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.
