they've abused it, you'll need to correctly play the social minigame to not come off badly.

Out of curiosity, what is the correct way?

Also, do keep in mind that I have been conducting playtests for a long time now.

Engaging in a social activity does, indeed, involve a certain responsibility.

Oh, since you're interested, happily! But, IIRC, someone already did. Hmmm… found it:


So, gathering information, making (& maintaining?) relationships, training. On top of "crafting". What other things do my characters do in downtime? Hmmm… write books, perform experiments, PR, train others, spell research, monster/Pokemon breeding, run businesses, run cons, steal, meddle in politics, start rumors, squelch rumors, decipher maps, translate ancient texts, drink / use recreational drugs, party, go wenching, just hang out, get a job, beg, arrange marriages, tend to the sick and injured, public works, perform, boast, pray, murder hobos, hunt, gather, dig up corpses, animate corpses, trade, rest.

That sounds like a good list, pulled from 5 or 6 of my characters (from several systems, but mostly D&D). Let's start there.

Not all downtime activities are created equal. But I'm guessing you want a roughly balanced final product?

So, you've got "crafting". Which adds resources. Well, you can add "hunting", "gathering", "scavenging", "working", "begging", "scamming/cons", "theft" as additional resource-adding activities. They should be "different, but equal" if you want to maintain game balance.

Resources can be spent to buy (rent) soldiers to help clear dungeons in your game, right? Well, "befriend" could do the same thing, right? Another "different but equal" resource.

Put a price on permanent soldiers, and you've not only got another use for the "befriend" pool, you've made it easy to compare to the various "scavenge bodies" (for animation) techniques / "Pokemon breeding" / etc to the balance baseline. Heck, one could even argue that "wenching" builds up a pool of bastard children that one could "I never knew my father" "Luke, I am your father" go and collect for a similar pool.

It might be harder to balance a pure money value of fame, or good PR. And some of the other outcomes of actions are information, plot hooks, changing the political landscape, and improving (or reducing) the "value" of a town/area (morale, infrastructure, etc). Unless your system has handy price tags associated with those, it'll have to be a "make a guess, and wing it - tweak it in the next version" scenario.

Note that there's some overlap here: someone hunting inherently produces a corpse, for example, or someone performing can improve morale / affect politics, make money, and watch certain areas. Go synergy! Whereas other activities can have negative synergy, like how begging might reduce fame/PR, or how illegal activity would do so… if you get caught.

Balancing all these, with their various resources and chances of downsides, would produce a rich downtime system, wherein the inability to craft would not be such a significant disadvantage.

The system already includes almost all of that except for the planning, the political stuff, and the "unskilled laborer" stuff.

I could see adding a planning mechanic, that might be cool. I'll think about it.
I am not sure if I want to put a political system into the game; but maybe.
The unskilled laborer stuff mostly happens off camera and is exactly the sort of thing I don't want rules for.

But the problem remains, there is absolutely nothing on that list that my character would have even the slightest bit of interest in doing.

[The Glyphstone]

At that point, this sounds like a character problem. What does your character do when he's not busy adventuring, stare blankly at undecorated walls? RL ronin/samurai were famously expected to be cultured in addition to their warrior skills - writing poetry or painting, calligraphy, etc.

[zinycor]

Out of curiosity, what is the correct way?

A game where people don't insult each other.

[Talakeal]

Why, if you are creating your own system, did you keep alignment? It really only serves to obfuscate the larger problems, like having a personality, or creating a cohesive party.

I didn't keep alignment as such. There are no mechanical effects related to alignment, I don't actual use any of the D&D terms or definitions, and the section about it in the book is entirely in the section about creating a cohesive party.

Why did you create a system where "craft or be underpowered" is something you'd hear the designer say?

There are really two questions packed together here.

I put crafting in the game because it is a tremendously important archetype in fiction. Iron Man and Batman derive the majority of their power from designing their own gear, and many other heroes have a gadgeteer supplying them behind the scenes, James Bond's Q being probably the most famous example. I wanted to make a system that was in stark opposition to the modern D&D approach of "You are an adventurer first, and whatever skills you have outside of the dungeon are irrelevant," and make crafters, scholars, and diplomats of various sorts into valid character archetypes; and they are typically very popular in my previous playtests.

Ability scores are there to provide a base level of competence. and part of intelligence and wisdom are providing boosts to crafting. The system has built in flaws in it so that you can recoup some of the points you put into those ability scores if you have no interest in those areas, but a character who is denied those flaws is going to be underpowered. Its not really a default part of the system; its just this particular DMs ruling, like how a wizard would be underpowered in a D&D setting where writing has yet to be invented.

Now, the theoretical "optimal" party would likely have either a dedicated crafter or crafting skills spread amongst several characters just so they can hit all the bases, but its no more important than any other character archetype. The team is more than the sum of its parts and all that.

Your party needs a reason to work together. Heck, they need something to do. Maybe it's just "walk around, kill monsters, loot the dead, animate the corpses". But, whatever it is, you should probably figure out what is, and make sure everyone is onboard with it.

Yep.

Brian wants party unity to be the players' concern. You planned exactly one way that you thought the party would work (Bob hires party), based not on facts about Bob's character.

I asked the rest of the party about their character's long term goals. Dave and Sarah shrugged, Bob told me that his goal was to establish an empire of the undead. So I abandoned the character I wanted to play and instead made one that would work with Bob on both a practical and ethical level. It wasn't until after our characters were finished that he decided he was going to be an outcast street urchin.

Sarah's pixie will often be out of range of the party? Why? Because you think she'll get ganked while scouting? Or some other reason?

She plans on being flying and invisible 24/7. That means I won't be able to find her more often than not, let alone actually be able to get to her.

You haven't even started the game yet, and you've already instilled the GM with reason to believe that you will be a problem back-seat GM.

It seems pretty normal to argue your case when the DM rejects your character, or maybe its just my "bizarre world" experience.

Claiming that "I let my players do it" seems to be the natural counter to his claim that I was doing something in bad faith.

Bob wants to play a Necromancer, but offload the bookkeeping to Brian.

That is Brian's fear, yes.

The undead hoard does not shrink. Natural animals will usually instinctively avoid it; any stupid (or sick or desperate) enough to not do so will get eaten, and added to the hoard. The hoard will naturally grow over time if left unattended. This assumes that the Necromancer's limiting factor is bodies to animate, not mana / spell slots. Point this out - to yourself, at least - then be happy with the reduced bookkeeping of just leaving the undead hoards unmolested in the wilderness.

That is VERY setting specific. Most undead do not reproduce naturally, and those that do are not bound to a necromancer's will. Heck, most bound undead won't kill random animals unless explicitly ordered to, and doing so will likely draw more attention to them from local churches and crusaders.

No one can craft? Great. Either don't play that minigame, or… nah, just don't play that minigame.

Not a terrible idea. But that also means we do not have the capacity to maintain or repair our existing gear either.

Everybody had different 1st choices for starting country (and choose those for their origins), but shared a 3rd choice (then their characters met there)? Is it reasonable to assume that the party will remain in this single 3rd country? This is something y'all should probably get on the same page about, if possible.

Find out from the GM (Brian) where on the sandbox / railroad / linear / player-driven / etc spectrum(s) he expects the game to be. Then talk with the other players to give your characters the necessary amount and type of connections to work with that framework. Which, mind you, can be as simple as "4 strangers meet in a tavern, and sit at the same table", to as complex as weaving interconnected backstories & prophecies.

It is. Nobody but me seems interested in working out the answers to those questions.

At this point I actually kind of feel like I am back in school, where the teacher assigns a group project and I end up doing the whole thing myself because I don't want to fail and everyone else just bailed.

At that point, this sounds like a character problem. What does your character do when he's not busy adventuring, stare blankly at undecorated walls? RL ronin/samurai were famously expected to be cultured in addition to their warrior skills - writing poetry or painting, calligraphy, etc.

Alternating between training, meditation, and failing at house-keeping.

I might have put some points into artwork to represent calligraphy or the like, but I certainly would never sell my work, which means that would make my character even weaker.

I agree, it is a character problem, but it isn't my character problem as I have never had a problem with characters who don't have craft skills.

Also, having a flawed character is part of storytelling; you can't have a character arc if you start out without flaws. The idea that she was trained to fight and to lead armies but is currently in a position where she doesn't trust herself to do is the characters "tragic flaw" that will ultimately lead to her downfall.

A game where people don't insult each other.

Who insulted anyone?

[zinycor]

Who insulted anyone?

From "Crafting, teamwork, retcons, and the DM's role" First page, Post numer 14:

I said he could make the choice, either we played it as was or we retconned his character from the scenario but would then not get a share of the treasure. Which resulted in a bunch of threats, bile, and name calling directed towards both me and the other player instead of a decision.

Emphasis mine

[Talakeal]

From "Crafting, teamwork, retcons, and the DM's role" First page, Post numer 14:



Emphasis mine

Dude, why are you bringing up something that happened a year ago in another thread about another game?

What the heck does that have to do with the "correct way to create a character"?

[zinycor]

Dude, why are you bringing up something that happened a year ago in another thread about another game?

What the heck does that have to do with the "correct way to create a character"?

Oh! so did your group fix the trust issues that caused that situation?

And you asked about the right way to play, not create a character.

For me, the correct way to create a character is to work with your whole table, on a session 0, where all players agree on the kind of game they want to play, then decide on a way your characters could know each other... Then create a character.

[Talakeal]

And you asked about the right way to play, not create a character.

How could I have already "failed to play correctly" when the game won't even start for another month?

[zinycor]

How could I have already "failed to play correctly" when the game won't even start for another month?

Is this a new group of players? If so I apologize, I was sure you continued to play with the very same group you had been playing for the last year.

[Talakeal]

Is this a new group of players? If so I apologize, I was sure you continued to play with the very same group you had been playing for the last year.

Yes, I am absolutely sure that Quertus meant that I had "failed to play correctly" by continuing to game with my friends rather than throwing them to the curb because we don't have a perfect relationship.