- Objectivist Rapist
- Mar 25, 2007
-
Rape is a construct
and I'm an engineer
|
Uh well... 
EDIT: A lot of the comments should be posted here too.
Let's See
quote:
For those of you who think this is not art, and who think this is way too heavy for the medium, think a little. Plenty of artists have paintings or sculptures that contain nudity, from the Michelangelo's statue of David to many of Picasso's works. Many artists also portray violent and horrible acts like Gentileschi's Judith Beheading Holofernes or Franciso Padrilla's Rape of Sabines. It is in the portrayal that these are still considered great art, they are not meant as 'cool' or 'funny' like some of you jackasses seem to think. It is meant as a thought provoking piece to make us second-guess what we do. The saddest thing to me is that if this was painted on canvas or done by one of the masters (van gogh, picasso, devinci), you wouldn't call it 'sick' or 'disgusting'. In fact, most of you would probably applaud it as a beautiful and controversial work of art. Please keep up this level of depth Nakatan!
quote:
One of the best diorama i've ever seen. In the 40 millennium these situations happes every day. And this diorama makes this world more real. I'm just sad to read stupid comment by stupid people who pretend to live in a fairy tale, who takes everything as a personal offence. Probably this site must be rated for mature people (not meaning EVERYONE over 18).
quote:
Very well done. The story it's telling is awful and dark. But not all stories can be happy or heroic. The people who are rating this a 1, and then personally attacking you confuse me. I wonder if they've ever seen a movie or read a book that depicted a rape. And then, would they accuse those writers of being terrible people and having rape fantasies?
quote:
Thankfully the Louvre doesn’t take the same view towards Poussin’s ‘The Rape of the Sabine Women’…Artistic renditions of something as terrible as rape shouldn’t necessarily be censored simply because they deal with disturbing issues. Should the film ‘Casualties of War’ also have been banned? There is nothing in this work that promotes or glorifies rape in any way. Quite the opposite I think. Normally the fantasy world is just that, pure fantasy, hence the reason why we can ‘enjoy’ blood, death and violence. This is a powerful piece and disturbing for so many people because it breaks that barrier between fantasy and reality. It forces to confront our interpretations of what the hobby is and can be. A very powerful and important piece of work. Certainly the most thought provoking I’ve ever seen. Well done!
quote:
Amazing work here! I think it's sad how many people are giving this poor votes simply for the content. Yea this isn't a very nice concept but in reality that's how it is. War is not pretty, at all, and neither is rape. However this is a very great depiction of how some very angry soldiers would exact revenge upon an enemy which they loath. Some are arguing that the Imperial Guard wouldn't do it due to xenophobia, but if anything that may encourage it, such sheer hatred towards the alien. Eldar aren't that far off from humans anyways, it's not it's an ork or something. AND they're forward scouts, so no fear of having a Commissar breathing down their neck. Anyways, I don't condone rape, however I don't see why everyone needs to flip out about it being depicted in art. Enjoy the amazing art and all the time and effort that was put into it. GREAT WORK!
well then
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 15:32
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2024 02:12
|
|
- Chaltab
- Feb 16, 2011
-
So shocked someone got me an avatar!
|
quote:Nobody's bleeding, nobody's dripping with ooze, nobody's decaying, and yet this is absolutely the most disturbing, thought-provoking, arresting diorama I've ever seen. Congratulations. I'm in awe.
quote:Truly breathtaking in a horrible and honest way one of the most truthful and thought provoking scenes of war i have ever laid eyes upon well done!
quote:I agree on comments from users like BanJo. This piece is pure art. It creates a feeling that no other piece can create. And it forces people to speak about it. I think what makes it for me is the knife. I think without it it would be over the top. To cruel and sick. But the little knife makes the Diorama work. We dont know what happens. In just 2 seconds all imperial guards could be dead. Or the unspeakable happens. Its that Twist that makes the Diorama so strong. this isnt a discussion about if rape should be displayed or not because its a thing that happens and who denys it is really pathetic. Art was always there do create feelings and this right here does it. Even if it has no fancy freehands or NMM or stuff like this : This is one of the best miniature related things I've ever seen. And just because a little knife...
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 17:04
|
|
- Rasamune
- Jan 19, 2011
-
MORT
MORT
MORT
|
Let's get real here, Fighter is a term that means something in the context of D&D. In D&D fighter fails as a concept on two different levels. Any "new fighter class" that people want to fap about has do deal the fact that people expect the Fighter to be.
Mundane - which freezes him out of high level advancement
Sword Guy - which freezes him out any of the noncombat mini-games
You can't make a "Fighter" that doesn't suck without making something so alien to the original concept that it may as well be a different class.
Now what the Wrathzogs, Elennsar's, RPGsiters, and other associated fighter fappers of the world actually want is to, 1) come to the table without the ability to overcome challenges 2) overcome challenges anyway. Or in other words they want a free blowjob from the MC and it does the game a disservice to cater to them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 17:38
|
|
- Rasamune
- Jan 19, 2011
-
MORT
MORT
MORT
|
I can't be the only guy who likes to play a wizard because they earn their powers through hard work and study rather than getting bullshit handed to them for free because they're a half-dragon, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 17:39
|
|
- Heart Attacks
- Jun 17, 2012
-
That's how it works for magical girls.
|
At the table with your buddies is where you should live out your BDSM fantasies.
quote:Anyone ever consider the BDSM crowd might also play D&D? It's not like rape fantasies are rare, just look at how well 50 shades of grey sold, it's a very common fantasy.
drat it's a succubus we are talking about, you know a demon that seduces people.
When did RPGers become so drat sexually repressed and judgmental? Can't adults like what they like without having the community try to censor their fun. This poo poo is just as bad as Jack Chick's tracks.
If I knew my players didn't want to see rape in the game, I'd throw rape monsters in because gently caress you, players.
quote:If the players would be repulsed enough by the idea of being raped by a monster, I'd gladly throw in a few in a horror campaign (getting eaten is not all that scary in games, since half the creatures in any setting would do that). It could also add some very bizarre twists to the plot if the attackers are not ghosts - think of the Alien movies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 18:33
|
|
- Chaltab
- Feb 16, 2011
-
So shocked someone got me an avatar!
|
OgreBattle posted:NineInchNall posted:No, Clerics, Paladins, and other divine casters get their poo poo by sucking off deities. In the core rules, you can get your divine power on without engaging in divine fellatio, but in settings like the Forgotten Realms, it is required. Divine casters don't get power from phlebotinum; they get it from semen.
Does this mean Lolth has a penis
She has a special spiked strapon.
-----
Lord Mistborn posted:nockermensch posted:These guys, however, accept more readily campaign-level add-ons to their powers, if these are explained in the campaign's context and leave the character's point of view intact. Practically speaking, they need to gain abilities through in-game power-up events.
...
Even more cynically, you could probably have this player run a Sorcerer through your campaign without him even noticing if each spell gained came through a wise mentor appearing in-game and saying: "As a reward for your noble actions, I bestow you the power of <spell>". As long as the player is concerned, his character is a "Fighter", with a whole page of spell-like actions he "earned".
----
Lord Mistborn posted:nockermensch posted:These guys, however, accept more readily campaign-level add-ons to their powers, if these are explained in the campaign's context and leave the character's point of view intact. Practically speaking, they need to gain abilities through in-game power-up events.
...
Even more cynically, you could probably have this player run a Sorcerer through your campaign without him even noticing if each spell gained came through a wise mentor appearing in-game and saying: "As a reward for your noble actions, I bestow you the power of <spell>". As long as the player is concerned, his character is a "Fighter", with a whole page of spell-like actions he "earned".
My god what the gently caress is it with The Gaming Den and fellatio. Who the gently caress talks like this?
Frank Trollman posted:If you want to name the heroes of movies who take on evil wizards and win (as opposed to Madmartigan, who loses), you want to bring up guys like Krull, Conan, or the Mathayus (from the Scorpion King). But and however, it's important to remember that those characters all spent a good deal of their time sneaking around, stealth killing guards, and bypassing traps. The Rogue skill set is seriously closer to the archetypical "sword hero" than the Fighter is. And that's before we get into the fact that those characters had what amounts to 4th level adventures for the most part.
-Frank
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 19:19
|
|
- Mors Rattus
- Oct 25, 2007
-
FATAL & Friends
Walls of Text
#1 Builder
2014-2018
|
Overwhelming Milk and Honey Flow (Solar Charm)
Cost: 5m; Mins: Resistance 5, Essence 4;
Type: Simple (Speed 6)
Keywords: Combo-OK, Wanton
Duration: Until clinch is broken
Prerequisite Charms: Any Resistance Excellency
Overwhelming Milk and Honey Flow was developed during the First Age by a Solar Exalt of the Eclipse caste who wanted to impress his some-time lover the goddess Gokkun (see Scroll of Swallowed Darkness page 143) with the pounding surf of his semen. That the Charm had a potentially lethal turnout for beings less capable than Gokkun was an unexpected side-effect that made it no less popular among the Solars of the First Age.
To activate Overwhelming Milk and Honey Flow the character must be receiving fellatio or cunnilingus and be on the verge of climax. When the Lawgiver climaxes and activates Overwhelming Milk and Honey Flow, a clinch is initiated as the Solar grabs a firm hold of the pleasure-giver's neck who resists the clinch with a -2 penalty. If the clinch is succesful the target is locked between the Lawgiver's thighs and the target's player rolls (Stamina + Resistance) reflexively at a difficulty equal to the Solar's Essence as the Solar ejaculates or squirts into the target's mouth with the force of a tsunami.
If the roll succeeds, the target suffers no ill effects as the outpour is successfully swallowed. If the roll fails, the target suffers a number of unsoakable levels of bashing damage equal to the number of successes by which the roll was failed. Whether the roll succeeds or fails, the clinch is maintained and would better be sought broken at the target's first opportunity; every action the clinch is maintained, the target must repeat the (Stamina + Resistance) roll to avoid damage from drowning in the Solar's fluids.
Mortals who fail the (Stamina + Resistance) roll instantly drown as their lungs are filled with semen or vaginal fluids. Automatons, undead, and other creatures that do not breathe are for the most part immune to this Charm, though at the storyteller's discretion they may suffer other ill effects from having their insides filled with massive amounts of Solar body fluids.
For every health level of damage inflicted with this Charm, the Lawgiver regains one temporary point of Willpower. A daring and athletic Solar may use Overwhelming Milk and Honey Flow to regain lost Willpower by way of auto-fellatio, and indeed it is said that one of the Primordial War's greatest heroes died a shameful (or admirable, depending on who you ask) death using this Charm on himself.
For the purpose of Charms such as Enemy-Castigating Solar Judgment (see Exalted page 205) Overwhelming Milk and Honey Flow is considered a physical attack.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 19:55
|
|
- LongDarkNight
- Oct 25, 2010
-
It's like watching the collapse of Western civilization in fast forward.
-
Oven Wrangler
|
quote:Why is Fiction First a problem?
When require fiction to be produced before mechanical results are resolved this limits your ability to interpret the result. Doing it first, you lock yourself into a certain idea, your idea, of what's going to happen. Dictating what occurs during play rather than going through an organic process of discovery has many pitfalls.
There are other costs also. Play of the game must stop while the player is put on the spot to create something interesting and creative; players are required to do this for actions that occur very frequently. Definitively stating things closes the door on other future more creative options. And it can sometimes create uninteresting results ("That cool thing you tried to do, failed")
This problem is exacerbated in the new wave of 'wolf-in-sheeps-clothing' storygames, attempting to break out of their general unprofitability by co-opting the rising cachet of the old school renaissance movement. Demanding that the play of the game must stop so players can make the 'fiction come first' slows down play and inhibits creative results.*
Sometimes the problem of Fiction First is even encoded into the rules of the game itself. A well documented problem with this is Dissociated mechanics. quote:*In an effort to be very clear about things that cause a lot of cognitive dissonance from people, I am going to be explicit here. Yes, I am aware of the "success" of kickstarters of story-games that I'm not going to link to. But the 50,000$ or 100,000$ or 440,000$ dollars raised is peanuts compared to the 20,000,000$-50,000,000$ million dollars that Dungeons and Dragons/Pathfinder does annually. Yes. that is two whole additional zeros against the absolutely most popular story game. Games of the traditional sort are vastly more profitable than a few dozen or hundred or even two thousand copies of story games sold. What's more is that many of the most profitable story games are in fact doing what I say, attempting to co-opt the success of traditional gaming.
To the second point, it is a literal physical truth that rolling dice and determining actions must stop while you wait for the player to generate the fiction first. And that once generated, the fact that it is stated aloud prevents any other option from being true. Saying one specific thing is happening and no other thing happens inhibits creativity by eliminating the possibility of any other thing happening.
Anything less than total domination is failure. Wonder where that put's all the OSR retroclones?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 19:44
|
|
- Gerund
- Sep 12, 2007
-
He push a man
|
quote:Interesting that they mention player options for making an unsafe place into a safe place. Can't you do that (in indoor environments, at least) just by finding a well-defended room and barricading the door? Much as I want to reinforce that the dungeon is a dangerous place where you don't mess about, there's really not much I can think of to punish a party that does that (it came up in a game yesterday and I was stumped). Oozes creep under the door and kill them in their sleep, I guess? But if that's a hazard, I have a hard time believing anything lives in the dungeon.
quote:I am very much hoping that the game won't be built around an assumption that recovery rules for monsters - to the extent that they are needed at all - are the same as recovery rules for PCs. That's an optional approach to play, obviously, but it should't be built in as a rigid assumption. And those who are using it will probably not be using a "havens" rule - they'll use something more simulationist, perhaps like @Chris_Nightwing 's idea upthread.
quote:Lol, yeah if monsters never recover, that will be an interesting world you have created. Perhaps monsters represent card board stand ins for the slaughter and mean nothing outside of just a speed bump in the gamist world. Your dragons may not fly in and attack and then vear off only to come back and attack again after recovering. Monsters need to recover just like pcs.
Your elfgame needs to have a dungeon that is Totally Real, guys.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 23:32
|
|
- Babylon Astronaut
- Apr 19, 2012
-
|
quote: But the 50,000$ or 100,000$ or 440,000$ dollars raised is peanuts compared to the 20,000,000$-50,000,000$ million dollars that Dungeons and Dragons/Pathfinder does annually.
quote:
So here's the thing, if you were still having doubts about how everything I've said about the Swine and the contempt they feel for gamers being true; apparently now the Storygame Swine are trying to re-habilitate Lorraine Williams as an unsung champion of early storygaming.
That's right, the woman who destroyed TSR is being hailed as a model of genius and innovation. That's the type of genius the storygamers love: genius that runs a profitable business right into the ground while spewing contempt for gaming and gamers. Remember, Williams is the one who said "Gamers will like what I tell them to like"; a Storygame-Swine motto if ever there was one.
How the hell can anyone hold up this woman, up till now universally reviled in gaming, as a paragon and exemplar to be followed?! Its not that hard, or illogical, for Storygamers to do so if you think about it. Williams despised RPGs and RPG gamers alike. Storygame Swine despise RPGs and RPG gamers alike.
They actually make a point, there is a tremendous commonality between Williams' interests and Storygaming's interests. Williams wanted to destroy RPGs and replace them with a line of party games (as mentioned in the horrific link), and that's essentially what Storygamer Swine want too. In fact, she is in many ways the ideal representative of the utter contempt in which the Storygamer Swine hold regular RPGs.
Also, before you write and try to claim that Storygames leader AndyK disavowed the article, I will have you note that AndyK is NOT saying that Williams did not share the same goal as Storygame Swine have, only that she failed in her execution because she wasn't good enough at telling lies or manipulating others. He's not upset at her reasoning, only at her incompetence.
He hates her the way communists hate Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot. Its not that they don't believe in what they believed in, they just feel unhappy that those atrocities and failures can now be used against them to make it more difficult for "the cause".
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 00:04
|
|
- Guilty Spork
- Feb 26, 2011
-
Thunder rolled. It rolled a six.
|
quote:Have you heard about this? Its called ConTessa, and its a free online gaming convention, to be held June 21-24, that's open to everyone but is organized and run by women. And I think its an awesome idea.
I have long been a very strong advocate of women in gaming, in the sense that I think women should be gamers. In the sense too that women don't actually "need" anything to be gamers other than a place at the gaming table and for male gamers not to be assholes; they don't need special consideration, they don't need the hobby changed for them, they don't need endless discussions about patriarchy, they don't need studies done as to what's wrong about rpgs. How do I know this? Because I've consistently had women at my gaming table for years and years (in the last decade, its been far more unusual for there not to be at least one woman in a group of mine than the opposite); and they game exactly like everyone else does.
So here is Contessa which is saying the same thing: "let's just loving game already, and celebrate women gaming" (note: the profanity included is mine, not theirs, at least as far as I know). They achieve this the following ways:
1. While its organized and run by women, its open to absolutely everyone. Its not about exclusivity or creating a "safe space" or any of that bullshit. Its about women organizing and running games and anyone who likes playing in them. Awesome.
2. Its "apolitical", to use their own terms. That means that its not a place where any actual gaming is going to be buried under a ton of bullshit about the evils of men, or 1st-year-college quality philosophical drivel, or "activism" about demanding that the RPG hobby essentially stop being the RPG hobby so that women who have no interest might look at it (but probably won't) even though women who do have an interest would probably stop. Instead, its about actually gaming, which again, is all women or anyone else needs to be a gamer.
3. What panels there are seem to be about things that are, you know, actually not meaningless (like the above bullshit); things that seem to me would be a far better use of everyone's time to talk about, like being a newb at D&D, and how to market your RPG. And yes, "collaborative world building"; if there's one criticism I can level at Contessa its that quite a few of their "RPG" events are actually Storygame events, though to balance that out it looks like there'll be some fairly awesome Lamentations of the Flame Princess stuff happening, and some Pathfinder too. Hopefully someone out there reading this blog who's an old-school (female) gamer might want to sign up to run some more OSR stuff (maybe even Arrows of Indra?) or more indie-type games that are actually RPGs (like, say, Lords of Olympus?).
Anyways, Contessa is one of the first bits of news about "women in gaming" that has left me feeling optimistic in a long time. Of course, the hate-brigade of Pseudo-activist Swine have already started poaching at them (accusing the organizers of being "uncle toms" or something... loving idiots), but I hope that this is the start of a new trend of women gamers, in their own voice, standing up to the absurd pseudo-activists claiming that we have to radically redesign gaming, censor gamers, and establish controls over the hobby all "for the women" and saying to them "actually, you don't represent me".
RPGPundit 
2. Hey look, the straw feminists strike again!
3. "They included stuff that falls within my ludicrously narrow definition of what counts as an RPG! Good for them!"
4. Some people somewhere were critical of it in unspecified ways, and given Tarnowski's history of posting it was likely one or two people saying such things and getting promptly shot down, not unlike the Lorraine Williams thread mentioned in the previous post or his "Swine fail to appreciate the brilliance of Amber Diceless!" thing.
(ConTessa does look legitimately cool though.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 01:34
|
|
- Heart Attacks
- Jun 17, 2012
-
That's how it works for magical girls.
|
here's better grog (than what I edited out):
quote:At our table we call characters like yours after a famous one we knew "Timmy the special needs Slayer". Timmy was a fighting MACHINE, but he had extremely low charisma "I'll just role-play my way through talking encounters!" low Intelligence and Wisdom. Basically, he only put points into things that would help him "win" fights. Like you I assume, he figured he'd work the system, and then not role-play his character's weaknesses also, but rather, role-play him as though he'd bothered putting the points in as the system assumes you will. See, this is the problem Timmy, the system assumes that you are going to make an actual character, not a killing machine. People like you break the game for people who are playing by the spirit of the game and not the absolute letter. That's why they hate you and look down on you. You are a playing a different game, one with much simpler rules. Either that or your're "cheating", which annoys them also.
The good news Timmy is that there are many who think like you, and enjoy your style of gaming, and the hobby has room for you. The rules are not written for people like you, but they accommodate you, as long as everyone else at the table is willing to put up with your need to "win" all the time or are willing to house rule you extra points to make a real character with. (why not just pretend that some of the points you start with are your "extra" points? Are you afraid some other player won't do that and will outshine you?) Again, I think you would really be happier playing Descent or something similar, which is a game that allows you to Min/max without having to worry about all that boring RP stuff. I played it this weekend, it was fun.
LOL I love that you bring up Gymnasts in China as your example. How rich do you think the emotional lives and development of those athletes are? Do you think they can hold a decent conversation about anything but gymnastics? Do you think they are very interesting at all outside of gymnastic competitions? Of course they are still humans...DNA and all that, but I can't believe you would use that example. I can just see you at the gaming table:
DM: Let me guess, this character of yours, like all the others, was raised in a commune where he was trained from birth to do nothing but fight and be the baddest badass that ever was right?"
You: Yeah! in fact, when he was 18 he won the Baddest rear end competition at his guild, but they cheated and gave the prize to someone else, so after he killed them all he decided to "walk the land".
Everybody else at the table: Oh joy, thank god he's with us and will be the star of every combat we have from this point on.
The thing is Timmy, if you make a guy like that, then the DM has to raise the difficulty of the fights, otherwise you kill everyone while the other guys are getting started. It's called party power balance. So now every combat is either too hard for everyone else, and you are the only contribute, or too easy for the whole party and everyone is bored when you one-shot the boss. The only solution is a party of Timmys.
You're a lovely role-player, and that's OK. You're not about role-playing, you're a gamer. Just don't be surprised when people playing RPgs look down on you a bit. You're the cymbal player in the orchestra, just accept and relax!
You give yourself away when you say that other people are "jacking off" about being role-players because you resent that they are playing a game that they aren't worried about "winning" while that is your whole game. The fun Timmy, is in the playing, not the winning. You can play a DnD character who is completely useless in combat and still have a lot of fun. That's what you and yours don't ever get and that is what role-players are trying to do, and that you make harder. You make it hard for them to play the game they want to play, and that's where the resentment comes from.
Stay mad, or understand it, I won't have to share a table with you either way, so frankly, I don't give a drat which. You sound butt-hurt.
quote:LOL I love that you bring up Gymnasts in China as your example. How rich do you think the emotional lives and development of those athletes are? Do you think they can hold a decent conversation about anything but gymnastics? Do you think they are very interesting at all outside of gymnastic competitions? Of course they are still humans...DNA and all that, but I can't believe you would use that example.
Chinese olympic gymnasts are human but they're not people so why would you use them as an example?
Heart Attacks fucked around with this message at 07:04 on Jun 7, 2013
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 06:45
|
|
- MiltonSlavemasta
- Feb 12, 2009
-
And the cats in the cradle and the silver spoon
Little boy blue and the man on the moon
"When you coming home, dad?"
"I don't know when
We'll get together then son you know we'll have a good time then."
|
Well then what I wonder most is His Divine Lunar Presence because he is the closest thing we currently have to an authority that must be directing this war against the Realm, its decadent Dragon-Blooded and their vicious manipulators, the traitors, the Sidereals
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 13:02
|
|
- Plutonis
- Mar 25, 2011
-
|
There's a My Little Pony Fallout Tabletop RPG.
Earth Ponies posted:One of the three common types of ponies in Equestria.
What they lack for in wing and horn, they make up in endurance and adaptability. Earth ponies are much more proficient when it comes to growing crops and dealing with earthly matters
Despite the hostile wasteland, earth ponies have managed to colonize most less radiation infested areas.
Earth ponies are by nature pretty normal in their behavior, they tend to lean more towards good natured, but come in all forms and shapes. They also tend to have the most of the "larger built" ponies of the three.
Racial Features:
Sturdy: +3 to your maximum hp and +7 to willpower.
Adaptable: +2 points to spend on attributes.
Buckle up: Add 10 % to your maximum carry capacity after you count together your attributes and perks.
Versatile: +2 trained skills.
Iron clad: Roll a d6 instead of d4 for your unarmed with an additional +4 to hit and +1 to damage.
Unicorns posted:The other ground dwelling type of pony that occupy the blasted surface that once were the flourishing land of Equestria.
Being the only ponies that willingly can focus their inner magic through their horns, they've come to use their magic as more then a handy utility and more a necessity for survival. While they have to use it a little differently then they used to, most unicorns have adapted to this quickly.
Unicorn ponies tend to lean more towards being slightly more "sophisticated" then the rest, they often are more tidy and gracious then their counterparts. But as with the rest, variations are not unheard of.
Racial Features:
Horn: Gives you a 1d6 gore (pie) attack.
Magical aptitude: You gain the option to choose from several magical techniques and spells.
Alternative appendage: You are able to utilize your telekinesis for most tasks that normally require a Agi check, you can use ˝ of your caster attribute to determine the result of your skill rank.
Pegasus Ponies posted:Pegasus ponies: While mostly absent from the ground of Equestria for several decades, a few pegasi have popped from time to time over the wasteland.
The great majority of these are "Dashites", Stable dwellers that crept out recently, or offspring of either of the mentioned above.
While the skies are not as friendly as before, they still take pride in their flight.
Pegasus ponies often lean more towards being brash and a tad bit more impulsive then the rest of the ponies. Some even tend to have a bit of an ego problem, but at times, they can also live up to their claims. But there are always exceptions, some pegasi even prefer to live on the ground as opposed to in clouds.
Racial Features:
Wings: Grants the pony the ability to soar through the skies with greater speed. (does not work when they are crippled, removed or impaired of course)
Daring: Able to get a +5 bonus to one skill equal to your Agi mod times per day. (May stack)
Lightning reflexes: Gain an additional +2 to your AC.
Weather manipulation: Pegasi can treat clouds as solid objects if desired, as well as drag them around or tinker with them a bit.
It features interesting rules.
quote:Seeing how we all are adult here... or at least should be a bit into our teenage years, this topic shouldn't be so flabbergasting. After some consideration, I've decided to go with the following rules: Mares in this world will have "seasons". And no, before you go there: They do not become sex craving crazy mares in this period of time... well, maybe the raiders do, but that's beside the point here.They just get a slight desire to reproduce. The equivalence of ex: Seeing a piece of candy over there you kinda like. You don't need it, but it'd be nice to have it. To determine what age your character would be starting to get in her first heat. (aka: become sexually mature) And do note, this is only done if you aim to play younger then 16.
If so, then roll a d4 (+/- 1 if you or the GM feels like it) and add 9. This would put your character in the age span of 9-14. Male character roll the same mentioned but add 11, resulting in 11-16. However, I personally hope to Celestia that you will not have to use these rules... or plan to... In either case. A mare is in season for ~3 months. To determine which, roll a D12, and add 2. These 3 months will be it. The chance of pregnancy is the following: If in good condition and health. Make a hard roll against End, +15. If in somewhat rugged condition, not properly fed. Make a hard roll against End. If badly messed up and starving, Make a neigh impossible roll against End. For example, a healthy mare with 10 in End would have a 45 % chance in the first example, while a mare with 5 End would have a 15 % chance in the second example. And a mare with 1 End a 1 % chance in the last example. Magic, chems and "other" things can increase or reduce this chance as well. Or even remove it outright.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 13:20
|
|
- MiltonSlavemasta
- Feb 12, 2009
-
And the cats in the cradle and the silver spoon
Little boy blue and the man on the moon
"When you coming home, dad?"
"I don't know when
We'll get together then son you know we'll have a good time then."
|
Yeah, what Plutonis said.
BRONY GM INTRO posted:
Disclaimer: (here to stray throughout the beta apparently) Btw, best viewed downloaded
To those that only thinks a RPG should involve killing and combat, don't worry. I'm making an "American version" with no social skills, less logic, more merged skills (no sub-trees for weapons, speech etc), levels and the like. There will be quite a few adjustments in the rules, but mainly to fit for the level system.
Allot of things are still WiP, and sections are missing as can be seen.
For those wondering why the heck there are added skills, realism and a removal of levels, it's since the "progression system" is my favourite one. As goes for skills, I found it quite needed to add most of them (especially perform and craft) since there is no skill that covers the more social parts. Or "life before the wasteland". Like how Velvet can sing, Calamity knows how to tailor stuff, Homage and Xenith can cook (and how Glory can't... or well, in her own way) or how Scotchtape can do plumbing and the like. And merging those into "survival" or "repair" doesn't make much sense as: 1: It would make them way wider then they already are. 2: Everypony would be about as good on it as somepony else. 3: You would not be allowed to specialize or become better with just one subject. 4: With said "huge merged skills". It would mean I would instantly be super awesome at knowing EVERYTHING about the wasteland if I were a chef in my stable, seeing how cooking is survival. Or another case: Easily construct and repair weapons, tanks and power armour since I'm good at toasters.
That is also a reason why I went back to the core Fallout rules in many areas from how I've got it describes, if I took 3 and NV. I would be trying to convert a FPS into paper. And all rolls ever done would be to hit with a attack. As everything else would just be a number, or a "required rank". Not to mention the "made in concrete" damage table. "I shoot you in the leg, you take 12 damage. I shoot you in the stomach, 12 damage. I shoot you in one wing, 12 damage. I shoot you in the ear, 12 damage... times two, since it was in the head!"
And for those wondering why certain skills have been added or other things have been altered: Ripping the system straight out of Fallout would work in theory, but it is made to be a single player game with no interaction between players. And that doesn't work to well in a RPG. And why a d100 system and not a d20? It was the more simple system to apply. As if you got 47 in a skill, you try to roll bellow 47, simple as that. Adding a d20 and trying to balance the % around that would just be more complicated. (or well, it would be simpler technically, but less accurate)
And on a side note, I am sorry, but all current weapons in the game are near the last page of this PDF, along with the first test enemies. They've been tested twice and are semi-balanced so far.
Measurements
For simplicity, I will use "meters", "kilo" and the like to pronounce weight and length. This could just be temporary, but I will also include the "real" measurements" that exists in the FoE universe for comparison.
A hoof: A hoof is about 15 cm
A pony-lenght: Is equal to around 1 meter, 100 centimetres, 10 decimetres.
A mouthful: Around a cup, 2,3 decilitre
The GM
On a small side note regarding "ponyfied stuff", there is another thing that is changed: The game/dungeon master as many know them by are known as "Over-mare/stallion" in the FoE-RPG. But may be referred to as GM or DM if you feel more comfortable with that name.
The term "It's magic, I ain't gotta explain poo poo" (aka: GM's always right) can be casually used to explain certain events or GM interventions to save a story or GM discretion. It is recommended to use only when absolutely necessary. GM's that utilize this to often tend to have very stale stories as they only have one way to go.
Dices:
The primary dice using in this game is the D100. However most of the other types are used as well. The D20 is used for most effect rolls (mainly in combat), the d4 for some damage, raising skills and certain effect (and attributes). d6 for most weapons, d8 and d10 for the more lethal weapons and so on. But mostly the d100. Any mention of a ex "+5" means directly to the skill. Ex: You have 41 unarmed and get a +5 bonus, making it a total of 46. If it however mentions a "%" behind it, it indicates that it either should be raised by the percent stated, or that you should take a certain percent of a certain something.
If it for example would have been +5 % on the above example, Your unarmed would have increased by 41+5%(+2,05)=43 (rounded down). Now for the other example: If you would gain health equal to a percentage of an attribute instead, lets say your strength for hit points, and lets say you have 10 in it: 50% of 10 = 5. So you would have gained 5 hp from that. Seems simple enough no?
Optional rules:
The following rules, chapters and notes can be ignored/changed if you want a strictly more "Fallout" feeling. Technically, you can choose to ignore most of the rules except the more core and vital ones (go figure which those are.). Those are the ones seen in game for most Fallout games. But as said, you can pick and choose whichever pages you want to include or not (apart from the core), or change them slightly to match your taste. However, if you remove all but the core, then well. You might as well just play Fallout: The tabletop RPG and replace "human" with "pony". Althou, it lacks the rules for magic, flying etc.
Attributes: Wisdom was added to have a second mental attribute, reflecting that despite being smart, you could lack experience. (Like the classic "barbarians doesn't need intelligence, but wisdom is required to be a good leader") Wisdom can be changed to Intelligence if so wanted, making it entirely "SPECIAL" once more.
Talents: The whole talent tree section can be ignored if you so please. This will technically make the characters weaker, but would add more to a fallout feeling of being "only equine" to it. (Seriously, I actually have no idea where the idea of talents came from... but they've managed to suck up Celestia forbid amount of time)
Friendship points: These works pretty much like faith points in 40k. Just with a different flavour, and they are stronger the more friends you have in your parter (up to a certain degree). If you want to drop the whole "small miracles" things such as burning a point to not die, then feel free to. It just adds more caution for the party, knowing they are just fragile little ponies, in a big harsh wasteland with no supernatural (*cough*besidesmagic*cough* powers to aid them.
Skills: As stated above, most skills can be removed for a combat only focused RPG. And merged for simplicity. Small guns can be made into a single skill without the sub-skills. And two other examples are "first aid" and "doctor" can be merged into "medicine". Intimidate, diplomacy, bluff and seduction can all be made into "speech". Doing this however, cuts your trained skills down to 3 (4 for EP).
Degree of success: This being another additional rule, it can be used on it's own, to replace conditional modifiers, or be removed in case of conditional modifiers. Unlike most of the others, this one has the least effect of them all. In theory, it can be utilized to play a quite big part of it all.
Stamina: In quite several RPG's, your character can't get tired or exhausted. If you cba to keep track of your characters remaining stamina, then skip this rule and just go with "unlimited energy".
Fear: Unlike many games (and Fallout itself), your character has a sort of "mental stability" pool in this RPG. Doing things like peeking up from cover when someone is bathing said cover in lead is not something anypony with common sense would do. So a will save is needed to do so. This rule can be ignored if you want to play completely jaded characters wit no self-preservation instincts whatsoever. Like the common action hero.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 13:21
|
|
- Plutonis
- Mar 25, 2011
-
|
Oh god the traits and feats.
quote:Hung like a...Edit
(Aka: Sex appeal)
Ponies only
You've got the "right" stuff. This trait increases your chances of having a good reaction with members of the opposite sex. Unfortunately, this trait tends to annoy members of your sex. Jealous twits. When interacting with members of the opposite sex, you gain a 1 point bonus to Charisma for reactions only. When making Speech and Barter rolls, you gain a 20% bonus for each. When interacting with members of the same sex, you have a 1 point penalty to Charisma for reactions only and have a 20% penalty to both Speech and Barter rolls. (If wanted, this trait could be changed to apply opposite effects instead)
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 13:26
|
|
- MiltonSlavemasta
- Feb 12, 2009
-
And the cats in the cradle and the silver spoon
Little boy blue and the man on the moon
"When you coming home, dad?"
"I don't know when
We'll get together then son you know we'll have a good time then."
|
This Guy Seems Ok For Now posted:
While I concide the ease of modern morality thought processes while gaming, I must protest this link of current sensibilities with the world 'real'. For those who lived in prior cultures (and even a few current cultures) with differing virtues, their method of thinking is no less 'real'. Should my character allow the stain to my Arete or honor pass, and let some peasant on the road insult me without ripping him in half crosswise, simply because it's not in style right now? If offered a narcotic substance by a shaman, should he spurn him for fear of looking like a stoner, or accept the shaman's gift of a spirit-vision? If he encounters an absolute monarch, and doesn't instantly begin formenting a democratic insurrection, should I feel bad? Judging every trope by a modern viewpoint doesn't make it 'real'. Judging actions by whatever viewpoint the culture has at the time makes it real.
ok.
here is the thing, this cultural relativism? I'm getting a little tired of it.
because you have to acknowledge this- all cultures are based on the objective environment around them. they only form from the objective facts about the world that they have to live with. these cultures formed because someone saw lightning and needed a way to explain what lightning was, and so created a story about what lightning, which led to myths. all of mythology? early attempts at explaining how the world worked without science.
The people heard these myths, thought they were good and thus adopted them as true.
however, then we got science, we started to actually figure out the world and observe how things work and debunk the various myths of before and proving them wrong. this led to cultural changes. the cultural changes only happened because the facts changed!
I wouldn't accept the narcotic at all! the spirit vision is based on a disproven line of thinking, when we know that there is no such thing, its all chemicals messing up your brain. furthermore, look at the victorian era and how their pseudo-sciences led to racist social-darwinistic bullshit. that cultural bullshit would not exist without people first getting the facts about race completely dead wrong! just like how all the other cultures in the past were more wrong than us with their even wrongerer facts than our wrong facts. in the future, WE will probably be wrong about things. We are less wrong than the past cultures about things, but nevertheless we still are probably wrong about something.
this is completely normal. all beliefs are based in some form of fact, and those beliefs are only viable as long as that fact has not been disproven. hopefully all this political correctness about race, gender and culture will go the way of the dodo as well and we can all find a way to get along without people over-complicating things with strange terms that only confuse people and cause conflict among the people its trying to unite.
Sol give me the Temperance to accept the things I cannot change. Valor, for the things I can, and the wisdom to tell the difference.
Wrongerer. The insights of Exalted Fans on epistemology astound me.
I am sorry, but I philosophically and morally cannot accept relativism as a viable way of thinking, it only gets in the way of figuring out the truth by slowing down discussion and claiming that you can believe whatever you want and it will be true.
I mean think about it- when you get right down to it, every person is a little culture inside of ten thousand bigger cultures. you can't criticize and say that I'm wrong with relativism, just as you say you cannot criticize the people of the medieval times as you claim. your applying your own cultural standards of one to my cultural standards of one. either I'm wrong and therefore the people of past can also be wrong, or you cannot criticize me and therefore you cannot criticize the people of the past.
by saying that I'm wrong and saying that your right your technically scoffing at someone "less" enlightened than you. so, stop forcing your cultural standards of one on me, because in my cultural standards of one, cultural relativism is stupid.
MiltonSlavemasta fucked around with this message at 13:37 on Jun 7, 2013
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 13:26
|
|
- Plutonis
- Mar 25, 2011
-
|
My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic does indeed fit well into the rules of Dungeons and Dragons, though the parallels are a little limited (I don’t think that unicorns use Vancian magic, for example). It’s worth noting, however, that Fallout: Equestria runs somewhat differently.
Fallout: Equestria operates on the SPECIAL system developed by Black Isle and later, Bethesda. This is no coincidence. Fallout: Equestria is heavily influenced by Fallout 3 (and to a lesser extent, the rest of the Fallout series). Kkat kept a character sheet for Littlepip detailed down to every last attribute, perk, and skill point. All based on Fallout 3’s version of the SPECIAL system.
It follows, then, that the most popular version of the Fallout: Equestria Pen & Paper game is a percentile system adopted from SPECIAL, with additional rules dealing with magic as presented in Fallout: Equestria by Kkat. The design goal, as requested by Kkat, was to create a system with which all of the existing characters of Fallout: Equestria can be made.
So far? It is a success. I am part of the first group using the rules created by Sunrise, the author of the main document and the GM of Group 1. In addition to the main rules doc, we are using an expanded perk set and alchemy rules. There are many more groups running and in the planning stages as well. More players are always welcome!
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 13:33
|
|
- MiltonSlavemasta
- Feb 12, 2009
-
And the cats in the cradle and the silver spoon
Little boy blue and the man on the moon
"When you coming home, dad?"
"I don't know when
We'll get together then son you know we'll have a good time then."
|
WRT the gods versus the Primordials it should be clear the gods were doing themselves the greater favor by far and have no numious nature or judgement (what they did to make the Yozi's was horrific, disgusting, and unfair) but the Primordials can't be innoecent either. They have to randomly screw up the system they set up, overwork or underappreciate the gods, or some other thing. Cronus was eating the next generation. The summerian gods feast was at the least in light of the lesser gods starvation. No war is clean and this was certainly about claiming goods not for "Good" as some abstract concept or even in a way humanity would fully agree with. But any subversion of the Yozi and Neverborn were right is only worth facepalm.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 13:40
|
|
- Shriven
- Feb 16, 2012
-
|
All from the same person, bolding mine -
quote:personally, 4th ed classes felt to powerful right out of the gate. i never actually played 4th but after a review, that was the impression i was left with. the character starts of as a hero with a full suite of powers all ready to go, to be used whenever they wanted. part of the D&D experience for me has always been about the journey to becoming a hero, not starting off as one. that's not to say that a god stomping super hero can't have their own journey, it's just not what i want when i play D&D.
quote:
4th edition took a wrong turn when trying to solve that particular problem though…rather than asking "why do character's die so often and fix that" WotC said "let's batman up all the classes, giving them a bunch of new toys to play with, people like to have more **** that is shiny and cool so let's do that. we'll also have to make all the baddies harder so that it stays balanced" this is the same hole that oh so many movie sequels/reboots fall into and WotC made the same mistakes.
quote:quote:
4e let *every* class do an 'infinite number' of things each day, not just wizards. In fact, more than a few people consider every class to be a 'spellcaster' of some kind in 4e - even fighters.
quote:quote:Which is really quite funny, all things considered, because "doing an infinite number of things per day" is so consistently championed as a Fighter thing: the Wizard is limited in number of applications, but powerful in each of those; the Fighter is infinitely capable, but to a less potent degree. Thus, logically, Fourth Edition made all classes FIGHTERS!
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 09:34
|
|
- Jonas Albrecht
- Jun 7, 2012
-
|
quote:I am perplexed why Blood Vick had clothes put on her. Are there seriously that many people who are actually offended by this? Let's put this in perspective:
Blood Vick is a demon. She also has the personality of the greatest mercenary in malifaux. She is attractive, bold, and intelligent (at least street smart). She wields two masamunes, the most prized blades in malifaux and earth. She gets paid handsomely for all her work. Oh yes, and she has the power of a tyrant.
Why wouldn't she wear whatever the @#$% she wanted? If she wanted to walk around topless, who is going to tell her that is inappropriate? No one. If absolutely fits with a rebellious, honor-less, and brutal warrior to wear clothes that are counter culture. Everything she is screams it.
But, when a few people cry foul on this forum the artistic direction of her character as put forth by the people who created this game and her character is changed? Sorry. I for one want the original style back. I don't care for naked bikini models, but I get why she was drawn up like that. It fits.
I am voting for Vicky to take her clothes off.
quote:She also might want her giant bouncing **** not getting in the way of her battles.
quote:If you actually want to bring in the reality of women and their breasts than I think we can safely throw out the whole game. Women are slower and weaker than men by a huge margin. They wouldn't last a minute against a lesser trained man. This game isn't in reality, so the clothing is purely for style and character and not practical in the slightest. If we are going practical, lets get lady justice a cane instead of sword. How else could she get around?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 15:54
|
|
- Chaltab
- Feb 16, 2011
-
So shocked someone got me an avatar!
|
Women are slower and weaker than men by a huge margin. They wouldn't last a minute against a lesser trained man.  ers.
quote:Aside from the fact that I find Political Correctness stupid and insipid, taking a look at the actual rules for gender limits in Advanced Dungeons and Dragons (as opposed to blindly flailing about, protesting something of which one is wholly ignorant) yields some interesting results.
Page 15 of the Players Handbook gives us the horrible, horrible gender limits in Character Race Table III: Ability Score Minimums and Maximums. The first thing that jumps out at me as I look at the list is that humans are conspicuously absent. [Edit: It is mentioned in relation to exceptional strength for fighters.] What!?!? You mean this isn't some sort of attempt by the Patriarchy to imply a disparity (or superiority, which is NOT the same thing) between men and women? Well, no. It only applies to dwarves, elves, gnomes, half-elves, and halflings. Heck, even half-orcs have identical maximums for males and females down the line.
Looking at the ability scores themselves that are affected, we see... strength. That's right, all of the five other ability scores have exactly the same maximums for males and females. Dwarven and half-elven women have a maximum strength of 17. Elves 16. Gnomes 15. Halflings 14 (and male halflings can only have a 17 strength).
That's it. That's what all the hooplah over the last 30+ years on this subject has been about. Not that the rules imply that women are somehow inferior/weaker/whatever compared to men, but that the strongest female elf isn't quite as strong as the strongest man. And just how "quite as" is that? Well, the exact percentage depends on how you roll ability scores in the first place. But to take 3d6 (because it's easy), that means that there's a 0.46% chance that you'll have a character with an 18 strength. That's one person out of 200 with an 18 strength. We're talking the rarefied upper atmosphere, here. There's a 1.85% chance that it'll be 17, and 4.63% that it'll be 16. And just assuming that there's a 50-50 split among character genders (a more than generous split), that means there's a 0.23% chance that you will have to lower an 18 strength, a .83% chance you'll have to lower a 17 strength, and a 2.32% chance you'll have to lower a 16 strength. Get the picture? The odds that this will even ever come up are miniscule!
So I have no sympathy for those who say that gender-based ability limits are somehow unfair, or misogynistic, or whatever. First, they don't even apply to non-fighter humans. Second, they only apply to strength, (in which, in the real world, the strongest men really are stronger than the strongest women). Third, the odds of it actually applying are incredibly small. Fourth, IT'S ONLY A GAME, PEOPLE! Stop trying to turn it into some sort of Politically Correct statement of principals! [sic] Yeesh.
quote:Quite simply, when a woman can run just as fast, throw just as far or lift just as much as a man then you'll have no comeback from me.
But in the meantime, the number of times I've been asked to open jars, lift heavy things, carry bags of compost into the back garden as my wife is physically incapable of doing so, then I remain to be convinced that we are - or should be considered - the same.
By the way, 'political correctness' is not law.
quote:My wife who plays (and loves) her female fighter has no problem with it, doesn't feel diminished, disenfranchised or otherwise belittled by an arbitrary cap on strength.
If people want to argue that a game based on fantasy will damage their children then I'll laugh at their utter lack of parenting skills.
If people want to act like the vanguard for the feminist militia coming over the hill then I'll laugh at just how pathetic and small their self-worth must be to believe this harms them in any way.
If people want to argue that it's absolutely reprehensible that a writer should use his own discretion when writing terms for a fantasy rule set then I'll laugh at how much more of an offensive way of thinking that is than anything written in D&D.
Like Phil, I'm asked to open, lift, carry and move things all the time. Does it mean I arbitrarily believe my wife to be weak and incompetent? No. So why in all the merry blue loving hells should the fact that at the atmospheric limits of statistics males are stronger than females make me think any less of any woman anywhere?
People that think this is a vast social discrepancy, honestly, completely boggle my (rather limited) mind.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2013 19:59
|
|
- Erebro
- Apr 28, 2013
-
|
WRT the gods versus the Primordials it should be clear the gods were doing themselves the greater favor by far and have no numious nature or judgement (what they did to make the Yozi's was horrific, disgusting, and unfair) but the Primordials can't be innoecent either. They have to randomly screw up the system they set up, overwork or underappreciate the gods, or some other thing. Cronus was eating the next generation. The summerian gods feast was at the least in light of the lesser gods starvation. No war is clean and this was certainly about claiming goods not for "Good" as some abstract concept or even in a way humanity would fully agree with. But any subversion of the Yozi and Neverborn were right is only worth facepalm.
...
I'd ask this grog to define "WRT" for me, but I don't think I speak his language.
Also, grog tithe:
-------------------------------------------------
One of The Few Sane White Wolf Official Forum Posters posted:
Doesn't answer the in-setting terminology point. At all. Nor is it in common use as a noun; if you want I can insist on referring to heaven as 'neorxnawang' and that doesn't mean anyone's gonna know what the hell I'm talking about.
This thread has taken a rapid left-turn.
Humpty Dumpty grog posted:Get used to your points not being answered. I made mine in clear bullet points and I see them unanswered.
Holier than thou ragamuffin.
Also, if you look back, someone high profile dug this back up. If the Fae/Fay/Seelie/Unseelie/Fairies win or lose.
I'd retaliate against your attacks, but I'm sure your such a coward you'd be the first to bait and report.
All *I* wanted answered was my last point:
Is this literary in its entirety or would this be backed mechanically? If it's backed by mechanics, my other points can be considered, but by no means do I expect them all to be answered, cause I'm not an egotist.
Fate succumbing to temptation posted:Personal attacks are not acceptable, neither are thinly veiled insults. Take two weeks off to adjust that attitude, next time it's permanent.
Behold.
White Wolf moderators do exist.
(also, it's a Through the Looking Glass reference, not his screename. "If I say a word, it means just what I choose it to mean...").
Erebro fucked around with this message at 02:13 on Jun 9, 2013
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 02:00
|
|
- Opinion Haver
- Apr 9, 2007
-
|
So we have a (4chan) thread that starts with someone pointing out that a level 20 ranger who specializes in breaking things and climbing completely fails to climb oily ropes or break metal doors down 72% of the time. Naturally, the physical activity experts come out:
quote:
Am I the only one who thinks he SHOULD fail 75% of the time?
I mean... it's an oiled rope.
Show me someone, anyone in the world who can climb up an oiled rope even 25% of the time.
The level 6 ranger in 4th climbing up an oiled rope 100% of the time is insane.
quote:
Show me proof anywhere on the internet that anyone has ever successfully climbed an oiled rope.
quote:
But isn't it more awesome and impressive that a man who is still limited by human ability can kill gods?
quote:
and then the wizard can go to the ledge and chuck a rope ladder down, do you even work as a team?
This thread is as much worth reading for the grog as it is for the people pointing out that you have a 25% shot of defeating Asmodeus by convincing him that iron chains would look absolutely fetching.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 06:51
|
|
- Guilty Spork
- Feb 26, 2011
-
Thunder rolled. It rolled a six.
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVZJ69KjdpQ
Guess I'll just leave this here. There is nothing I find more pretentious than being called the Lens in a game called Microscope.
Edit: I want my players to play in my story arc. They can add ideas that I couldn't think of, but they are still playing in my story arc.
quote:quote:Why is story telling "Pretentious?"
quote:I don't think I want to know what kind of person would totally like this game. =)
quote:quote:You're getting the rules wrong in several places. You still wouldn't like the game, but you're describing setup, the Lens and how scenes are played incorrectly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 08:45
|
|
- That Old Tree
- Jun 24, 2012
-
nah
|
quote:Because its Too Good to Languish in the Comments
On a purely pragmatic level, you can't serve two masters at once; either the Story is paramount, or the Game itself (that is, emulation and immersion) is paramount.
If you make the former paramount, then the rules are ultimately meaningless, characters are meaningless, everything about the game is futile except inasmuch as it serves to promote "story". Character protagonism becomes meaningless (and player protagonism with it) because these only matter and should be allowed as long as they serve the Story. If something a character wants to do (or a player wants his character to do) would reduce the experience of "creating a story", it should not be allowed, and thus in a story-focused game any sense of protagonism is an illusion.
Emulation of the world becomes meaningless, the point is no longer to create a world that is internally consistent or that feels real, except when and if this contributes to the sense of "dramatic agenda"; at any other time, it must be discouraged, particularly at any time it enters into conflict with the sense of dramatism of the Story.
The validity of the rules themselves become meaningless; if it doesn't serve the Story for a PC to be killed in a random encounter with an Orc, then this is to be ignored for the sake of Story. Thus Immersion becomes impossible; you know your character isn't a flesh-and-blood person living in a virtual world, he's a character in a novel, who will do what is dramatically interesting, live for as long as it serves the story, succeed if it serves the story and fail if it does not.
On the other hand, if you put Emulation first, then whole idea of "Creating a Story" becomes meaningless. It takes second place to all the things mentioned above, and any story that is created is entirely a byproduct of Emulation and Immersion. Its like when you go fishing: you don't go fishing to "create a story", you go fishing to go fishing; occasionally, a ripping yarn gets created as a result of that fishing trip, but its not the GOAL. More often, you get an experience that is fascinating to you and to those involved, but utterly not-fascinating to any other poor bastard who has to hear your "fishing story", in precisely the same way that most people's stories about their PCs or their Campaigns are unbelievably dull to anyone who wasn't actually there but is forced to hear about it.
The reason for Immersion isn't for "story to be told", in fact, as outlined above, Immersion becomes basically impossible if you try to make that the goal. The point of Immersion is the point of RPGs: to bring to life a person living in a virtual world, and to incarnate as that person for a while. When run properly, RPGs are very good at that. On the other hand, RPGs are utter poo poo at being methods to "create story". Ironically, so are Storygames; which, as I pointed out above, is why Harry Potter or Twilight Fan Fiction are unbelievably popular, while the Forge and its games was a failure.
RPGPundit
(June 6, 2012)
A narrative focus makes the rules meaningless because if the rules conflict with story-generation they must be ignored. This is different from individual character role immersion and the intrusion of rules that conflict with that experience because
quote:quote:Among new-style story games, some of the most successful are the ones that have a lot of in-character mechanics and relatively little narrative mechanics - like Dungeon World, Burning Wheel, and FATE versions like Spirit of the Century and Dresden Files - as opposed to GMless and/or pure storytelling games like Polaris or Universalis.
You know, I think this is a very interesting insight! Because what you're saying amounts to "among storygames, the most successful ones are the ones who have tried to mask themselves so as to most closely approximate a regular RPG". I wonder what might happen if they took this insight to the logical conclusion?
RPGPundit
"Swinegames are absolutely not RPGs! No, wait…successful swinegames are RPGs. That's what makes them successful!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 19:49
|
|
- Rasamune
- Jan 19, 2011
-
MORT
MORT
MORT
|
Good idea... But whhyyyyy on the beautiful female model? Slannesh is a the chaos god of pleasure and i doubt armpit hair is pleasurably atractive in any way on a femanine greater daemon...
I can't tell if this person watches entirely too much porn or not nearly enough.
quote:I cannot conceive of a context in which your declared intent would not leave "bear attack" as a negative consequence.
quote:
quote:And no one noticed the trained bears while sneaking in? No one had heard that these guys had trained bears while scoping out the mission or during any of the previous interactions they may have had with the warlords leading or their henchmen leading up to the mission?
When your game is freeform bullshit and your world is not particularly detailed, that works both ways. A player can announce that they toss the ticking bomb into a nearby mailbox because no one mentioned how far the nearest mailbox was. And the MC can have the warlord call in their trained guard bears because no one mentioned how many guard bears were on hand. Anything undeclared can be declared. Even guard bears. Especially guard bears.
quote:
quote:"What kind of defenses does this guy have" is a question that would probably be asked while trying to break into a dangerous location, yes. In fact it is probably the very first question you would ask.
Also, there was more than one warlord in your scenario, so even if the defenses of one of the warlords had already been previously locked down via quantum observation, there could still be guard bears under the command of one of the other warlords whose defenses hadn't been observed.
Really, all you have is a petulant whine "But that's stuuupid!" Which of course, is precisely the point. You may, and evidently do think that constant threat of bear attack is retarded, but our hypothetical bear-loving MC does not think that. And that's precisely the point.
quote:
quote:Dead wrong. When you roll to read a sitch in Apocalypse World you can ask "what should I be on the lookout for," at which point the GM is required by the rules to tell you what you should be on the lookout for. You don't have to roll twice for both warlords and whatever other threat the GM decides to pull out of his rear end. You make the roll, and if you succeed, you ask a question about the situation in general which the GM is required to answer honestly. That doesn't mean the GM can't seed every adventure with bears, but he can do that in any system.
But beyond that, you're totally and unmitigatedly full of poo poo here. Here's the actual and complete "What's the Sitch?" rules:
Apocalypse World posted:
When you read a charged situation, roll+sharp. On a hit, you can ask the MC questions. Whenever you act on one of the MC’s answers, take +1. On a 10+, ask 3. On a 7–9, ask 1:
• where’s my best escape route / way in / way past?
• which enemy is most vulnerable to me?
• which enemy is the biggest threat?
• what should I be on the lookout for?
• what’s my enemy’s true position?
• who’s in control here?
Reading a situation can mean carefully checking things out, studying and analyzing, or it can mean a quick look over the wall and going by gut. Depends on the character.
As MC, sometimes you’ll already know the answers to these and sometimes you won’t. Either way, you do have to commit to the answers when you give them. The +1 is there to make it concrete.
That's it. You say "What should I be on the lookout for?" and then the MC tells you something like "The Warlords have guards and poo poo." And then you say you're doing something or other to get around the "guards and poo poo", and that gives you +1 to your roll. But if you fail anyway, the MC can spring something on you that doesn't actually contradict the "Warlords have guards and poo poo" revelation. Which can include loving Guard Bears.
Look, want to see the actual shitfuck example of actually hitting that roll on a motherfucking Eleven?
Apocalypse World posted:
Bran doesn’t like the way things are going, so he takes a quick look around. He hits the roll with an 11, so let’s see. Tum Tum isn’t his biggest threat, Tum Tum’s psychically-linked cultist bodyguards are. His enemy’s true position is closing in slowly around Tum Tum’s temple, where they’re talking. And if things go to poo poo? I think his best escape route would be to take one or the other of Tum Tum hostage. (Bran’s player: “Aw gently caress.”)
So tell me what part of that answer would involve Tum Tum's cultists unleashing guard bears into the temple being off the loving table?
Every failure can be bears. Every. loving. One.
quote:
quote:And then you say "like what sort of guards and poo poo" and then since you've succeeded on your roll and have therefore put effort into scoping the place out, the MC is obligated to tell you what sort of guards and poo poo, and if that explanation does not include bears, you are entirely within your rights to ask why the Hell you didn't notice the bears when you were scoping the place out.
No. No he isn't. You make the roll, then you are allowed to ask one question or three if you pass, or pass well. If you fail, the MC makes an entire move. The examples in the actual mother loving book are that the MC answers each question in turn with a single cryptic sentence. The loving end.
All this horse poo poo about the player becoming master of reality for passing a What's the Sitch test is all in your loving mind. The actual rules do not support that interpretation. Making a What's the Sitch test gives you a cryptic one sentence answer, and the only effect of that is that if you work that answer into your next action in some way you get a +1 bonus on that test. That is loving it.
There is absolutely nothing in a What's The Sitch test success or failure result that would inherently rule out the possibility of bear attack from the MC's move on any future failed test.
Remember, even when you succeed on texts, you get one sentence from the MC. Then the MC spouts off whatever the gently caress he feels like. The Act Under Fire gives you a one sentence declaration of what the gently caress happens if you hit. All the rest of the details are left open to the MC. All your tirades of player empowerment are total horseshit, because that's not how the loving game works. The game is a virtually nonstop MC railroad where periodically the players are allowed to roll dice to see if they can get a sentence in edgewise here or there.
On 10+, you do it. On 7-9, you flinch, hesitate, or stall: the GM can give you a hard bargain, an ugly choice, or a MOTHERFUCKING BEAR ATTACK.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 23:16
|
|
- MiltonSlavemasta
- Feb 12, 2009
-
And the cats in the cradle and the silver spoon
Little boy blue and the man on the moon
"When you coming home, dad?"
"I don't know when
We'll get together then son you know we'll have a good time then."
|
Fair warning, the following answer is based on years and years of playing "Imbalanced" games, like Rifts, AD&D 2E, oWoD, etc, and never having this issue of imbalance pop up as a negative. You have been warned.
The fact of the matter is, combat is not a series of white-room situations. Asking for mechanical equality between all combat forms, including unarmed, means exactly jack and squat. The ST is going to end up "balancing" the disparities (or exacerbating the disparities, situation dependent) based on whatever scenario the combat takes place in.
XP Cost is mostly irrelevant. "Numerical Parity" is also mostly irrelevant. I say mostly because as long as it's not WILDLY out of sync, it does not really matter due to the near infinite number of variables that a given scenario can provide. The only thing the devs have to do is make each combat style within a ballpark of each other, and it's going to be fine. The entire rules structure is just a construct for presuming a level of agency over the game that doesn't really exist anyways, so don't worry so much about it, because it's not a board game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 23:56
|
|
- ProfessorCirno
- Feb 17, 2011
-
The strongest! The smartest!
The rightest!
|
quote:But, HP are far too abstract to get that detailed. Undead, particularly incorporeal undead, have no physiology as we would understand it. So, how can their HP be the same as the HP for a human?
Or take various fantastical creatures that simply cannot work, but, we accept them in the name of genre. Any flying monster that's human sized or larger doesn't work. It cannot work. Not without a complete revision of the physics of the game. And that's the point. HP are not part of the "physics engine" of D&D.
Can you do it? Sure. There are a number of games out there that do what you are proposing - typically pretty sim heavy games where the goal of the rules is to produce an accurate simulation of the world. But, again, D&D has almost always sacrificed simulation for speed of play. HP are popular because they work. They're quick and dirty, but, they work.
Sure, when you scratch below the surface, they make about as much sence as a cardboard hammer. We all know that. The trick is, don't scratch. Once you go down the road of trying to make D&D into a simulation game, it changes virtually every aspect of the game. D&D has always been an, to borrow a Forgism, incoherent game. It uses whatever works at the table to judge mechanics. Trying to redefine HP at this point would effectively invalidate every playstyle that doesn't follow your playstyle.
I'd much prefer to leave HP very fuzzy and then let individual DM's futz about hammering it into whatever shape they like.
I don't think you have a firm grasp about what D&D or role playing games are. I'll leave it at that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 11:18
|
|
- PantsOptional
- Dec 27, 2012
-
All I wanna do is make you bounce
|
Regarding the new Fantasy Flight Star Wars game, which has been nothing but transparent about the fact that this, the first game in a series of three, is about space scum like Han Solo and doesn't have any Jedi:
quote:I do hope FFG takes a ding from their sales because this idea that that “daddy knows best” regarding iconic archetypes of star wars and timeline is very unflattering to their company. It has kind of turned me off to their other products as well. I own most of them, but future products now seem like they are tainted by arrogance or a faux omniscient. I know that at GenCon, I plan on (politely) letting them know I will not be supporting their line beyond Edge of the Empire because of their anti-Jedi stance. I know a few other people who plan on doing the same thing.
How dare a company decide their own product line? I'll let them know that I won't buy the future products that contain the things that I actually want, and I won't look like a crazy ranting person at all.
quote:Heck, there are going to be a huge number of people who get duped into buying the product because they know it is the new star wars rpg but do not know that it is a very limited and marginalizing product of the Star Wars universe.
If only marketing or advertising existed...
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 20:25
|
|
- Overemotional Robot
- Mar 16, 2008
-
Robotor just hasn't been the same since 9/11...
|
Here are the rules.
- Must post grog. This is the big one. Your post can certainly comment on some funny grog, but the last thread was overwhelmed with low effort slackers riding the jocks of the real grogposters. Don't post grog, something bad will happen to you. Commentary on previous posts is fine, or discussing grog, but you gotta bring a pie to the buffet if you do.
(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 02:33
|
|
- LongDarkNight
- Oct 25, 2010
-
It's like watching the collapse of Western civilization in fast forward.
-
Oven Wrangler
|
quote:I didn't like 4th Edition, if I wanted to play a vampire-robot ninja there's already a game for that. I'd just play GURPS.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 06:45
|
|
- Chaltab
- Feb 16, 2011
-
So shocked someone got me an avatar!
|
"I don't want to play if my barbarian has no strong feelings toward magic!  "
Grog:
quote:The handwriting was on the wall for 4e with "Essentials". Remember, the ad push for 4e was practically tailor-made to destroy any goodwill anyone felt towards Wizards. The whole savings worth of said goodwill that they'd spent the introductory years of 3e building up went away in a flash. An ad campaign that said "Your games sucked and you're stupid for having played them this way"...
4e sales were beaten out by an OGL product that people could essentially (no pun intended) have had for free. OSRIC and other games ate into their profit margins - and yes, they did - in a way that couldn't be ignored.
Gleemax was an instantly mocked joke that NOBODY liked. Nobody. No-body. "Facebook for gamers!" - dumbasses. Facebook is the Facebook For Gamers. Why didn't they push that in a major way?
The DDI...oh boy, don't even get me started on this. D&D was successfully wed to electronic products through the 80s and 90s and yet Wizards couldn't hire a competent programming team for this effort? Good lord. That was another nail in 4e's coffin. Hasbro saw all this money circling the drain and couldn't do a thing to stop it.
So after flipping the bird to about half their customer base, they immediately scrambled to get that base back. A "tour bus" covered with old-school D&D art. A week, flaccid attempt to garner "our" attention. Then came Essentials. Put in the pink Mentzer box, and 4e rules shoehorned into 3e paradigms...you could smell the stink of desperation as soon as the box was opened.
The already anorexic release schedule for 4e began to wither, and then...bam, 5e announced. Every card they've played for 5e has been "A return to old school D&D!". I'm not kidding myself; 5e isn't going to be like..."HA! It was AD&D all along!" But they're clearly looking at older playstyles as the way forward. Not 4e's "superhero boardgame" as 1989 put it.
4e failed when it threw the baby out with the bathwater - Most folks didn't want "D&D but in name only". We want D&D. They get it now. 5e might not be perfect but as I've said before if it's a good 2nd game for me, that's enough to win back my gaming dollars.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 21:27
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2024 02:12
|
|
- Chaltab
- Feb 16, 2011
-
So shocked someone got me an avatar!
|
Pro-4E  grog
quote: 4th edition D&D is for advanced players
When I started playing Dungeons & Dragons, there were two different versions: The basic D&D, and the first edition of "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons". We played the latter, because it had "advanced" rules like different weapons actually doing different amounts of damage. But that was an age where you still needed to explain to new players that they were "playing a character", and not moving a game piece like in Monopoly. Today children grow up playing characters in video games, and while that doesn't involve "in character" role-playing, everybody is at least familiar with the basic concept of controlling an avatar. Thus even a basic version of Dungeons & Dragons can be more complex than it was in the 80's. But I would say that beyond such a basic version, there is need for an "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons". And to me, 4th edition is just that.
The core rules of D&D Next, as far as we know them, appear to me to be suitable for beginning D&D players, as well as to the kind of veterans who prefer extremely simple combat. D&D Next rules solve at least some of the most blatant flaws of early D&D, like wizards running out of spells after the first round of combat. And if everything Wizards of the Coast are promising us comes true, there will even be optional rules modules which make combat increasingly more complex. Nevertheless, the core of D&D Next is such that no optional module can possible bring the game up to the advanced complexity of 4th edition.
Now 4th edition obviously isn't for everybody. I saw a rant on YouTube yesterday where the guy was complaining that the fight in the Keep on Shadowfell module against 5 kobolds took his group over 4 hours to complete. To me it is rather obvious that the DM and players of that group simply couldn't handle 4th edition rules. I played exactly the same combat with a group new to 4E, but experienced roleplayers, and we managed it in 1 hour. Now we all got some more practice in 4E combat in, I could probably run it in half an hour. Even with the worst of rolls on both sides that fight can't possibly take more than 10 rounds, and if you need half an hour for a single round of combat, you're playing extremely slow. That isn't a fault of the rules system, it is players unable to decide where to move, or what powers to use (out of a choice of just 4 at level 1), or having to read the rules for every move. I can fully understand how people unable to grasp more complex tactical rules, or unwilling to try, wouldn't want to play 4th edition.
Nevertheless I think it would be a mistake for Wizards of the Coast to stop supporting 4th edition and let D&D Next supersede 4E as the "one and only" version of Dungeons & Dragons. After 4 editions of steadily increasing complexity, you can't simply reset the game and demand of your more advanced players to be happy with a much more simplistic version. Just look at the outcry Blizzard caused when announcing to further simplify talent tree in Mists of Pandaria, and that is just a very minor simplification compared to the step down from 4E to D&D Next, even with optional modules.
The same outcry is already happening in the D&D Next playtest. Now D&D Next is a lot less balanced than 4th edition, so the simplification hits different classes to different degrees. In 4E there isn't much difference in complexity between a wizard and a fighter, in the D&D Next playtest rules the wizard still has lots of tactical options and the fighter is a primitive brute reduced to basic attacks (which deal a lot of damage, apparently WotC thought that would make up for the simplicity). On a recent interview Mike Mearls said the feedback from D&D Next clearly showed that the majority of testers were unhappy with that fighter.
I think going back to a two-tier system with D&D Next being "basic D&D" and 4th edition continuing to be supported as a form of "advanced D&D" would be the best solution here. It simply would be impossible to span the whole range of complexity with core rules and optional modules. 4th edition has a very different basic structure than D&D Next, which no optional module can fix. And advanced players simply won't go back to a game with much simpler rules, however much new or more simple players might enjoy those.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 21:40
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 15:32
