DM wants to 'punish' us

>>48814770
First step: Have you talked to the DM? Have you really talked to him?
Because that's what you should do first.

Yes, yes I have and he's staying very very tight lipped

File: 1456212829150.jpg (1MB, 2592x1944px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2592x1944px

>>48814795
/thread

Mechanically this is practically impossible, and probably not fun as a result. When that happens you need to talk to the DM.

Shite

This is the DM her to fill in some details
The 1hp is per long rest, taking a point of exhaustion means you don't lose the HP.
There are ways to prolong your stay without losing HP
It's kind of a more extreme version of the alternative rules where if you stay in hell you turn evil

>>48814770
How the fuck are we supposed to help you? Do you want us to talk to your GM for you?

Essentially you are trying to find ways to remain uncorrupted by hells influence.
If need be I'll add charisma saves to resist the influence

>>48814921
>>48815022
Ask yourself two questions:
>Is this enjoyable? (for your players, not just you personally)
>Does this lead to interesting decisions?

If/since the answer to both is "no", you're doing something wrong.

>>48814921
>>48815022
That's dumb, tedious, and unfun. There's better ways to do what you want, most of which don't fuck the PCs mechanically.

PRAISE THE SUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It was designed to encourage unique solutions and Roleplaying solutions from my players, the HP loss and such is easily no lethal, but is a way to encourage my players to steer away from combat rather that their normal, guns blazing approach

>>48815198
>Roleplaying
>D&D
Eh, I think there's something wrong here.

>>48815198
>I want to stop my PCs from doing the thing they find enjoyable

You're bad and you should feel bad.

>>48815198
No, that's not encouragement, that's punishment.
You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

You're punishing your players for doing what they enjoy in an activity whose purpose is enjoyment.
If you don't like what your players are doing, talk to them instead of trying to force your way of having fun onto them.

>>48815198
>Steer away from combat
>In D&D
>A game where each level gives you more stuff for combat
>With a number of spells and abilities explicitly for combat
>With an entire class whose whole shtick is really good at combat
>Alternative is to take a point of exhaustion
>First level gives a disadvantage to ability checks
>Which you typically use for fancy, out of combat solutions if you're not a caster

I'm not going to say anything. I'm just going to let you think about what you've done.

We rarely use checks out of combat, in most social encounters, I use what they say and who they are talking to to see if it would work.

And I have asked my players what they would prefer, if they want change I'll change to what they want

ITT Everyone posting fellates their players

I say the DM has at least two sessions to make something out of the mechanic before the players have a right to bring it up as if it were an actual problem.

Players are gigantic vaginas nowadays and want shit just handed to them as decided by initiative - then they'll turn around and complain when combat gets boring.

Also we have 3/4 players saying they would rather go with RP solutions and risk the original challenge, then switch to combat to fight through hells

File: 1457306499908.jpg (20KB, 527x409px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 527x409px

I'm not really sure what to think of this thread.

Well this thread turned into a bit of a shit show huh

Perhaps surprisingly this thread did serve its purpose to find solutions to the problem at hand

Sorry mr 'DM who thought this was a splendid fucking idea'

>>48815612
You mean, like, talking like reasonable adults?

>>48814770
>>48814921
Hah, you play with someone who posts on /tg/?! No wonder your games turn out badly!

It has spurred changes in my DM style and conversation with my players. In one way or another

>>48815418
See >>48815305

If you wanted more RP than combat, you shouldn't be fucking playing D&D. You should be using another system that's more suited for it, perhaps one where the combat isn't the primary fucking focus of the goddamn system.

File: d39b4acc91ec4c9faef18392c921f3fa.jpg (172KB, 700x628px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 700x628px

Guys what if OP and the DM in question is the same guy?

I'll be honest, this is my first time posting on here

Sadly D&D is the only system I'm familiar with, so changing would complicated

>>48815835
I have considered that briefly, but discarded the notion because it would be even more mind-bogglingly stupid.

>>48815198
As someone who isn't an entitled baby, I think what you're doing is fine. Hell should be a dangerous place, and honestly, if they can't think a way around it, then they should frankly just let the soul rot.

I would add in maybe some side-quest of some sort to get an item that would divert the effects of hell or something along those lines. But if they aren't willing to go searching for that, then fuck 'em.

A side-quest for an item like that isn't a bad idea, I'll keep it in mind

File: Dog Science.jpg (125KB, 1024x577px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1024x577px

>>48815834
>>48815305

>In order to RP, you need hard, physical rules that dictate what die I roll and when to see how my character roleplays.
>As opposed to just. . .roleplaying.

>>48815903
It really won't. Read a little, most systems are easier to pick up and learn the in and outs than d&d.

>>48815905
Then you're the stupid one. OP is very clearly the DM. Notice both OP and DM in question are replying to posts very quickly without actually quoting them? That's an extremely peculiar habit that nobody really does. What are the odds that both player and DM would be posting at around the same time AND also have that unique posting quirk?

Woah wait what? We aren't the same person, we are chatting in a group chat with the rest of the party on the side as this thread happens

>>48815903
No, no it wouldn't. There are several systems you can learn in the time it would take you to prepare a single session in 3.5.

This is my first time on 4chan ever, I don't know how to quote

>>48816163
>>48816094

>Still assuming that 3.5 is the standard of D&D

Take it you haven't been on 4chan for the last 3 months, huh? The new hotness is 5e. There's a total of 30 required pages altogether, most of which is basically "Roll ability scores and wing it".

>>48816109
Well, I want to believe that it takes more than a single diseased mind to spawn this level of idiocy.
I'm a hopeless idealist. Sue me.

File: L thinking.jpg (63KB, 894x500px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 894x500px

>>48816109
It could be a DM who wants to greenlight his idea before giving it to his group. Thus, he has made this thread and pretended to be a player so he can see how /tg/ treats his idea.

>>48815903
Bruh, no. There are tons of easier systems, and even more better systems

>>48816163
(Figured out quoting)
Some examples? I'll be honest I haven't really looked at other systems

File: As reinacted by 5 year-olds.gif (744KB, 245x300px) Image search: [Google]

744KB, 245x300px

>>48816192
I think that's the most obvious situation we have here.

>>48816189
>Sue me.
Okay. Here's my lawyer.

>>48816192
Ok now that's just silly

>>48815198
I'm with >>48816028 for the most part, but like another anon said trying to discourage combat in D&D is pretty counterintuitive. I get what you're going for but the next time you start a campaign you might want to consider a different system.

File: L wut.jpg (16KB, 438x396px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 438x396px

>>48816218
Why? I've done it before. It allows /tg/ to judge your idea harshly, and you get to figure out whether it really is a good idea or not after all.

I think I've done it at least... 5 times now.

>>48816238
I mainly started this thread for outside input for the DM (who is not me) and the rest of the party to reference to make a better more rational decision

>>48816231
It's just for this single arc, once out of hell, and once or twice if appropriate inside of hell, combat will be commonplace.

>>48816288
Will they regain the HP lost after the arc?

File: Adorable.jpg (436KB, 1280x1444px) Image search: [Google]

436KB, 1280x1444px

>>48816281
>>48816288

Oh that's cute, you figured out to post from your phone and the computer at the same time. Daaawwwwww

>>48816301
Yea, once out their Hp will return to normal after 1 or 2 long rests

>>48816069
It's not that. He's expecting a roleplaying approach other than guns blazing. Dungeons and Dragons is primarily made for the players to get into combat. Therefore if you wanted a more roleplay heavy game, you would logically want to opt for a system that doesn't directly encourage a guns blazing approach.

>>48816308
I can assure you that they are not the same person, one is a dick who doesnt think before they do anything, even though we try and help him, and the other is our dm, who, yes can be annoying, but isn't a total douchebag

>>48816208
Dungeon World, World of Dungeons, Apocalypse World: Fallen Empires, Ryuutama, Savage Worlds, Anima (no, not that one), Beyond the Wall, Old School Hack, Reign, Dungeonslayers, Dungeon Crawl Classics, Make You Kingdom...
And that's just a couple of the fantasy ones.

Is now a good time to point out, the HP issue is the least of the parties issues, they are on a boat in the River Styx, being sailed by an NPC they previously left for dead (who survived with 1 HP, due to lucky rolls)

>>48816343

I was unsure of this before, but now I'm fairly convinced you haven't played a lot of D&D.

File: slap.gif (908KB, 150x150px) Image search: [Google]

908KB, 150x150px

Holy shit, i didn't know /tg/ was full of such pussies

it's fucking hell, they are trying to travel though hell, at level 6
i would do so much worse than just 1hp per long rest, to try and at least make it a challenge, especially since its not something they need to do, its just to revive a party member, just have that fucker re-roll
and where the fuck is Orcus? or Asmodeus? or all the fucking CR 69 horse cock devil demons that should be in hell
and your all like "omg what is this anti-fun" and "how is damage fun" and "just let them revive their friend why make it troubling"

are you kidding me? this has to be a samefag, because honestly if someone came on here and was like "Can you guys beleive it, i'm playing some fucking dee and dee and the DM had the gall, had the fucking AUDACITY, to stand in front of me and tell me that the goblin hit me for 3 damage..... that HALF MY HEALTH, surely this GM has a death wish, should i find a new GM who can let me get hit by goblins and not take dmamag , i would relalky prefer if my character was FUCKING INVINCIBLE "
AND YOUR ALL like
ok

>>48816343
That's not a failure of D&D specifically though. In an adventure game, the reason why Guybrush Threepwood doesn't go in with blunderbuses blazing and kicking ass is usually because he is physically the weakest mofo on this side of the Caribbean, and when it's not that, it's because physical direct solutions don't exist.

If your players are going in guns blazing, then that means that you continually set up situation where direct physical violence is not only the quickest solution, it also has the least repercussions that they would have to actually deal with.

To wit: Most D&D that I play is very light on the combat altogether and most of the sessions are spent talking with NPCs and arranging plans. And I don't need rules for that, I just need my players to be willing to talk with me while I put on a funny voice to represent Yanki Al, the Hardware Store Owner

>>48816405
So far they have only seen Avernus, which is somewhat visiter friendly. It will get far worse once they reach lower layers

File: image.jpg (17KB, 300x168px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 300x168px

>>48816405

>>48816458
That makes sense, this arc is me pulling a full 180 to fix that, perhaps doing it slower would be better.

>>48816458
Maybe I'm just missing an entire chunk of the system. But I'm pretty sure that violence is often the simplest solution in D&D, because unless the GM is actually creative with his scenarios and available solutions, the system is literally made to facilitate combat.

So perhaps I should clarify and say "You shouldn't expect your players not to pick combat as the obvious solution, unless you the GM do a good job of creating and presenting a variety of options in any given situation."

>>48816405

>Orcus
>In Hell

>>48816175
If its your 1st time here howd you know about the thread?

>>48816592
Put the link in our group chat we had for the DM to take advice

>>48816592
OP put a link to it in the games group chat. The whole party short of our rouge is watching

>>48816541
>Maybe I'm just missing an entire chunk of the system
I think really you're just being over expectant about what a system means. D&D's system is set up just to facilitate physical interaction with the world, with some minor nudges for social interaction that were added on as a bit of a sacred cow from 3.5 trying to incorporate a disgusting amount of granularity in everything down into a hard number.

D&D by itself does nothing to directly facilitate combat other than give combat classes skills and gear for combat. In fact, many books, including several of the DMGs, will actually encourage you to give the players XP for finding clever ways around fighting. And fuck, Basic and 2nd Edition D&D actually gave you/rouges XP just for collecting money while the monsters gave out SHIT for experience respectively.

Hell, the edition that your argument is most true for, 4e, where everything is straight up a combat skill and non-combat skills are called "utility powers", you STILL can easily just use the characters and powers as a back drop for when you pick up weapons. There's nothing in there that says "okay now you have to tactically fight each other".

>>48816605
>>48816619
Look, we know it's you, and even if not, we've pretty much decided that you're the same person anyways, and there's nothing you're going to do to dissuade us from that obvious and realistic conclusion. And trying to make up excuses like "Oh OP told the DM that he was complaining and shit talking about the DM on a public forum" isn't doing much to help your case.

It's fine. We don't care. Just stop bothering with the conversation and just tell us about your situation so we can help you fix it.

To clarify if it matters now, we are using 5e

>>48816717
You're still completely missing the point.

If the players read the handbook and see that the vast majority of skills, feats, etc are combat related and the GM doesn't adequately present solutions that are not combat, the players will pick combat simply because it seems like the simplest solution.

>>48816742
Read the OP, aside from a bit or sarcasm, he isn't shit talking me, he was looking for advice on solving a problem, that admittedly other people can't solve without knowledge of our game setting (home brew)

>>48816779
It's worth admitting up until now, combat has been the best option in most situations, the exceptions being dealing with the king and the parties 'associates'

>>48816779
>and the GM doesn't adequately present solutions that are not combat, the players will pick combat simply because it seems like the simplest solution.

That's still on the GM, not on the system. There are also a lot of feats that have to do with social abilities, such as the one that gives you multiple languages, and one that gives you photographic memory. There are also the inclusion of backgrounds which give you skill checks, language/tool proficiency, and an ability that can ONLY be applied in a social situation, such as "knowing the common folk" or "The knowledge of a secret held by a religious order." Not only that, but at least half of the core rules has to deal more with adventuring and a characters physical abilities (like how much they can lift with strength and the difference between Int and Wis) and spells, and over half of the spells have no combat use, such as Mending and Unseen Servant.

You honestly sound like you've probably been playing with some wargamer types as opposed to roleplaying with people who enjoy both the RP and the G aspects of the hobby. And I don't mean that as an insult, because I've been there too, and it really sucks when 90% of the conversation around the table is "How do I finagle this feat at level 1 to double my damage when combined with this ability at level 2?", but as long as a game involves physical interaction with the world and its characters, and the players have more than a single choice when they make their characters, there is ALWAYS going to be that conversation at the table.

A side note, if you want to see D&D played with a greater emphasis on non-combat roleplay, just simply arrange for encounters that are above their combat abilities. They'll either run into it head first like idiots and die over and over again, or they'll learn that the world doesn't just strategically place down enemies in ascending combat difficulty order relative to their special characters and sometimes they'll have to talk.

>>48816175

Just click on the number of the post and there you go, a reply.

Well here's a deal. First of all, yes, all modern D&D has fairly juicy buits for combat and various advice about balacing encounters, making it appealing to solve problems with but ultimately nothing forces you to always make it a reliable way to solve problems.

I don't see a problem with reflecting the dangers of hell mechanically, but the best thing is telegraph danger. Show them a horrific demon passing through, further mutilating people with half of their flesh ripped off since they're chained to his spiked tail, lost souls who are only glimpses of their past lives trying to steal the life from the party. Telegraph danger, make the stakes of every combat really high - like if you die in hell, you'll get stuck here also. Let them choose their own battles, clearly give them the option of avoiding fights and reward other solutions. Bargaining with forces of hell is appropriate, so is letting it backfire later, when they get out. There are ways to reflect the difficulty and discourage combat without mechanical penalties.

Of course since you've admitted combat was a priority until now, you have to be very up and front about how combat isn't a good option just now. If a problem arises, be open about it, let the party come up with a solution. If it's at least half-sensible and doesn't involve combat, let them try it.

>>48816999
>They'll either run into it head first like idiots and die over and over again, or they'll learn that the world doesn't just strategically place down enemies in ascending combat difficulty order relative to their special characters and sometimes they'll have to talk.

And yes, this, so much this.

>>48816999
>You honestly sound like you've probably been playing with some wargamer types as opposed to roleplaying with people who enjoy both the RP and the G aspects of the hobby.

Well you'd honestly be fucking wrong. I largely play things in rules light systems most of the time.

I'm more pointing out the impression I got from glancing through the older editions (namely 3.5 and as you pointed out earlier, 4E). The books gave me the impression as a first time player that combat would more often than not be the simplest solutions to most conflicts unless the GM was going to throw something more creative at us than your usual monster hunting and looting. And yes, of course any competent GM can make a campaign that's more than huntin' and lootin', but if you the GM do not readily make this apparent, the players will just try to hunt and loot most of the time. I haven't encountered this issue in other systems I play because it's very easily possible to make a character with absolutely no combat ability whatsoever for the sake of RP.

>>48816605
>>48816619
Literally exactly a minute apart

All you have to do is heal 1 hp per rest per person, that's a non-issue to deal with.

I'm gonna have to suggest giving them a potential quest hook in hell. There's fucktons of interestin denizens, which trade in peculiar things and have strange goals. Hell, occasionally there's divine beings down there, performing something for its deity (be it war or something more secretive, perhaps gathering infernal ingredients or spying).

Hell is infinitely interesting, man.

>>48817182
>Well you'd honestly be fucking wrong.

Sorry, I meant to say "You honestly sound like you've probably been playing *D&D with[...]". which would have given you that bad experience. Not that you don't willfully seek out rules light or narrative games.

>I'm more pointing out the impression I got from glancing through the older editions (namely 3.5 and as you pointed out earlier, 4E).
Try going through 5e's PHP sometime. Or at the least Basic edition. OSR in general makes combat extremely dangerous, so right off the bat you're going to get murdered fast. 3.5 and 4e are widely considered to be failures from our modern standpoint, but Basic through 2nd edition and 5e stand up all right.

>but if you the GM do not readily make this apparent, the players will just try to hunt and loot most of the time.
That's again on the players and the DM, not on the system itself.

>I haven't encountered this issue in other systems I play because it's very easily possible to make a character with absolutely no combat ability whatsoever for the sake of RP.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here on two accounts.

1. I imagine you haven't encountered that problem because most people who vehemently abandon D&D because of the perception that its combat oriented will flock to like minded people and your particular games of choice. If you and your group were to play D&D, I have a hard time believing that you'd go out of your way to make combat the focus, and likewise, I imagine if you got some wargaming munchikens from a 3.PF or 4e table to join you guys, you would encounter the player who wants to hunt and loot.

2. I'm thinking your main game is...Savage Worlds?

>>48817182
Nah you're right, D&D is pretty much just a combat/dungeon loot system.


It's not even very good at that.

>>48814921
Post the alternative rule, source book and page number.

>>48816804
>other people can't solve without knowledge of our game setting (home brew)
AND THERE CUNTS AND DICKS IS THE ANSWER OF THE FUCKING /THREAD
Did you really expect anything different?

>>48816744
Why did that only come up so late into the thread?

>>48816216
Underrated post

OP is a faggot. However the DM showed up and was a faggot too. They will most likely work it out through their mutual love of hairy man bums.

>>48816405
This. My players would be fucked if they decided to galavant around Hell for fucking months. A few hours of intrusion would be pushing their luck. 1 HP per long rest? Weak as shit. And it's Hell, go make a deal with a devil to avoid it or put it off and deal with the consequences and plot hooks later.

If it's fun and cool do it, if it's not, don't