|
quote:I still have all my 1st and 2nd edition book, which are all the core and source books. I also have DMZ and about 60 minis to boot. I haven't needed to change my game for a long time. When 3rd came out it made it easier for anyone to play and I didn't like that. I spent a good long time making a matrix deck and a custom character generator in BASIC to have it all slated as obsolete because FASA closed down and someone else couldn't just reprint and add to the world that was already established. I applaud Jordan for getting his stuff back and giving it some love, and I play MWO, MWT and I plan on buying whatever Shadowrun PC game comes out, but I already have all my books on my shelf I plan on buying... unless I find a Universal Brotherhood for a good price. quote:It's really weird for me to read that. Why is it a bad thing for a game to be more accessible? That means there's more players, and that's a win for everyone. quote:Because it took me and my group a long time to understand and run the matrix and foci correctly, and after years of playing and finally understanding the rules they threw them out the window. I had a lot invested in the system and it made sense at that point. Everyone that I played with were in the same boat too. No one in my area changed from 2nd to 3rd, and a lot of hardcore Shadowrun players at the time felt the same way. Only new players bought 3rd. It created a big divide. We had a pretty big FASA supporter in our area at Challenge Games, Forest Brown was a developer for a lot of FASA products and even had a hand in making Axis and Allies. I enjoyed the fact that people were playing Shadowrun 3rd, but they wouldn't play second because of the mechanical differences. I don't think a game has to be made easier for it to be accessible. quote:But if the rules are so crappy (read "complex and hard to understand" there) that it takes your group a long time to master them, isn't it a fantastic thing that they were later streamlined? The newer rules don't remove the joy you guys got from your 1st & 2nd ed Shadowun games, of course, and I get that having your system mastery of the old rules no longer apply would be annoying. But accessible rules that are also fun help bring in new players, and new players keep a game alive. quote:My point exactly!
|
![]() |
|
![]()
|
# ? May 18, 2024 18:38 |
|
Jim of LOTFP has written posts on Sexuality and D&D and D&D and Racism…I suggest that my gentle reader should have a look. I did not comment on either post, for a number of reasons, first and foremost being the absurd emotional argument that was bound to arise about the modern world, political correctness, approvals, social responsibility and blah, blah, blah. I have lots to say about that, but not within the subject of D&D. Briefly, I state that I’m opposed. To racism, prejudice, abuse, etc. Who wouldn’t be? That said, I accept that such things go on in the world; and often I feel responsible for pointing out that they continue regardless of all the sobbing, pontificating, accusing, stamping do-gooders in the world. I don’t dispute that particular method of relating—I do it enough myself, as anyone knows—but I do despise the self-imposed blindness that insists that anything believed now must be retroactively incorporated into any described history dogmatically and without restraint. That is, if we don’t mass-slaughter people now, we must condemn people who have been dead 400 years repeatedly for having done it. As though somehow that changes the event. I run a world that is a distorted simulation of Earth history circa 1650. It is distorted in that magic and monsters exist, thus changing many of the borders, historical events and social perceptions. For example, my 17th century religious leaders don’t burn witches in order to gain their property, since witchcraft is an accepted practice and often necessary for the defense of the state. However, my 17th century religious leaders DO burn witches who are seen as potentially threatening the state…or the religious authority of those same religious leaders. They also burn non-witches for being “hidden” witches threatening the power structure. This is done gleefully, pragmatically, extensively and methodically. I don’t apologize as a DM for the massacre of hundreds of innocent people, for two reasons. One, it was done, the art reflects the reality, and get over yourself. Two, no one is actually dying. Nor do I think it likely that someone is going to play in my world, rush out, seize a person and burn them just because they heard me describing it in my world. It is MORE likely that one of them will read the BIBLE, seize a person and burn them for being a witch. So you might want to start your protests with that elephant, and not with me. Of course, I’m more accessible. My various emperors, kings, viziers and dukes massacre, assassinate, fornicate and appropriate at will. Being monarchs in a monarchical system, their only opponents are lesser nobles, whose primary interests are in that the King doesn’t get to be the only one massacring and fornicating. I don’t apologize for all this activity, or the fields of dead, staked victims, clogged river courses or other circumstances which I have occasionally had reason to include for dramatic effect. I have also included rampant disease, crippling worldwide poverty and famine. I have yet to have a player decide to do anything about these horrors on any kind of scale, but of course the potential is there. It could be a quest—but then, I don’t give quests. Nor have I ever heard of a DM suggest, as a quest, that the players should “bring about the welfare of the kingdom” as part of their activities. Oh sure, they might be instructed to remove the Evil Usurper to the throne…but like American foreign policy, it is always assumed that this will instantly produce a kind, considerate ruler and everything will be fine. Which is really the height of hubris. Given an environment with this kind of ongoing bastardy, I find it vaguely humorous that players would have trouble with the homosexuality of other players. It might be that I am playing with people who have little interest in sex in my game—not that they don’t talk about it constantly before the game starts, after the game stops or during the necessary convenience store run that must occur at half-time. I play with some fairly young people, in their early 20s, so sex is a major issue for them (it is for me, too, but for different reasons than my being young). Since I run a 17th century reality, homosexuality wouldn’t last long on the streets if a player pursued it. With clerics wandering around using Know Intent (my version of Know Alignment), which indicates only if a person intends on doing evil, things get freaky pretty fast. A party member would only need to wander in the vicinity of a cathedral where one of the many 3rd-level deacons of the church, sweeping the street at random, was able to discover that the particular homosexual party member was a very nasty creature indeed. A foreigner, too, walking past with all that equipment, nice clothes and probable wealth, all to go automatically into the pocket of the church when that individual is RIGHTLY executed for being a non-approved member of society. No, I’m not a nice guy. My societies are repressive. Just like a 17th century world, only WITH the actual magical ability to find out what you’re thinking. I don’t do this just to be a poo poo. I do it because I want my players on their toes, because this creates tension, drama, adventure and a real desire to get tougher and stronger, just so the player can do whatever the gently caress he or she loving wants. You see, the average homosexual gay wannabe player is usually able to do this with no consequences whatsoever, being able to throw out into the game a lot of droll sexual innuendo, lame juvenile attempts at roleplaying and a lot of predictable childishness. Whereas I have this feeling that IF someone wants to play a homosexual in a world, then they ought to be drat well aware that they’re hated, that forces want them loving DEAD and that those forces are in charge of everything. Creating the sense of mind that a homosexual player just wants to change his/her world enough that they can practice in peace. This is a much better driver for story than butt cheeks and cum jokes. The same goes for anyone who is a Jew, a Cathar, a worshipper of Satan, a Hindu in England or a Christian in Borneo. You are fighting the status quo. To win against the status quo will require more than just a lot of stupid jokes. You will have to face prejudice, hatred, abuse, persecution and assassination. If you win against all that, you will feel as a player as though you are on top of the world. Now, everything I’ve just said above applies to race, as well. Negros are captured and shipped in miserable conditions to America, where they are beaten. While my demi-humans tend to get on with each other (unlike the PHB), there are quite a lot of blood feuds between dwarves and goblins, elves/gnomes and gnolls, orcs and humans, hobgoblins and everyone, and so on. In a few cases, where land has long been in dispute, there are some blood feuds between humans and demi-humans, most notably between the Swedes and the elves over the territory of central Finland. For the most part, however, segregation is the rule and they just don’t live in the same room. Which doesn’t keep them for going to war occasionally just to kill as many as possible. Which brings me to the subject of women. In 1650, it was easier to be a woman if you were born to a rich family, or nobility. Joan of Arc, two hundred years earlier, was much rarer than adventurous women in the 17th century. That doesn’t mean they were respected; only tolerated. I tend to ease up somewhat on my women characters, since for the most part the company they keep is within the party. It is easier for female demi-humans, as the race is seen first and the sex second. It is also mitigated in that most of would-be rapists are considerably lower level that any party member who might venture off on her own. Given the chance, however, I won’t hesitate to describe the rape of a party member, whatever their sex (orcs are pretty indiscriminate). I have yet to have any such occurrence happen in my world (and it hasn’t with these present players) where it turned out to be funny. But that is the way I tell the story. To sum up. I run a world steeped in evil. The ordinary, historical evil that has always been a part of history. I run it indiscriminately and without regret. I run it that way to give the party a chance to rise above it, to feel the indecency and—if they want to—do something about it. I also run it that way so that if the party feels they want to wallow in it, they can. I haven’t noticed that many of the sort of people I call my friends want to wallow in it for very long. That, too, is the way I tell the story. Because wallowing has its own consequences. Recently a player made the point that the party—by their actions—are more monsters than the monsters. And that she feels that this ought to change, since they seem to be constantly pursued wherever they go by people who hate them. This is how stories develop. First, the injustice is made clear. After, it might be ignored. Then it becomes too hideous to ignore. And steps begin to do something about it. I won’t, however, sanitize my world the way people want to sanitize all human history. gently caress that. Let’s have a clear understanding of what we are, as thinking beings, and then let’s play in a world where we’re not afraid to face the evil. Let’s grow up.
|
![]() |
|
Winson_Paine posted:First casualty of not reading the OP. Meanwhile: quote:These figures pretty much guarantee that the entire size of the serious Storygamer hobby is well under 3000 people. He's pretty much their most successful writer, and he's never sold 3000 copies of even his most successful games. quote:What makes me roll my eyes is when I read stuff to the extent of "there's absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between Dungeon World and D&D! It totally is a traditional game! It's the same thing, but cooler!" That's nonsense. quote:
|
![]() |
|
Some home grog from my Uni, we are trying to change the system of a big Bi-yearly game to something that isn't as complex or takes as long to run as 4e, someone has this to say about why we should stick to D&D:quote:I like DnD because it is a mechanic I can put down and pick up whenever, without have to try and remember a lot of complicated stuff. It is a system that gives me a rich choice of character options (even more when used with all the only stuff etc.) that means I can play almost any character I wish, and due to its flexibility I can build in flaws and character traits into my character that enable me to either roleplay the character, or when having a bad day and things in cranium are not working optimally just pick up a dice and roll play the character.
|
![]() |
|
quote:So I was trying to get people on board for PnP games recently but... well I ran into a Major problem: Even with Call of Cthulhu or even Unknown Armies, is there a way to get people on board in games where all your actions add up to nothing... or is this the wrong kind of hobby for the "hopeless-focused" person? I just can't find people who want to play my grim game without making it less hopeless. quote:... tough crowd then... I'm making it hard on myself by picking a theme not many want to try... and harder when you find out that you can't get anyone on board then... ... tough crowd...So... just gonna wait until trends change so my friends can handle my dark vision. quote:Well, after alot of failures, I really do not want to revisit these ideas that fail... mainly because they bring back bad memories... Wait it's a story that goes so badly you don't even want to talk about it anymore? Where do I sign up?! quote:I do however think it'll be cool to do Lovecraft in Golarion (PF's default setting) though, just to give me the honor of declaring "Cthulhu devours 1d6 characters, no Save, PCs get priority over NPCs" otherwise... This is a dark, hopeless style game way too hopeless for you guys to understand ===== Pathfinder's default setting but I get to kill the party in one turn. EDIT: Best part of the thread: Old Geezer posted:I am already playing a game full of hopelessness where my every action will be futile. ![]() Neo Rasa fucked around with this message at 06:35 on Apr 2, 2013 |
![]() |
|
I actually have been saving up grog just in case this thread came back, but I'm going to ease into it with the groggy game bits and then work my way up to the sexism-grog tangentially related to games that got me saving grog up in the first place.quote:
KirbyJ fucked around with this message at 07:33 on Apr 2, 2013 |
![]() |
|
Really if there's anything to remember about g.txt it's that in the first thread we posted Old Geezer as grog, and now he's just this guy who's sometimes pretty cool and just enjoys his old games and has fun. We still post him, but usually on the opposite end of the spectrum. Edit: God dammit, fine. quote:Personally, I would prefer it if they drop the "expected to level every X sessions" it's the first step on the road of entitlement and I would much rather have it nipped in the bud, I think that player advancement rate should have it's own subsection in the DMG with all the different methods of earning XP. ProfessorCirno fucked around with this message at 10:19 on Apr 2, 2013 |
![]() |
|
"[Rant] Sex Brothel Prostitute Naked Art Boobies Penis Vagina RPG":trechriron posted:I just want to state for the record that I find all these threads on TBP about sex, brothels, prostitutes, naked art, boobies, penis, vaginas, misogyny, and the like to be loving ridiculous. Not just silly. Not just useless. loving beyond ridiculous. In response to Vincent Baker releasing his sales figures: RPGPundit posted:These figures pretty much guarantee that the entire size of the serious Storygamer hobby is well under 3000 people. He's pretty much their most successful writer, and he's never sold 3000 copies of even his most successful games. "You must re-write ONE TSR-era D&D book": thedungeondelver posted:
![]() Apocolypse world is immature!: BedrockBrendan posted:
jibbajibba posted:
"Are your fantasy cities dirty or clean?" The Traveller posted:Filthy dirty, a brothel on every streetcorner. flyingmice posted:I totally read this thread as "Are your fantasy titties dirty or clean?" "So, I played Dungeon World last night..": Bobloblah posted:
|
![]() |
|
The "So, I played Dungeon World last night..." thread on theRPGSite is amazing.Remember that guy The Traveller who tried to start a goon witch hunt and got checked by Tarnowski and Benoist? lol posted:Then there's nothing shared-narrativey I can see about this game. It's a different style of game, one I haven't seen before except in gamebooks, for example as krakajak says moves have a very broad scope of action and resolution, they need to because there aren't many of them, and you can't have many of them because you'd have to spend half the game referencing desciptions (the tradeoff), but he is mistaking the normal player driven sequence of a roleplaying game for narrative control - these have two completely different meanings. Here we see the complex web of denial and cognitive dissonance that is typical of advanced cases of grognardia bigdumbguygus.
|
![]() |
|
GEExCEE posted:The "So, I played Dungeon World last night..." thread on theRPGSite is amazing. quote:I'm sorry to keep doing this to you people out there who haven't the opportunity to see these videos wherever you may happen to be, but lately I've just been feeling very visual, I've been seeking out lecture videos on youtube (which is a marvelous, time-consuming exercise) and its terribly convenient to be able to point out to people, "See, I'm not crazy, really brilliant people think so too!"
|
![]() |
|
If you are a player, get lost. This is an open letter to Dungeon Masters, Game Masters, Watchers, Storytellers, Keepers, Game Trustees, and all other runners of role-playing games, regardless of title, game preference, style, or affiliation. If you've never sat behind the screen or you've sat there only once or twice and swore you'd never do it again, you have no business reading this. And no business responding to it. And if you are a master of games and want to disagree with this, you are an enemy of the cause. Don't bother. You will find no friends here. No allies. No sympathy. We don't want to hear it. Dear Master of Games, You are different. You are special. And you should be proud of that. There is this oft-repeated maxim, especially among players but occasionally among games masters, that GMs are not really special and should not be elevated. This is a toxic, terrible attitude. It is wrong. You are special. And you have a right to be proud. Whatever your style, whatever game you run, and however you do it, you love your game and you work hard to make it happen. Whether you sit for hours drawing maps or spend a few minutes dashing off some stat blocks between work and the game; whether you lose yourself in traffic fantasizing about some imagined city to bring to life in your game or just set your brain to racing trying to find a voice for an NPC in the scant seconds you have before you have to respond to a player; whether you labor over glue and paints and ceramic bits to build a sprawling model for one ten minute combat or you just weave a verbal description off the top of your head for every skirmish; you are special and you should be proud of what you do. Without you, the game cannot happen. Without you, the best anyone can hope for is a board game. A video game. You make it possible for the players to make real choices, even if they haven't been planned out in advance. You make it possible for the game to wander off in sudden, unexpected directions and to take on a life of its own. You give the world life and depth and vibrance. You do that. GMs will argue endlessly about the best way to do this and that. They will argue about "yes, and..." and failing forward and binary rules and simulationism and player agency and binary outcomes and this will be good and that will be bad and the other is the only way to get players invested. And those arguments are so much noise and fury that signify nothing. They don't matter. They are window dressing. They are bullshit. And the more passionately you argue for one over the other, the more full of bullshit you are. The best way to run a game is just to run a great game. And to run it passionately. To run it with love. I know that sounds like sentimental crap. But it is true. If you don't love running your game, stop doing it. Because you will never make anyone happy. You will never make yourself happy. I have been called a terrible, awful DM. I have been called that by other DMs. Because I am railroady. Because I keep a tight leash on world building. Because I am old fashioned and old school and don't believe in player agency over the narrative. I have been called a bad DM because I encourage other DMs to set whatever restrictions on the game they think they need to ensure they love their game. But those people have never sat down at my table and played my game. The people who have played my game, they keep coming back. They don't call me terrible or awful at all. Well, most of them don't. Look, it is going to happen. Eventually, you are going to do something or decide something and a player is going to object. You are going to place a restriction and a player is going to chaffe at it. You are going to run a serious game and a player is going to try to inject ridiculous silliness. You're eventually going to come up against one or more of your players. And then, you have a choice to make. If you stand your ground, you may make the player unhappy. The player may become angry or disruptive. Or they may get over it and have fun anyway. Or they may walk away from the game forever. If they are a friend, you may lose that friend. Of course, if you give in on something you think is important, you may learn to live with it and keep loving your game. Or you may not. And you may lose the game. And that is one of the hardest decisions a GM has to make. And no matter what anyone tells you, there is no pat, simple answer. There are those out there who will say the GM should always give in, that the GM's love of the game and their sense of fun is always less important than that of the players. They will say the GM has a duty to give up his or her fun first for the sake of the players' fun. And that is a stupid, stupid standpoint. I have nothing against compromise. I have nothing against making sacrifices for the players' enjoyment. But the idea that that is always the only answer is moronic. When you face this problem (and you will someday), be immediately suspicious of any GM who tells you which path you should choose. No one - NO ONE - can make that decision but you. Because you have to get through it with your love of the game intact. You have to love the game you are running. Sometimes, the right answer is to accept that you have a player whose style doesn't work at your table. And that player needs to find another table. And you need to find another player. And the fact that you even have to agonize over that choice - and it is an agony - is part of why you are special. And why you should be proud. Because no one else at the table has that weight on them. No one else voluntary carries that weight like you do. This is a loving game about elves pretending to kill orcs at a renaissance faire. On top of the work that is required just to make that game even happen, you have to worry about the fact that you might have to sacrifice your love of it or give up a friend forever. Holy poo poo. That's the thing. You can't be a lazy GM. You can't half-rear end it. The longer you are at it, the more likely you are going to face one of those choices. Even if you manage the workload, even if you find all the tricks to focus only on the parts of the game you love, eventually, there is going to be a human conflict at the table and you will have to be the one to resolve it. Sometimes, it sucks to be the GM. Seriously. Sometimes you will have to do the game prep even when you don't want to do it. Sometimes you will have to break up a fight between two players. Sometimes you will want to do anything but run a game, but you can't bring yourself to ruin the night for five other people who are relying on you. Every decision you make affects every other person at the table. And if you don't love doing it most of the time, eventually, all those suckages are going to add up. Sometimes, they add up even if you do love it. And you burnout. Or you quit. And so, again, you are special. And you should be proud. Remember, your players do keep coming back. Every time they show up, they are electing you as their leader. The runner of the game. You are winning a popular vote every single game session. You are beating out other GMs and other games, but you are also beating out movies and video games and miniature golf and whatever other poo poo kids get up to these days. And that means you have built something great. Something worth being proud of. Even if you've done it through agency and delegation and collaboration, you have still made that happen. It isn't easy to get people to work together. It isn't easy to direct people toward a unifed whole. And you've done it. You. You are special. And you should be proud. And every GM should be willing to tell every other GM: "you are special and you should be proud." Because the players won't always say it, even if they are thinking it. Any GM who tells you that the GM is nothing special and the GM's happiness is less important than the players is a bad GM. Not an ally. Not a friend. Because we all face the same things. However we run our games, whatever choices we make as GMs, they are between us and our players. And they are personal choices. But all GMs are on the same side. We need to stick together. And we need to love our games. And we need to tell each other: "you are special and you should be proud." Yes. Anyone COULD be a GM. But you actually ARE a GM. Anyone COULD do a lot of things. But only a select few choose to do it. And fewer still stick with it when it gets rough. The special people are not the people who could do things. The special people are the people who do do things. You are special. And you should be proud. And don't let anyone else tell you otherwise. Sincere Regards, The Angry DM
|
![]() |
|
Halloween Jack posted:I love it. No one is interested in learning about the game; they're investigating it for Swine heresy. quote:We played it once, and I wouldn't do so again. There's no initiative system, so everything comes down to whatever a-hole decides to shout the loudest.
|
![]() |
|
MadScientistWorking posted:I always wonder why people always blow a gasket over this one thing in that game. quote:People wonder why I've called this blog the "Tao" of D&D. And some have asked that if I had no intention of speaking about Taoism, why did I name the blog as I did? My conception of Tao is that it is a path. I don't propose to know what Tao is. No Taoist does. The path itself is the process. I don't claim that there is "a way" to play D&D ... I only claim that I am "on the way." I'm examining the intricacies of what the game offers or suggests.
|
![]() |
|
Purely out of curiosity, what roleplaying system do you think would best suit the Doctor Who universe? I think it would need to be more story-focused than simulation-focused. It also shouldn't have too much of an emphasis on combat. Perhaps FATE. Or some sort of Apocalypse World derivative. I am aware that there is a Doctor Who roleplaying game. I haven't read or played it, but based on what I've heard, I'm not a fan. It doesn't sound like it fits the faerie tale logic of the show.
|
![]() |
|
Subtle grog. quote:I know this topic has been posted, but I want to ask what does VtR have in the way that makes it better or atleast Not the worst grog, but the crazy part is that people still post stuff like this on the WW forums in twenty-loving-thirteen.
|
![]() |
|
Yet more fang-grog from that same thread.quote:At their core, they're the same game. Requiem is essentially a return to the themes of 1st edition Masquerade, being a generic vampire roleplaying game about being a tortured immortal antihero suffering from conflicting urges that ultimately lead to his salvation or damnation, before all the cruft and bloat about ancient conspiracies secretly controlling world affairs and the awakening of vampire cthulhu stole the spotlight. It should surprise no one that Blood and Smoke is a product which hasn't even been published yet, and that said grognard never elaborated on this claim. Nor should the fact that neither Requiem nor Masquerade are actually about antihero blah blah salvation blah blah damnation. PantsOptional fucked around with this message at 16:32 on Apr 2, 2013 |
![]() |
|
Somebody is crowdfunding a pirate themed card game and so far the pirates on the card art are all male. Someone asked about the possibility of adding lady pirate cards and the creator decided to ask the Board Game Geek community for advice. It's going poorly: http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/955726/is-walk-the-plank-sexist/page/1 quote:This game is very sexist. quote:And if you get the women quota down then you are certainly missing: Considering racial stereotypes a racist depiction: unreasonable PC police whining.
|
![]() |
|
quote:The Power Gamer-also known as Twinky, Twink, Warmonger is a main stream player type and is usually the first step before becoming a PK'er.. Of course I've run into hundreds of players just like this. In a thread entitled What is "Power Gaming"? on the WW forums. 1.) Oh, you had a question about something? Let me tell you this story about how awesome my character once was. 2.) The day I refer to anyone I game with as a "PK'er" at the tabletop is the day I don't game with them anymore. 3.) The proper response to any conflict around the table is to escalate the conflict in game, with the cooperation of your GM.
|
![]() |
|
Let's see what's up with The Gaming Den!quote:I happen to have accidentally run across this .... and, apparently, this is a commonly-expressed sentiment, and has been since the beginning of 4e: quote:4E invented "shouting at people to just change the flavour of stuff if it's not in the game yet". When the game dropped, people had some real questions that needed answering: Meanwhile, Mr. Trollman has opinions on Story Games: quote:"Story Games" is a term from the Forge. As such, it doesn't actually mean anything. The Forge specialized in coining words that sounded like they meant something but then "defining" them with rambling twenty thousand word essays that were not internally consistent. That should be an exaggeration, but it isn't.
|
![]() |
|
quote:In yesterday's post I proposed a moral dilemma: if there are two adjacent cultures possessing markedly different technologies, so that one is vastly superior militarily than the other, what action might a D&D party in a campaign take? Should the party distribute weapons to the destitute culture, or should the party work towards keeping the status quo? It should be noted that choosing to do nothing is in fact choosing the second option.
|
![]() |
|
Guilty Spork posted:Meanwhile, Mr. Trollman has opinions on Story Games: I'm gonna self-grog, gonna see if its a probate or not- Frank Trollman is right- the Forge crowd DID focus many of their efforts towards coining concepts embedded into such reductive and awkward comparative metaphors that it would make a first year econ major blush. But the true Laffer here is that Trollman himself actually uses one of the major orthodoxies of the Story Game movement- that all role-playing games are a collection of trade-offs between two or more opposing focuses- while still deriding their contributions. He has internalized the outsider lens and made it one with his own views, warping himself in the process. And such an act is nigh pre-destined: how could he avoid using the destructive iconoclastic phraseology typical what was a revolutionary hotbed for gaming? He fought monsters and in so doing became one. Yes, Frank Trollman has been Forged (ha!) into a weapon against other gamers and game-philosophies. So you cannot ask him to lay down his arms and cease his war- that is his everything. And this is why he is terrible. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
![]() |
|
quote:Help! My PC's jumped to the end of the adventure! Personally, I'd use this as an opportunity to teach them not to screw with the GM's plans. If they bypassed all your content, they must be feeling smug. Smite them. I'd be pretty ticked off if PCs skipped my content. It's hard work coming up with cool adventures along the way, so it's kind of a slap in the face for PCs to just give you the finger and skip it all. Let them fight and let them get slaughtered. Good doesn't always triumph over evil, after all. Demonstrate that hastily jumping at the final boss is a horrible course of action. Just my two cents. quote:Worst advice of the day u.u How so? When a DM creates content, it's a labor of love and it's hard work. For PCs to basically spit in your face and "har har we skipped it all" is way beyond insulting. Patience in a virtue, and if you run off to fight the final boss while woefully under-leveled, then it's your own fault if you die. Want something more gentle? Fine. Create the stage for the level it was intended to be entered at. When they start getting their butts kicked in the first room, they should be smart enough to say "Geez, we're not strong enough to handle this yet." They'll retreat and go gain some power of their own before coming back. A DM shouldn't nerf the BBEG just because the PCs find a way to fight him early. If anything, that sort of insolence needs to be punished, otherwise any schmuck could go in there and take deal with it. Then maybe the PCs will think twice about skipping several levels of content in the future. quote:I find your post hilarious, really. " I am the DM and if you do not do exactly th thing I have planned for you then I will kill your Pcs". Pardon me if I would be a bit ticked off to work really hard on a nice adventure and then the PCs decice "screw it, we're gonna storm the BBEG's fortress instead", leading to delays in gaming and a loss of productive time. I don't put in hard work on a stage just for it to be skipped. That's disrespect on the part of the PCs. quote:Players should be punished for having good ideas and avoiding encounters that aren't necessary to engage in? They didn't just avoid encounters, they avoided entire stages. That's not a "good idea", that's called "derailing the campaign". I won't have that at my table. If I put hard work into an adventure, I expect it to be played out. quote:9_9 No, I don't herd the PCs anywhere. Like I said, we hold to the old unspoken agreement of not trying to skip entire stages. Not catching every encounter within one stage is one thing, but PCs intentionally going around content is just bad gaming etiquette. In addition, if your BBEG is (just as an example) CR 20 and your APL is 13 (I know that's not the case here, this is just an example), you're not obligated to nerf said BBEG down to CR 15 just so the PCs stand a chance. The grinding is part of, shall we say, training. It's how you get powerful enough to beat the BBEG. If you skip the content intended to make you stronger to fight the CR 20 boss at Level 13, getting decimated is a perfectly just reward for such stupidity. I'm not gonna nerf my BBEG just so you can feel clever for having bypassed four or five stages. quote:Give them the XP for bypassing the encounters. Um, no. That's not how it works. You get XP for overcoming an encounter. If you skip it altogether, no XP, period.
|
![]() |
|
Grog happens. Kind of tame, but that last line is just ![]() quote:You gotta know what the enemies are and you have to be in the vicinity. If you fly over an entire stage without setting foot in it, no XP because you skip the stage. If you're in the stage, and there's a fork in the path, and you go left, and there are no monsters there, but there were monsters on the right fork, no XP because you didn't go the direction that would have made the encounter relevant to begin with. If you walk into a room full of sleeping monsters, and instead of fighting you use Stealth to sneak past them, you do get XP because you were in the encounter area and actually had to use skills specific to that particular encounter. Like, what? Skipping content? It's not like some video game with cheat codes. Antigrog quip is go. RobertaYang posted:Level grinding is the funnest thing ever, I recommend telling the PC's to turn around and grind the Sunless Citadel until their numbers are big enough to permit them to return to the original campaign. Tell them the delay is their own fault for daring to actually move toward their objective, and murder them all if they refuse to waste time on pointless nonsense. In fact, kill them anyhow. They deserve it for ruining your game world. Probably. Seriously though, this is Pathfinder. Why don't they just have their caster blast out the support columns and make the tower floors crash down on the enemies below them? I thought Pathfinder was the system of *Creative Problem-solving* to 4E's *rollplaying*.
|
![]() |
|
quote:I sat down and tried to write up a 4E D&D character without using the D&D character creator, after 30 minutes I quit! I don't see how anyone can make up a PC in this game without resorting to some type of computer generation program, writing up what all these powers you select is a chore and my pencil started to burst into flames from all the writing.......Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh! Now I know why I threw these books in the closets darkest area, never to see the light of day, so back they go. On a finer note, I made a Dragon Age character in under 15 minutes, TADA! done...
|
![]() |
|
I want to run a sandbox-style game. Advice?quote:They don't really want a sandbox. They just say that. Players are stupid - they don't know what they want. Yeah, I said it! Sandboxes don't really exist, it's just a delusion of stupid players!
|
![]() |
|
That 4e thread is gold.quote:As far as memorizing the Powers, sorry, I was actually writing up a ranger. The powers for the rangers was what the problem was, noting what each ability did without the room to do it on the sheet was a pain in the rear end. As far as memorizing 1st edition and OD&D spells, I played the poo poo for 30 years no need to memorize, I know it like the back of my hand. Never played much 2E didn't really like the changes much and 3.x just ehhh, whatever, looked didn't buy. I just picked up 4E cause my kids wanted to play it, I think it's just me and I am just so use to B/X and 1E AD&D, I can't see this as D&D I guess not to mention the classes seem a bit too narrowed and I don't like the multiclass system in it, but I am reading it trying to keep my eyes from exploding from stress right now, before I try making another character for this thing. OMG, I hope they don't want to play D&D Next or 5th or whatever the next nightmare is going to be, just because it has color pictures. And then there's this. TristramEvans posted:
|
![]() |
|
flyingcircus;642486 posted:Wouldn't know, never played those. I went from OD&D, 1E AD&D, OSRIC, now bought but never tried 4E, just broke it out to give it a whirl and found it a mess to me, sorry but I'm not a fan of the powers, too World of Warcrafty to me. Exploderwizard;642487 posted:That isn't a fair comparison. Warcraft has crafting skills. 4E doesn't. Zing!.... I guess? What the hell do crafting skills have to do with anything? tristranevans posted:Let me explain then. Yes, the system itself is not a storygame system. White Wolf games to do impose3 storygaming style on players via the mechanics. I would never call Werewolf or any White Wolf game a "storygame". However, storygaming is a style of play, defined by viewing the PCs as characters in a story and making choices to that effect. In the example, this is very much the case. Not only because the GM is railroading them through a plot, but because the players are very aware of this. They play in sets of games corresponding to seasons of a TV show, there's a predetermined effect of their actions, and as there is a set ending that is inevitable, and as the example makes clear, the players have had their character's choices limited specifically to reflect the ending. fake edit: this whole thread is kind of amazing. The distinction between storygames and RPGs is so nebulous even to these stalwart defenders of the faith that they can't agree on what it is.
|
![]() |
|
The subject: Jamie Maliszekski, Dwimmermount, Petty Gods, and the astonishing trainwreck thereof. Act I: An artist complains about being ripped off Courtney Campbell posted:+Ian Burns You're right. I am a bit upset. Act II: Reversal of fortune! Robert Parker posted:Courtney Campbell You want to talk about being taken advantage of? Act III: No, see, it's entirely different when I do it. Courtney Campbell posted:Yeah, if you'll look harder, you'll find Steve Crompton commenting about how he's happy about someone remembering his contributions to the old school aesthetic. The saga continues: https://plus.google.com/107387558095034231503/posts/aE2yF9378gA e: Chaltab posted:The distinction between storygames and RPGs is so nebulous even to these stalwart defenders of the faith that they can't agree on what it is. FMguru fucked around with this message at 06:05 on Apr 4, 2013 |
![]() |
|
More great moments in Kickstarter RPGs. Mike Nystul (yes, The Mike Nystul of Nystul's Magic Aura fame) launched a series of retro-D&D projects (Axes & Anvils, Cairn, and Infinite Dungeon) and raised a total of $75,000 to publish them. He's managed to run out of money without shipping a single thing, not even a PDF of a rough draft. Mike Nystul posted:So here's the thing. I screwed up. I started a game company and proceeded as though the cash flow and production speed would keep pace. They did not. I’ve tried to keep you informed and up-to-date, but most of all I’ve tried to deliver on expectations. So far, all you’ve seen are delays and broken promises. I take this situation very seriously.
|
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
|
Ron Edwards railed against roleplaying — playing a role in character — and immersion in a fictional world. He said it as a form of proto-gaming, not a real endeavor. He insinuated that it couldn't actually be done, and that people who claimed they could were "brain damaged." Ron Edwards called people who claim to roleplay in character brain damaged. He said that people who run these kinds of campaigns damage the brains of their players and are committing something akin to sexual abuse. Ron Edwards said that running a traditional roleplaying campaign is morally the same as sexual abuse. This isn't a matter of Edwards accidentally mislabeling a new approach. (Shared story-writing is far older than the Forge.) This isn't a matter of bright, brave, bold new adventurers who accidentally and insignificantly trod on the toes of grumpy old fuddy-duddies. It's about a man and his allies deliberately trying to discredit and undermine roleplaying. He hated it, and wanted it destroyed. So, your "oh, Pundie, it's not all that bad" is nice and goodhearted, but springs from a woeful lack of knowledge about Edwards, the Forge, and GNS. I don't think you're a bad person, and I'm not attacking you. I'm just pointing out some of the history here. Have a nice day.
|
![]() |
|
MiltonSlavemasta posted:Ron Edwards railed against roleplaying — playing a role in character — and immersion in a fictional world. He said it as a form of proto-gaming, not a real endeavor. He insinuated that it couldn't actually be done, and that people who claimed they could were "brain damaged." Is that really grog? I mean, taking the clashing conspiracies for Control of RPGs seriously is ![]() Anyway, let's see how you sell someone on Exalted who says they are having trouble grasping a central theme or style! quote:don't worry Zousha. Nothing is true, all is permissible! Also don't ask for advice or your pure conceptions will be tainted by other people's ideas. That Old Tree fucked around with this message at 13:41 on Apr 4, 2013 |
![]() |
|
Plague of Hats posted:Is that really grog? I mean, taking the clashing conspiracies for Control of RPGs seriously is I mean, yeah, Ron Edwards said and did that stuff. For context, this is someone saying why "storygamers" and "rrrreeeaaaal rpgers" shouldn't just try to get along and share the hobby. Because Ron Edwards was kind of a pompous and pretentious dick at times, there is a rift between storygamers and real roleplayers which can never be breached. Never forget the attempted genocide of our people. That's why I considered it grog. But that's not fun, is it? So my advise? Go crazy. Like really, properly crazy. Not just manga crazy, or wuxia crazy! Go completely bonkers. Go Exalted crazy! Impress enemies and firends alike with your long, brown leather trench-coat and "brooding LA detective" look! Kick rear end while smoking cigarets. Go other side of crazy- wear brithly coloured dresses or technicolour miniskirts! Use boots with zippers and fantastically shaped earrings that would be impossible to make in Creation. Tophats and monocles! Blue tuxedos! And if someone (GM included) tells you it's impossible ask them WHO THE HELL DO THEY THINK YOU ARE?! AND BEFORE THEY CAN ANSWER, SHOUT: TENGEN TOPPA GURREN LAGANN! (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
![]() |
|
Vintage Grog: If you share an RPG book around the table, you're destroying gaming!John Wick posted:I sign every book I sell. I try to make each signiture unique, but sometimes they overlap. Theres L5R banners and 7th Sea t-shirts everywhere I look, and every one of them stops when they see Orkworld and drops down cash.
|
![]() |
|
FMguru posted:Act I: An artist complains about being ripped off FMguru posted:More great moments in Kickstarter RPGs. Mike Nystul (yes, The Mike Nystul of Nystul's Magic Aura fame) launched a series of retro-D&D projects (Axes & Anvils, Cairn, and Infinite Dungeon) and raised a total of $75,000 to publish them. Here be grog: quote:So, it is my world and the ogre has six hit dice. It's nine feet tall, it weighs 728 lbs., and therefore it has a d6 and a d8 per hit die ... and the +1 bonus is applied to every hit die as well. So the big guy has 58 hit points. Halloween Jack fucked around with this message at 15:07 on Apr 4, 2013 |
![]() |
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:Vintage Grog: If you share an RPG book around the table, you're destroying gaming! What the hell? People always borrow books, music, games, etc from their friends. Anyone who actually has friends knows this. And unless they're photocopying every page of the book so they can all have their own personal copy, it's not piracy. He's produced quite a lot of other vintage grog, like an advice article for GM's telling them to have motivationless self-insert villains, take agency away from their players, and arbitrarily kill them for no reason. quote:DNPC "I hosed over a character with no chance to resist for the crime of not being a friendless murderhobo, and in doing so put a de facto ban on one of the most common superhero tropes in my superhero game. I am proud of this and advise you to do this too since this made the game much better because quote:Luck "If they buy super good luck, make it super bad luck instead! If they buy immunity to diseases, instead make them immune to cures to diseases!" How does this rear end in a top hat have people willing to even be in the same room as him?
|
![]() |
|
MiltonSlavemasta posted:I mean, yeah, Ron Edwards said and did that stuff. For context, this is someone saying why "storygamers" and "rrrreeeaaaal rpgers" shouldn't just try to get along and share the hobby. Because Ron Edwards was kind of a pompous and pretentious dick at times, there is a rift between storygamers and real roleplayers which can never be breached. Never forget the attempted genocide of our people. That's why I considered it grog. MISFIRE Turns out this was in fact, grog. Milton gets a GROGS.TXT COMMENT VOUCHER and gets a pass on his next slip up (or deliberate comment!) This pass is NON TRANSFERABLE.
|
![]() |
|
Short but sweet.quote:I really have to disagree here (I'm sure to no one's surprise). It is a sad world where Ghost Sound and Mage Hand are mind-boggling powerful out-of-combat utility effects, and speaks more poorly of the scope of the game than of the power of wizards.
|
![]() |
|
ENWorld Mods on 4e...quote:I could say that Tide of Iron generated bolts of electricity that somehow do normal damage and not Lightning damage, though.
|
![]() |
|
![]()
|
# ? May 18, 2024 18:38 |
|
"The Wick posted:Santa Vaca: Game Balance
|
![]() |