Tuesday, April 12, 2016

4-12-16 Game Forum Answer Bag

This one catches up the backlog of posts . . . 

Making ranged and melee coexist.
So, I guess my question is - what have you all done to help alleviate some of this? What have you done to allow a longbowman to sit at most of his range and still be challenged and excited rather than "i shoot an arrow"? what have you done to keep the lethality in some game's ranged weapons, let make melee actually work well. And I'm talking about something relatively tactical, not all Fate or my beloved Cortex where all that gets really handwaved.

Golly, it took you a long time to get to the actual question.  As to an answer, what I do is this:
1. I make sure the game has rules for melee combat
2. I make sure the game has rules for ranged combat
3. I revise the rules to better achieve my goals for the game. This could be increasing bullet damage, giving bows a realistic rate of fire based on historical information, or making them super awesome. Depends on the game.
4. Arrange terrain and opponents as necessary for the needs of the adventure, be it a wide open field, rugged bould-filled hills, or crowded city blocks.
5. Run the game

You’ll note none of those include anything to allow a longbowman to sit at most of his range and still be challenged and excited. Why?

A. If someone is playing a longbowman or a Force Recon sniper or whatever, then unless they say otherwise, it’s safe to assume that they want to be able to kill at a long range. You know, where it’s safe and shit. When I play such a character, I’m not interested in the GM making things exciting for me, I’m interested in killing bad guys before they even know I’m there.
B. “I shoot an arrow” is on the player, not the GM.

In short, there is no making ranged and melee coexist. If you haven’t seen them coexist very well, that’s on you or the people running the games you’ve been in.

DM rolling player dice: old school?
One of my group finally decided to run 5e, which is great. But he claims to be "old school" and he's doing some stuff I think is weird.
1. He rolls all player checks, except attacks/damage.
2. He has players roll for the monsters picking which is rolls against each other. Too date my only crits have been against my fellow players.
3. When a character dies, the new PC comes in a level lower, at minimum xp for the level.
4. You must play at least one session at each level, including 1st.
5. Sneak attack doesn't work on oozes, undead, plants, constructs, etc. This was not made clear to wife (who is playing the rogue) until level 3, after she attack our first undead.
6. Identify doesn't work on uncommon or rarer magic items.

So, is this just "old school" and I need to "toughen up", as has been said by DM? Or is this just weird?

1. That’s not old school.
2. That’s not old school, but it can be acceptable at some tables.
3. Yeah, that’s pretty old school for a lot of people.
4. I don’t know if that’s old school, but I find it to be pretty reasonable.
5. I can’t comment on this one. That’s how it’s always worked in my games, but I have no practical knowledge of 5E, so no idea.
6. Not particularly old school, and again, I have no idea how it’s supposed to work in 5E.

So, to answer your final question, some of it is “old school”. Some of it is you needing to “toughen up”, and some of it may be just poorly explained house rules, or misunderstanding of the rules.

And I've tried talking to the guy about this, explaining that I like rolling my own checks, but he wasn't very amendable to changes. It was either "his way or the highway." Which might have been one of the reasons I wrote this, as I was angry. That and my bard was petrified by a medusa at level 3 and I had to roll a new character. Using 3d6 down the line. In 5e. My stats were...not great. Strike that, they were terrible. My high was a 12 and my low is a 4.

Well, he’s not wrong. It’s his way or no way. Unless the players quit. But if they don’t have enough of a problem with the rules to quit, then its 100% on you to decide if you want to keep playing under that person as GM.  As for 3d6 down the line, wah. You can always say NO.

Frankly I'm just about done with this game, but I can't just leave, as I host the group and this DM only DMs half the time. My wife is also a player in this game and has less of a problem than me (probably because said DM lets her get away with murder). So I'm not sure what to do.

You may host the game at your house, but that doesn’t mean you have to play. So far, nothing has removed your agency in this matter. You’re just whining. That said, the person sounds like a shitty GM, and I would remove myself from the game. Or simply take on only the task of rolling for monsters if the GM’s down with that (I’ve done that before, had a blast doing so. Literally, I ran a red dragon against my former party members, fucked them all up).

Also, primarch has good advice. If you don’t like it, you tell the GM to run the game at his house. If that’s acceptable with your significant other. Sounds like there’s some adult conversation about all of this that needs to be had.

i feel like an axe is over my head for things said in the past
i feel like an axe is over my head for things said in the past
i was banned back about 10 yares ago form a game store
yaers later i found out it was because i asked the owners wife if she was pregnate( i thought i herd her say she was)
and every other stores in the area ( only3) and all the rpg players know it not a big town
i allways feel like the gm,s in pathfinder are keeping an eye on me that the store( not the one i was banned from) owner and his lackey are keeping an ear out
for me to say something inappropriate. some said something dirty about my bard who is romatnic that changes his lovers like every other day that was nasty and i got blamed for it( was some time ago ). I cant take the stress of living in fear that my past stupidness will get me banned
again. i have mild Aspergers so some times i say things that are fucked up but what was said done 10 yaers ago should not be
held aginst me


A. Don’t be an asshole. And don’t let Asperger’s be a cover for being an asshole
B. It may just be that people don’t like you.
C. Come back when you’re sober.

True story, I once told a friend of a friend to stop whining about being pregnant (I was making a joke that the friend got, but the target didn’t appreciate). She picked up a butterknife from the table as stabbed me in the stomach as hard as she could. Luckily, she wasn’t very strong.

Moral of this story? If you don’t know the woman well or at all, shut the fuck up about their pregnancy.  Even if it’s asking if they are (someone asked my mom once if she was pregnant; she wasn’t, and the asking genuinely hurt her feelings pretty bad).

Petrification in games: Has anyone ever enjoyed being frozen in carbonite?
Has anyone ever enjoyed it? Dunno. There’s 7 billion+ people on the planet. That’s a big ass survey. Did I even whine or cry that being petrified wasn’t fun? No, because I’m not a fucking child. Not everything involving me has to be fun.

Eh.....back in the day we just considered it a hazard of adventuring

Yeah, pretty much.

In short, don’t be a child.

[5E] Leomund's Tiny Hut Too Powerful?
OK, so one of my players is a wizard (surprisingly, we almost didn't have one at all in a group of 7) and he has Leomund's Tiny Hut. I am finding that spell to be too powerful and seriously ruining my, err.... the fun of nighttime encounters.

How powerful does something have to be for me to say, "sorry, but your 3rd level spell doesn't work on keeping the (ancient dragon/diety/demon-devil lord) out"? Sure, I have figured out a couple of ways for the hut to not be handy, but I cannot use them everytime I want an actual night encounter, it would get stupid real fast.

At the very least, I feel it should be a 5th level spell, and/or not a ritual which allows them to have it every night without taking up a spell slot.

Anyone else feel this way? Am I being too mean/harsh/vicious in wanting the nighttime to be actually scary? (Especially since they have been stranded on the Isle of Dread?!?)

If you don’t like the spell, remove it. If you think it should be a 5th level spell, make it a god damned 5th level spell. This shit’s not rocket science, people.  If you aren’t willing to do those things, then shut the fuck up and accept that you’re not the only one at the table, that the players have a tool you didn’t count on, and that you’ll have to challenge them in a different fucking way.

d20 Modern reprint?
Hey all,
I've always been a big fan of the d20 modern and am saddened by the lack of extensive material for it.

As a game publisher, I am curious to find out, would a reprint of the d20 modern rules be something people here would be interested in? For instance if I were to put them up for sale as POD on DTRPG or Lulu would people like to be able to buy the rules again instead of printing them off on a standard printer? I'd be putting it into distribution as well, so you'd be able to order them from your game store.

How much change to the core would you want to see? Or would keeping the game close to the core be what you would want?

Thanks for the input!

Personally, no, I wouldn’t be. Why? Because I have the books, I have the entire SRD, I have my own tweaked version.  And there’s literally nothing to make me think you would improve the rules.

See, this is something that should have been an easy topic, but douchebag Airos had to come in with

Because I'll be bluntly honest, I find retail copies of an otherwise free resource to be tacky at the best of times.

No one fucking cares what you think, you ignorant twit.

Is the OGL still in effect? Because I'm not entirely certain that flat out printing the SRD and selling it is legal anymore. At the very least, WotC might frown on it.

Uh, yeah, it is. For now and ever until their lawyers find a way to make it not.

Any interest in a D&D / WOD crossover? (op by timothyhimes)
I am actually working on this now, having started just a few days ago. And no, I am not going to use another system, not exalted, not mage, not high fantasy yadda yadda.... I have been online many times looking for this and everyone wants to redirect, trying something else, use something else published.. no thank you.

I started doing Storytelling Dungeons & Dragons and that is exactly what i am doing. I created an entirely new setting with a "Bring them in storyline" designed to help new and old players adapt to a new system of doing things.

Has anyone else been working on this? DO you have anything done in writing that you want to share?

Why, yes, I have worked on something like this, and no, I wouldn’t share it with you. Because you seem like a douche in your first post.

I went back and actually took a look through the book... then after seeing a hell of a LOT of similar things that I was working on.. I promptly took the work I did, deleted it and then cleaned the garbage bin...

days of work, useless. Gone.. and not being done anymore now... I give up.

Oh, gee, I wonder what direction this thread is headed in. . .

End Transmission made this post (#21):
What I am immediately reminded of is Dungeons: The Dragoning.

Because apparently, reading the first seven (7) posts of the thread was too much fucking work (post #7 being
“You might want to check out Dungeon: the Dragoning. Maybe it can save you some work, or offer inspiration?”)

For fuck’s sake, read more than the title, dipshits.

But wait! A reversal by timothyhimes!!
So, I was going through that Dungeon The Dragoning and you know what? I was completely wrong. It does have a few things that are similar but ultimately it is NOT what i was actually working on. No, my project was literally "Storytelling Dungeons & Dragons" as in NWOD system (few hacks, added templates, etc) and a complete setting. So after reviewing that work, and then looking at other threads and what not, I am BACK ON TRACK and RE-WRITING what I was working on.

Yay?

I have decided to go with a Dark Fantasy feel, rated heavy R. Inspired by Game of Thrones, Black Sails, Spartacus, Walking Dead, Vikings, and that like. Nudity, graphic violence, adult content, the works. All contained within the context of story.

Uh oh, watch out, people! Someone’s getting edgy!!!

From Numanoid:
I think part of the problem is that you're trying to staple together an old version of D&D to an old version of the Storyteller system in TYOOL 2015. This is reading like a textbook "fantasy heartbreaker". Game design has made some pretty significant leaps and bounds since then. (Like not making separate entries between "Health" and "Fitness", because who really needs that?)

No, that’s actually not the problem. Because there’s nothing wrong with trying to mesh old ideas. Newer isn’t necessarily better.

Then a long-winded explanation by timothyhimes of why he is doing this. A totally unnecessary one.  Then there’s a post by Marc17. Doesn’t really add anything to the thread. I just mention it because he used to hang out a bit in my local scene.

And back to timothyhimes:
Your work sounds like a more worthwhile effort than my own... hell, I cant even get anyone on board with my broken "fantasy heartbreaker" idea.

Oh, for fuck’s sake, stop being a fucking crybaby.  One might begin to think that you’re not posting in good faith. . . Apparently, timothy had some issues logging in, and so then logged in under  the name baldurkhan. Interesting. The timothyhimes account has a listed join date of November, 2009, with 132 posts at the beginning of this thread. baldurkhan has a join date of June 2013, with  a post count of 108. This thread was started 9-9-15. I’m not saying timothy is up to anything shady, I just find this interesting . . .

Anyway, what follows is a long ass description of his setting, The Conquering of Krynn . . .

Nope, wait, apparently he’s giving up again:
Never mind. I am stopping this project because of an e-mail that I just received from someone that I thought was going to be helpful and or supportive... Again, files are all deleted, all work and wasted time gone.. poof.. done. I quit.

Then he posts the email he received. It’s harsh. . . and suspicious in its phrasing . . .

Nope, wait, he’s giving it another go, dropping the Krynn angle . . .

Honestly, this is an interesting thread. Almost every post made by the OP that isn’t detailing information about his game reads as a troll thread. But if so, timothyhimes put a fuckload of work into it. So it’s really hard for me to determine if this is all one big, elaborate troll, or if timothyhimes is just a whiny fuck.

[Star Wars PT neutral-ish] "The Intricacies of Intergalactic Trade Law" (OP is LibraryLass)
There are many, many valid complaints about the PT. But this is one I really don't care for. (And it's almost always that exact phrase that gets trotted out, too.) What fucking intricacies? Trade Federation don't wanna pay a tariff, take Naboo hostage as a showy form of protest, Sidious stalls for them because it gives him an in to become chancellor. That's basically all that's said about it in the movie, and even if it wasn't it's about all you need for the villains' plot to (more or less) make sense. It's not exactly complicated.

Agreed!!

Reply by awesomeocalypse:
I think its more a snide comment on how incredibly lame everything involving the Trade Federation (and really, the overall plot of TPM) is. A bunch of quasi-asian fishmen throwing a fit over trade tariffs just doesn't feel nearly epic enough for Star Wars. Its like a crappy Star Trek episode with lightsabers thrown in

Reply by LibraryLass:
*shrug*
No one ever claims a tax protest getting out of hand is an insufficiently epic cause for the American Revolutionary War.

Heh heh.

The rest of it is just whiny people arguing about the ways in which TPM sucks. I just found the initial stages of the thread to be amusing.

Tom Clancy vs the Zombie Apocalypse
I’m pretty sure the zombies would get Clancy pretty quick.

Oh, there’s more than just the thread title . . .

How about two great tastes that taste great together?

I think "real-world" zombie apocalypse scenarios are a little implausible because a modern military force (with enough time to mobilize) could probably wipe out thousands of zombies per day with bombs, tanks, flamethrowers, and whatnot.

This would be assuming there's adequate military/scientific intelligence (to interpret the threat in time) and political leadership (say, under President John "Jack" Ryan) who would activate National Guards and military units in time and make tough calls like bombing New York City, say.

Of course, in Tom Clancy's 'verse, our skilled, dedicated military professionals will use America's finest weapons on earth to defeat any enemy, foreign, domestic or UNDEAD.

So say zombies are popping up all over in an explosive growth scenario... military and police units (who also have serious weapons and equipment) are scrambling in Day 1.

Discuss!

I’m not real clear on what the OP wants discussed here.  Pretty sure this would turn out much like Shaun of the Dead, but not nearly as funny.  Then the thread breaks down into another one of any number of discussions about a “realistic” zombie apocalypse. Strawmen, false equivalencies, flat-out ignoring what others are saying, yada bing fang foom.

Like any of these discussions, it’s all masturbation until the ground rules of the zombies are set. Only then can you explain what would work, what wouldn’t work, what is still plausible, etc. And just think, you could be using that time to watch Z Nation.

I only read RPGs (OP by johnnype)
In part because I don't have time to actually play them but for a number of other reasons as well.

Whoop-de-fucking-doo for you?

I saw someone say something similar on a thread recently and it occurred to me that this must be incredibly common. After all, a "proper" RPG session runs about 4 hours at least and who has that kind of time? Not to mention the fact that you need on average something like 4 other people to play with and coordinate schedules and locations etc, etc. That's not easy, especially if you have a family.

Personalities are also a consideration as I refuse to sit down next to a guy who hasn't showered recently (seriously, why does this still happen?). New rules to learn, new minis to paint...it's a miracle anyone plays at all. Maybe I'm the anomaly and most people have plenty of time.

Stop projecting. Don’t assume other people aren’t playing just because no one wants to play with you.

The rest of the thread is a bunch of people projecting their amazingly narrow, insignificant experiences as universal truths.

And for the record, I’ve never bought an RPG that I didn’t plan on trying to run or incorporate into a game I was going to run.

God skills (Perception) (OP by AlexanderAvery)
For all the flaws 3e had, and it had more than a few, but splitting hide, and move silent; and spot, listen, and search were a good idea. Does anyone else out there agree, or have any other issues with some skills being just considerably more useful than others?

I absolutely agree with this split. Why? Because I’m 5’8”, 260 pounds and can’t hide for shit. But you know what I can do? Walk softly. My Spot is also better than my Listen. But – BUT – such a split is probably not appropriate for all games. It’s really something that depends on what the game is designed to emulate or achieve and what the table thinks is best.

Response by eeldip:
"are these cave features volcanic in origin or formed through sedimentation? is that boxite?"

"you are a barbarian, its all rocks to you, just a bunch of rocks!".

no need for a roll.

That would require Knowledge checks, not perception checks, and if, for some reason, the barbarian has the appropriate skills (which if he does, it because you selected a system that allows that), then yes, you damn well better have a fucking roll.

Personally, not only do I like the skill splits, but I’m also fond of linking them with different attributes, depending on the specific task at hand, as opposed to having them linked to a single ability score.

Reply by cryptc:
I find having Perception be an attribute is preferable to having it be something you can train (does it make sense to become an expert in Perception by training it?)

Perception should be an ability score in many games. And you should still be able to train the skills, because, duh, yes you can train them.

Dumb ass.

Reply by Vree:
I don't see how Perception is even a skill, personally. Like, you train yourself to look at things...wut?

One thing gaming forums do is dispel the myth of gamers being more intelligent or educated than average.


YOU CAN TRAIN YOUR PERCEPTION SKILLS!!!!!

Someone points this out to Vree, Vree responds with

^That does not justify a skill IMHO. First of all, basic all-purpose knowledge is usually merged into the Attributes. Yes, you can improve your heavy lifting ability if you know HOW to lift. Does not mean Strenght needs a supporting skill.
Yes, you can improve your intelligence, your social skills, you can work out etc. etc. but you don't need to reflect every crappy little thing in an RPG. Especially because RPG sklills usually represent entire brances of knowledge "Science" "Athletics" "Hand-to-hand" etc.), not single tricks. If I really REALLY wanted to put trained observation in an RPG it would probably be a minor specialty/merit/perk/feat/(pick the name your system uses).


Vree’s opinion is fucking stupid. And yes, in some games, knowing how to properly apply physical strength to certain tasks should be a fucking skill.

And again, eeldip puts their two cents in:
sometimes, skills like perception tempts people to take away from some fun aspect of the game. example: GM designs a trap, designs clues for its operation etc., essentially creates a puzzle. If perception is a skill in the game, the player will probably argue that with a good roll they should be able to figure the trap out. but the GM will want the players to unlock the puzzle as designed, because that is its whole point. so what do you do? you can force them to figure out the puzzle manually, but then what good is the perception skill? or you can give a bunch of hints to your puzzle, but then it diminishes the fun of the puzzle in the first place.


Hey chucklefuck, think about what you’re saying. If having those skills in the game interferes with your precious puzzle, what does that tell you about what the designer of the game thinks about your precious puzzle? The presence of those skills in such a game isn’t a problem with the game, it’s a problem with you using a hammer to screw in a screw. Wrong tool for the job, Bubba.

eeldip continues:
but my point above still stands: if you are giving out a bunch of clues, it makes the game less fun. so perhaps limit it to making the party impossible to surprise, etc, things that don't mess up puzzles

No, your point DOES NOT STAND because you’re projecting what you enjoy as universal “fun”, and that’s just ignorant.  So, stop being ignorant. And maybe do some thinking about your fucking puzzle fetish.

The problem of Intimidate as a skill (OP by FamousWerewolf)
-No two systems can agree on what stat it should be tied to – if it's based on your social ability, then big, tough, gruff characters can't be scary. If it's based on strength, then no one who isn't a brick can be scary. Neither makes any sense.

I wouldn’t expect two different systems to agree on this. They’re two different systems . . .

-Player threats are often backed up by both the capacity and the will to follow them through – in real life, if someone tries to scare you by pointing a gun in your face, chances are really they don't want to have to shoot. Unless someone's a sadist, they don't actually want to torture anyone else. PCs are far more capable of sociopathy, and often exist in worlds where violence is more commonplace and easier to get away with. If the players say "Do what we want or we'll kill you", they actually can and will – so even on a failed Intimidate roll, an NPC would often be suicidal to refuse.

Your logic is quite flawed here. How does the NPC know that the PCs are likely to kill them, but in real life, a person wouldn’t? Especially since in real life, a lot of mother fuckers will. This complaint of yours assumes metaknowledge on the part of the intimidated NPC, and a lack of understanding of actual human psychology and experience.


-By the same token, the ability to intimidate someone with a credible threat seems like it should be a very different skill to being to intimidate someone without one, by being either an inherently unnerving person, a good liar, or very good at persuading people that events won't work out well for them if they don't cooperate. Letting people use equivalent lying or persuasion skills in these instances feels like encroaching on Intimidate's niche.

That’s why you don’t just have one skill, and you don’t just tie it to one thing.

-Pass/fail feels oddly binary for attempting to scare someone, and when you do fail, it often feels very disempowering or unrealistic – my character is scary, why is this person randomly not scared of him?

Maybe your character isn’t as scary as you think it is. Maybe your character’s having a bad day. Maybe you’re using the wrong system for your goals in a game.

Still by FamousWerewolf:
What I meant was that if you've built a scary character, and you're trying to scare an NPC, it can feel disempowering or unrealistic for their reaction to be determined by the roll of a dice.

If you don’t want such a thing determined by the roll of the dice, again the problem isn’t the game; it’s you using the wrong fucking game.

By Pyromancer:
Intimidation is a social activity. A strong person isn't automatically intimidating, and if you look at the fiction, it often isn't the big, strong person who does the intimidating, but the clever, social person who has a few big, strong persons at his command. The strong persons are tools that help intimidating, like a gun to the head. They should give a bonus, like a good set of lockpicks should give a bonus to opening locked doors, or a high-end cyber matrix should give a bonus to hacking.

Another thing that should give a bonus to intimidation is your reputation. If the person you are talking to knows (or even have seen) that you casually blow off the heads of those that oppose you, that should help a lot.


Pyromancer nails it pretty solidly here.

By Dweller in Darkness:
I prefer to work in systems that don't use static skills for just this reason -

Well, look at that. Someone who understands right tool for the task they want to accomplish.

By braincraft:
This is a problem with simple social task resolution in general.

No, it isn’t. But thanks for the One True Wayism and your ongoing lack of actual contribution. Which is impressive, given that braincraft has maintained such over a 14 year period.

By FamousWerewolf:
I'm not necessarily talking about systems where a 1 is an automatic failure – I happen to dislike that mechanic myself too. All that my example required was the possibility of failure - which, if you're rolling the dice at all, presumably exists. e.g. Say the ogre is rolling a d12 with +4 to the roll, and will succeed on a result of 6 or more - the only dice roll he can fail on is a 1.

That’s the 64th post in the thread.  A thread in which many people have pointed out that if you don’t like that possibility, don’t roll the dice, or don’t use a system that allows it. Gee, I’m starting to think that FamousWerewolf isn’t interested in a discussion, but in getting people to simply agree with them.

How does alignment not get out of hand when you have an evil party member? (OP by Supercredit)
like. If the group is just some neutral to good people, just kind of adventuring, how does it work when one guy is inherently evil.

Let's take it in star wars terms because that's like my zone. In a group with a jedi, smuggler, commando, and bounty hunter...how would a random dark side user even fit in to the party? Like...wouldn't that player kind of fuck up things everyone's trying to do?

To the bolded – no. Glad I was able to clear that up for you.

By The Human Target:
It really is hard and doesn't make much sense when you think about it.

If you lack the basic imagination required to figure this one out, roleplaying games might not be the hobby for you.

Let me see if I can explain this:

The evil character is still a person. People are complex and contradictory. There. The only times this can’t work is when one or more of the players is a childish jackass, or a narrow-minded jackass.  If the evil character is one-dimensional, then there will probably be some issues. But then, that will likely be the case if the good characters are also one-dimensional (for example, see almost every thread about paladins ever).

Now that doesn’t mean evil characters should be allowed at every table. Any given table may just be uncomfortable with it, and that’s fine. But acting like you just don’t understand how it could work only says something about you.

Basically, don’t play one-dimension characters.

I disagree with most of this thread. It treats evil more like Neutral.

No, Target, it doesn’t. You just don’t like that it’s not conforming to your specific, myopic, ignorant view of things.

The rest of this thread is about what you’d expect and have seen before in countless alignment and evil party member threads.

How might a character originally from Athas develop divine power? (OP by 1000thSon)
I've put together a character I like, but I still haven't resolved this sticking point. He's a mul who becomes a paladin (after escaping servitude in Athas), in a campaign set outside of Athas, and I'm trying to figure out a way that might have happened. He respects power and as the gods are the most powerful beings, I don't think I'll have an issue explaining why he would gravitate towards worshiping the god who matches his beliefs once he's outside of Athas, but could his divine powers just start appearing then? When do paladin divine abilities normally start manifesting?

I also have to figure out how he even heard about the gods, which (in my current draft) is what prompted him to travel to another plane where he can commune with them.

I'm trying to work it into his escape and travel as much as I can without just have the story as 'he left athas and then later became a paladin'.

Sorry, bruh, but you’re gonna have to work with your GM on this one, and maybe do a lot more research on Dark Sun.

Let`s talk Alignment... Good, Bad or Unneessary? (OP by Ninjazombie42)
Alignments, do we need them? ....

Need? Depends on the game and the table.

What, am I beating a dead horse? Is this getting old?

Yes, and I’m reasonably sure that you know it.

Ok then, the question is more like, should we use them and, if so, how?

Should? Depends on the game and the table. How? Depends on the game and the table.

See a trend here?

The rest of the thread is the typical One True Wayism bullshit, with very little acknowledgement that, hey, IT DEPENDS ON THE FUCKING GAME AND THE FUCKING TABLE.

Why would a government want to control the people? (OP by briansommers)
. . . Is this a serious question? No, really, is this a serious question? If you can’t grok the basics of this, you need to spend your time reading history, sociology and psychology books, not working on a roleplaying game. That’s all I’m going to say in reply to this . . . question.

BRP quantum leap (OP by clarence redd)
I took a step back mentally today to ponder the changes currently happening to BRP, my rule system of choice. What I realized was that BRP is going through a massive quantum leap at the moment. A lot of stuff is happening at the same time, on several levels: with the actual rules, settings, game companies involved & the community.*

First reply is by Chaot:
There's a lot less Scott Bakula in this thread than I was expecting.

Yeah, pretty much. This thread isn’t even remotely about doing QL with the BRP system. Disappointing. I was looking forward to those arguments.

Suggestions needed for R Rated movie for a bunch of 13 year old boys (OP by Reynard)
To the parents of OM:

My son is having a sleep over with a few of his friends for his birthday and he is begging to be allowed to watch an R rated movie. My wife and I are ok with it, but we want to ease the kid in. We would rather aim for a few f-bombs and maybe some boobs rather than gory violence. Basically, we want him to be able to feel like he got to see a grownup movie without scarring the poor kid.

We aren't religious and we are not especially conservative. We do have a bias against violence, especially realistic violence, related to real world horror we experienced as a family.

if you have kids in the tween/early teen age group and let them see R rated movies, how'd that go? Any suggestions? Are there modern day equivalents of Fast Times at Ridgemont High or Revenge of the Nerds?

Uh, the first thing I would do is make sure the parents of the other kids are okay with their kids watching an R-rated movie. Well, okay, that’s not 100% accurate. I would let my SO find that out, because I wouldn’t actually give a damn what they thought.

Beyond that, hell if I know. I’m not up on the modern R-rated comedy type things. Different replies by people:

How about the 1992 Coppola version Dracula, in the classic tradition of kids staying up late to watch the Hammer movies?

How about just an old Hammer film? Why would you want to bore the hell out of them with Coppola’s Dracula?

Blade Runner would be another possibility.

Yes. Again, if you want to bore the shit out of them. Sorry, but BR just isn’t a very good movie. Pretty, yes.  Important, yes. Good? More like average.

When I was a boy, movies in the 80s were written for 13 year old boys:
Robocop
Alien and Aliens
Predator

Uh, you just read the title of the thread, and not the actual post, didn’t you?

Would Tremors or Arachnophobia work?

Is Tremors rated R? If so, that’s a pretty good suggestion. Fun movie.

My mom, thinking it was a rock-and-roll romantic comedy, once rented Sid and Nancy for our neighbor's daughter's 16th birthday party. Luckily the girls did not get around to watching the movie and we watched it that night, much to my mom's shock. My 16-year-old ass was sent to my room after the first ten minutes.

Wow, really? At 16, she made you stop watching Sid & Nancy? Was this before or after the evening’s breast feeding?

By Reynard:
Great suggestions, everyone. My wife is dead set on having it be something contemporary, so the good old stuff is out.

Well, shoot. That rules out a lot of good stuff. And that post is followed by a whole bunch of posts by people who didn’t read the OP’s update. Actually, almost the entire remainder of the thread is people suggesting old movies.

Dealing with racism and classism in fantasy games (and novels etc) (OP by Ozreth)
I was recently reading a 10 year old thread on a different forum about the existence of racism and classism in Brian Jacques Redwall series. The books are sometimes criticized for the hard line of good and evil drawn between the races. The mice, moles, badgers, hares etc. are always good. The rats, weasels, ferrets etc are always bad. Those good creatures living in the abbey are educated and articulate, while those living in the wilderness and who are typically evil are presented as uneducated, stupid, ignorant etc. In all of the books he wrote there is only one instance of one of the vermin showing a good side, and even then he was still not permitted to live with the good animals. Some people say this is a bad setup for children's books, but most argue that children only need broad strokes of good and evil and don't consider things on the same level that adults do, and if the books were written with adult thought in mind they would be horrible books for children. Some people extended this to Tolkien's writing as well.

That being said, I tend to be in the camp that thinks it's ok for children and that they don't generally think beyond broad strokes, and that the divides between those races in the Redwall books will not inform their decisions in the real world as they grow older. However, as an adult I am very aware of racism and classism and and completely against the reinforcing of such hierarchies. So what if we were to extend this to Dungeons & Dragons? How do we account for saying that Dark Elves, orcs, ogres, trolls etc are always the evil ones? Why has this stereotype barely been broken since Tolkien? Of course we get exceptions here and there, but they are exceptions.

Does anybody address this in their games? Does anybody think it's time to see a shift in this? I'm not entirely sure how I feel about it, but I do think I would like to try and break the mold in my games.

I keep trying to read this OP, but I get bored with it by the time I get to the word Redwall. But I’ll try . .  .


Yep, still bored, but I did make it to this:
How do we account for saying that Dark Elves, orcs, ogres, trolls etc are always the evil ones?

Which is pretty easy to answer: I don’t always have those things be evil. And I don’t just mean on the individual level. I have their societies as varied as ours, within parameters (for example, if my hobgoblin society is based on Ancient Rome or whatever).

But what I do at my table doesn’t mean much. I assume you’re asking about these things on the larger scale, and all we can do with regards to that is address concerns to the people making the materials that may be problematic, and/or get our own stuff out there.

Then follows a couple pages of two posters being deliberately obtuse. Which is apparently freely allowed now.  One of which, after combining a strawman with a slippery slope, tries to use “English is not my first language” as an excuse, even though it’s painfully obvious that they’re well-versed in English. To the point where I actually believe they’re lying about being ESL.

And now that person (Sidney) has a threadban. Thread pretty much dies shortly after that.

Very Random Superhero Comics (and movies, tv, and prose) Thoughts (OP by Khyron)
If Absorbing Man is wearing underpants and trousers, why isn't he cloth strength and textured all the time? If he punches Hulk or Thor when he's metal or rock strength and textured, shouldn't he instantly go from metal or rock to Hulk flesh or Asgardian flesh strength and texture? Is that an upgrade or downgrade?

You’re trying to be clever and failing at it.

Why does anybody ever bother trying to shoot a guy like Hulk or Thing with any kind of gun, even an artillery piece, years after their careers have started and their fame has spread?

Because you’ve got the ammo, so why not? Besides, you might get lucky.

It's one thing to hear about the Man of Steel. It's another to actually witness it happening in person. It's like thinking you're finally gonna be the guy who takes down Batman because of your six-month Krav Maga course.

Heh.

Heroes Reborn (no, not that one) (OP by King Snarf)
NBC, in their continued quest to be cutting edge and failing, have announced Heroes Reborn, a mini-series relaunch of a show that had one good season and then lumbered on in mediocrity for another 3 years before mercifully being put down.

On the plus side, my expectations for this are so low, that even if it's subpar, it will be a vast improvement.

That’s how low my expectations were, and it still managed to be worse than the worst the original run had to offer. Largely because of Judi Shekoni. My god, what a terrible, terrible actor.

if you could rebuild a game system (OP by zebaroth)
if you could rebuild a game from the ground up wiche one would pick what would change about it and why

Palladium
Too much to address in this small blog entry
Because I don’t like it the way it stands and it’s one I’ve tinkered with on and off for . . . 20 someodd years now.

An Observation on The Walking Dead (OP by AegonTheUnready)
I just finished watching "Here's not Here"*, and this thought struck me....
How many millions of lives would be saved if people just wore denim jackets?

Lots?

Then the zombies just beat you death and rip you pieces. Denim might stop a bite, but it's not going to stop grappling.

So, in a zombie apocalypse, I assume you’re just going to lay down and die, Xeno?

Why does almost every RPG have humans heroes physically superior to giant monsters? (OP by wisdomknight)
First I understand that the PC heroes need to be able to overcome large beasts and monstrosities and hordes of smaller creatures.
But why do most mechanics make humans have higher dmaage and HP/Health than creatures realisticaly that should be far stronger and more durable?

Why can't RPG systems focus on skills sets and feats/stunts (maybe with criticals) that can give experienced PCs the victory over massive giant monsters and against overwhelming odds?

Its just does not sit right with me that humans have physical stats better that what should be way overpowerings being.

Anyone else feel this way about RPGs?

Huh. Someone should probably read more than one or two rpgs before trying to proclaim truths about them.

I was hopeing for some RPG suggestions that are simple like DW but a bit more realistic that didnt have Godlike PCs.

Huh. You probably should have mentioned that at some point then.

Reply by Roadie:
I think the obvious answer here is to have a D&D setting where level corresponds to height increases.

Hit level 10 and you're basically guaranteed to look like an overidealized comic book character, closer to seven feet than six and a picture of perfect muscular-athletic humanity.

After that things start to get... weird. Warriors start to grow iron plates out of their skin. Paladins become God-Emperor style shining exemplars cast at multiples of human scale. Sorcerers start getting itchy urges to collect treasure.

That’s . . . actually a pretty nifty idea and a setting I’d be interested in playing in.

The thread then develops an odd tangent about lamp oil, kerosene and napalm . . .

Gaming Confessions (OP by CoreyHaim8myDog)
What do you have to confess? What unorthodox view do you take? What do you hate that others love?

For example:

I think vampires are silly and emo.

I don’t have anything to confess. Confession implies shame. And vampires are only silly and emo if someone runs them that way, so your “confession” is myopic and stupid.

The rest of the thread is stupid whining about shit. Which, in the OP’s defense, I think was the goal. So congratulations, OP.

[A bit ranty] Non-violent RPGs (OP by Frecus)
So, what other RPGs actually are out there that aren't centered on beating the bad guys? Why don't I see them discussed here?

I don’t know, and if I had to guess, because the people playing them aren’t discussing them here. Honestly, that second question is kinda dumb.

By temnix:
You are a woman, right?

Well, that’s an out of the blue, unsupported assumption based on absolutely nothing.

Continuing with temnix (join date November 2015, 32 posts at this point):
Also in defense of D&D I have to say that it doesn't have to be violent. You are coming to it, Frecus, in an era when it's all about combat and numbers to show who's stronger. It wasn't always this way. D&D in its early days and AD&D allowed a lot of space for exploration, dialogue, just wondering at magical and beautiful places. Monstrous Manuals had sections devoted to ecology and habitat/society of various creatures and races. How you played depended very much on the Dungeon Master and the group. Are you familiar with Planescape? It's an AD&D setting about the multiverse, with outer and inner planes, palaces of the gods, an Infinite Staircase... Still adventuresome, not homey, but come on, girls like that too.  Oh, and I thought and still think you are a woman because you have a woman's head up there.

Gee, I have some suspicions concerning someone’s goals here . . .


By Elfaun:
About the cats thing... I am not sure how a game about sociopaths of which every appendage save the tail ends in something pointy and stabby would realistically not be violent...

Indeed, Elfaun, indeed. A game about cats is bound to be pretty violent.


By Sensei:
Well, no; your avatar is obviously female. It wasn't an assumption tenmix made so much as basic deduction, I tend to believe. That's not relevant to whether anything is sexist at all.

The OP’s avatar is of a cartoon character, possibly but not obviously female. I don’t see Sensie saying that a basic deduction is that the OP is a cartoon. Fucking moron.

And there’s temnix’s thread ban . . .

Dancing with excitement at some ideas in old issues of the Dragon (OP by temnix)
Blah blah blah

I don't want to end the post sadly, but if an original magazine article strikes as a revelation, that must be because the landscape is so very bleak. The reasons - they are all too clear.

And again, blah blah blah.

Does anyone keep monster STATS secret from your players? (OP by wisdomknight)
Im wondering if anyone does this (assuming theyre not reading monster manuals and such)?

How about the more narrative games like Dungeon World and FATE?
Wouldnt keeping stats only to the GM be even more effective for making the fiction even more real?

Im curious to hear how well it worked for any of you.

Nope. Not one single person on the planet does this. . .

Is it insensitive to play characters of another ethnicity, sexuality, gender, religion etc. than yourself? (OP by Ninjazombie42)
We play elves, dwarves, orcs, aliens and robots, maybe even talking animals and the occasional brain in a jar.
That is all good, RPGs are an escape from reality and we like to play interesting and often weird characters that are far removed from ourselves and the world we live in.
But what about characters of this world, that are very different from ourselves, not just in personality, but in culture and way of life.
Is it ok to take on the role of a halfling, but not a real world minority that you don`t belong to, because it is just to close? Or is it all good if handled right?

I have , once or twice, played female characters, I`m male, and different nationalities myself and I am fine with it, but I haven`t yet played different skin colors and sexualities.
Well real world skin colors that is (Wait, I actually played a half indian/half norwegian guy in a power rangers oneshot).
A (white) friend of mine played a japanese outsider character who hated the chinese, in a Deadlands campaign I was in, that didn`t come off as insulting either and was a good fit for the setting.
I guess chinese and native american and all sorts of nationalities is common in that game.

What do you think? I guess I can see both sides of the arguement. And I didn`t really put up that much of a fight when a GM I`m going to play under soon, told me he wouldn`t let us play gay or female characters in his upcomming Star Wars game.
I have another GM I know would be just fine with it and would maybe even incourage it, I know I am fine with it as a gm too and like my players to take on roleplaying challenges, as long as they take the role seriously and don`t play it as a joke or an insult(not that characters can`t be funny or silly of course, but THAT shouldn`t be the joke).

Want to share your thoughts?


My thoughts are No, it’s not. Unless you’re being a douchebag about it. As TheMouse says:
It's insensitive if you do it insensitively. Otherwise you're good.

Exactly, and yet somehow, that wasn’t the end of the thread. In fact, it goes on for another 68 posts or so . . .

Reply from Flibbertigibbet:
Playing a Black Gang Member from Compton, for example, is probably needlessly difficult.

No, not really.

Supergirl: Why are we Grateful Instead of Thankful? (OP by ntharotep)
Note: ntharotep is both stupid, and a troll, so keep that in mind.

So in the last episode of the series which I am still on the fence about all tings considered - when they had Thanksgiving with Kara, her adopted mom, sister, and her poor friend who wants to be more than friends it was all about being "grateful" instead of "thankful".
I'm not a big stickler for wording (unless its blatantly lacking any relation to the language its supposed to be in) but this one grated on me. I probably wouldn't have even noticed, or only said "hmm" and moved on but it was used a number of times in the same scene so it struck me as odd.
I can't understand the rewording of a family tradition that takes place in a lot of households.
I can't imagine it being a "religious thing" because I've seen this tradition in a lot of non-religious households, I could see it as an alien thing where Kara fell back to her alien roots where a similar tradition was grateful instead of thankful, but then why the entire group using the grateful line?
I am mainly wondering if I'm missing something and if anyone else even noticed.
Sometimes I like to overthink my entertainment

Stop being a dipshit, dipshit.

Horror vs Grimdark (OP by Killer300)
There is no versus.

The rest of the thread is people arguing about what is and is not grimdark. Because it’s a useless fucking word at this point.

Don't tell me what my imagination must be like (OP by temnix)
Here is a mental experiment. Suppose you have a vivid imagination and like to invent characters and wonderful places, link them up into adventures, come up with cosmic laws and quaint little details. Some of these you've picked up from history books. And you want to share all those ideas - exchange those ideas - with other people, get them in a game as players or be a player yourself. And this thing is called Role-Playing Games. So you go online. And you look for a site where lots of players and referees gather. Not some obscure corner of the Web, some half-private board that gets a dozen visitors in total. You want some kind of RPG Central. Because in a place like that there are bound to be enough people like yourselves. Not everybody, but a noticeable portion.

Well, what would be the address for a site like that? RPG... something dot something. Com? No. Org? Getting closer... Net? Must be right, RPG.net! Your notes tucked under your arm, you browse giddily to this place and prepare to discuss plots, invent personalities, suggest answers to people's questions, ask your own. The ideas you will hear! You are pretty sure that you will be humbled before long. You have fairly high expectations.

Then the golden gates open, and you are, like,

What the F...!?

1/10. You troll like a 1st grader discovering their genitals.

Don't presume to tell me what my imagination must be like.

Good thing no one is doing that, shit troll.

Third post in the thread is a mod closing the thread.

I'm not the least bit interested in the new Star War movie. (OP by Cthulhucollector)
Not sure if it is just me getting old or what but I seem to no desire to see The Force Awakens. I saw the original trilogy in the theater and own many copies of it. Anyone else kinda just meh about it. I keep wondering if the prequels left such a bad impression that they sucked the joy out if Star Wars for me. Does anyone else feel the same?

Goodie for you? Hate to tell you, but no one gives a fuck if you’re interested in it or not. Not even you.

Robert E. Howard and the Vale of Lost Women (OP by YojimboC)
We revisit the Lovecraft = racist well very often. I think it's Howard's turn.

I finally picked up the first of the Del Rey omnibuses, and I'm reading Conan stories I've never read before. One of those is "The Vale of Lost Women" which is the (so far) most abominable thing I've read by Howard. The racist caricatures are one thing - they've appeared before, and reflect the general racism of the early 20th century - and while they're bothersome even for a white person like me, they're not the worst thing that happens.

But I found Conan's own thoroughly 20th century racism rather jarring. He massacres an entire village, breaking a treaty in doing so, in order to save one white woman from being raped by black men. The sexual politics here are pretty gross too, as initially Conan trades the woman's virtue for her rescue, but because he's a decent fellow (unlike those blacks, you see), he decides to just do the right thing and rescue her and send her back to her people untouched. But that's after murdering an entire village of men, women and presumably children. Also after saying that, even if the woman was old and ugly, he'd still kill the whole village to keep her out of the hands of black people because of the color of her skin.

I'm usually pretty good at trying not to judge an author for the prevailing attitudes, prejudices, and failings of their time, but this one really bothered me.

Is this the worse that Howard gets?

Sure.

The rest of the thread is pretty much Arilou, a douchbag, being a douchebag, and ignoring everything everyone else is saying because it’s counter to Arilou’s precious narrative.

Is no intitiative roll/no turns combat feasible in D&D? (OP by RobertF)
Sure. For some tables.