This comic follows on from the Previous comic which will almost certainly provide context.

You can follow this comic series from the start Here. Make sure to start at the bottom (oldest comic) and work upwards.

Some people suggested that breaking up tall comics into two images within the post body would help readability in their client, so here’s that.

We’re over the exposition hump now, so hopefully following comics will have smaller/fewer speech bubbles.

  • Ahdok@ttrpg.networkOP
    29·
    1 month ago

    I think this largely comes from being a protagonist in a DnD campaign for a long time, especially a roleplay heavy one. DnD characters naturally build a portfolio of exploits that any NPC character would think insane to accomplish.

    If you want the true gigachad energy though, the spell she used to contact Talona was Divination, which requires a sacrifice to the deity in question, worth at least 25gp.

    Konsi thinks it’s good etiquette to make your sacrifice something the deity would approve of. For example, when she contacted Selune, she crafted some art-piece quality functional navigational tools out of silver and used those as the component in the spell.

    As Talona is the goddess of poison and decay, Konsi decided that a suitable “sacrifice” would be a bottle of lethal, slow acting poison. She spent a few days gathering appropriate herbs and mushrooms, made the poison, then promptly drank it to sacrifice it.

    • AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.netEnglish
      2·
      1 day ago

      “DnD characters naturally build a portfolio of exploits that any NPC character would think insane to accomplish.”

      I appreciate how well your comics highlight this, leveraging the absurdity into humour.

      “Konsi thinks it’s good etiquette to make your sacrifice something the deity would approve of.”

      I love roleplaying like this. This is a wee bit of a tangent, so bear with me, but a phrase that is coming to mind is “ludonarrative dissonance”, which describes when the “gamey” or mechanical aspects of a game (the ludic bits) conflict with the storytelling or roleplaying aspects of a game. I learned this term in a discussion around video games, but it sticks with me because of how it makes me think of games in terms of ludic and narrative components. (The “dissonance” part isn’t relevant right now, that’s just context for the term, and I never hear people talk about ludonarrative synergy(?) because when the ludic and narrative bits work well together, that’s just good game design.

      Anyway, with background context done: your Divination example makes me think about how some players/groups parse the spell requirements in a strictly ludic manner — they hone in on the 25gp cost and other requirements, caring little for the flavour text.

      On the flip side, some players (especially ones who are new to roleplaying) may lean too hard on the spell descriptions for narrative support. This isn’t a bad thing to do, but I think your wee story is a great example of the kind of ludonarrative synergy that TTRPGs have so much great potential for, if players are able to use the rules as a launch pad to make something with far more flavour than the rules are able to do by themselves.

      Edit: formatting

      • Ahdok@ttrpg.networkOP
        1·
        1 day ago

        I’m aware of ludonarrative and ludonarrative dissonance, and use these terms a lot when discussing games. I really like rules design where the rules themselves support the narrative of the game. If you want a really great example, I would recommend the board game Galaxy Trucker by Vlaada Chvatil. Guy’s a master of this.

        Another device that is commonly invoked in my group is something called “the abstraction layer.” - Basically, while roleplaying, the details of an interaction either matter to your narrative and game or they don’t. If something is consequential, it’s “above the abstraction layer” and if it’s not, it’s “below the abstraction layer.” Anything below the abstraction layer you just assume the characters accomplish in the abstract.

        The abstraction layer moves as your characters progress and the scope of your story changes. Imagine you’re a starting level 1 wizard on your first adventure and you want to cast Find Familiar. The spell claims it requires “10 gp worth of charcoal, incense, and herbs that must be consumed by fire in a brass brazier” as a component.

        Per the rules, this is a costed component, so it’s not in your reagent pouch, and you can’t replace the requirement with a casting focus, so your character actually has to source these components, and use of a brass brazier, in order to cast the spell. As a level 1 wizard, there might be some interesting narrative the DM wishes to insert here, where you meet and talk with proprietors of various magic reagent stores, or you have to visit your school or academy to buy some from the stores, or any number of other options.

        However, consider a level 15 wizard who’s plane-hopping to race a cabal of Bane cultists to the pieces of an ancient artifact to activate a time-lost monoloth to wrest control over the heavens from the gods. Does your story still care about this 10gp of incense that you need to cast the spell? Or can you just assume that the wizard is capable enough to solve this problem off-camera? Do you even bother to mark down the 10gp cost on your character sheets when your party is rocking 150k of gold and art objects?

        The important lesson is that the story you’re telling should focus on the details that matter to your characters, and to the narrative itself. Players who take the time to think about the details, and insert flavour will often tell more immersive and interesting stories, and the rules provide opportunities to delve into narrative, but also consider whether the details you’re bringing are pertinent and relative to the current narrative. It’s good to focus on where the details you’re adding provide context and support for your character and the narrative they’re involved in.