|
Captain Foo posted:lol if u drink tea; coffee supremacy I and about half of this forum will fight you on that.
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 15:04 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:Jesus. What you're doing here is taking the thing which I said- "spending Fate points on something shows its importance to the narrative" and rephrasing it slightly, then pretending it's a counter to what I said. Like, why do you think Balsera, Donoghue and Hicks tell you not to do these things? They explicitly said in at least one first-party Fate product that I can remember that you should only pick important things to be Aspects and ditch ones you're not using, so that you aren't just picking one or two things at a time. This is also why you have the progression from 10 Aspects in SOTC to 7 in DFRPG to 5 in Core. Captain Foo posted:lol if u drink tea; coffee supremacy
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
Which one did Gary Gygax drink?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
I never drink coffee, used to drink tea. Now I just live on orange juice and ovaltine 
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:"Nah" to what? I agree with you. It's important that, on some hypothetical Chronicles of Riddick weapons table (even a super simple one), "teacup" is ranked lower than "assault rifle". That way Riddick either choosing to use one or being forced to use one has some sort of weight. I must have misinterpreted you as arguing that this is cool by virtue of it being an extraordinary action where you take a penalty and come out on top, as opposed to "This is what I do everyday." Still, Theoretical Riddick System probably makes skill way more important than the weapon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
There are game systems where an assault rifle can allow for numerically more effective actions than a teacup while also allowing (in a sufficiently contrived scenario) both to permit Mr Dude Killer to Kill Dudes, without there being a mechanical penalty for one over the other in effectiveness. There is a world of semantic difference between a penalty that makes you waste time whiffing versus not allowing a teacup to hold down a platoon with covering fire.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
No, no, this eating utensil doesn't have a penalty relative to Excalibur... just a temporary bonus adjustment! *clamoring crowd of gamers rushes spork vendor's stall*
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:I and about half of this forum will fight you on that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
This thread is rapidly making the original exchange look positively erudite by comparison.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
How many rolls/rounds would it take to kill dudes in a scene contrived to make teacup murder possible? The answer is however many the scenario creator contrives there to be, soooo
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
I'm not that fatalistic about behind-the-scenes GM railroading. If I'm playing a Fighter with Passing Attack, and I'm accosted by two 1hp minions in an alleyway, I'm certainly happy to humiliate them by putting my sword aside and brandishing a ladle or something. That doesn't require the DM to be secretly not even using the game rules and just waiting for an appropriate-feeling amount of time to pass to tell me I'm allowed to move to the next scene.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
Brb reskinning a maestro 'd to use a broken teacup instead of a knife
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
But guys, if you let the fighter kill a dude with a teacup and not take a gross penalty once, that's all they're going to do! - Nobody who understands games or human beings.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
MalcolmSheppard posted:I love 4e and John hates it, but I think it does a lot of what he wants games to do. Dailies are spotlight moments in fight scenes. There's a place for supporting characters, and dramatic rhythm. But I get John, because 4e is, I am sorry to say, one of the shittiest-written versions of the game, and reads like the authors don't give a gently caress about stories, and neither should you. Everything I said about why the game is awesome? That's what I draw out of a system that doesn't actually explain what it can do or inspire enthusiasm. If 4e didn't, sorry kids, completely suck at presenting itself as a story-generating engine, 5e would iterate from it. 4e was different enough that those people could not read their experiences into it, but nothing was ever going to overcome that. That's not to say that 4e did a good job selling itself as a a vessel for stories, but it doesn't have some hard distinction from the previous edition in that respect- the distinction was in the way people scrutinized it. This kind of false framing is a common fallacy. Old, traditionalist concepts are given a free pass, while more innovative concepts are scrutinized in ways that established notions are not, such that even when the older concept is worse in a particular way, it's the new idea that gets criticized on those grounds, using that criteria, which is otherwise withheld. Frankly, 4e's approach to story/setting as fodder for adventures was a better crack at story than the endless spell lists and pointless cosmology of older editions. The older editions weren't good at these thing, they're just the gatekeepers of memory for a pile of annoying bloggers. The older approaches don't evoke stories, they invoke them. They conjure them up, summon them, using the correct magic words and phrases, observing the ancient taboos and pandering to the proper potentates, but that process is not some universal, authentic bond of feeling, enthusiasm, or creativity. A Catastrophe fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Oct 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:But guys, if you let the fighter kill a dude with a teacup and not take a gross penalty once, that's all they're going to do! If you let someone use a teacup with the same effectiveness as they'd use a sword, you diminish the importance of swords. But, swords are, and should be, important to a number of games.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
Benn Affleck obviously couldn't find his wife in Gone Girl because of his low passive perception score,
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
The whole point of a system is for it to be there. If values don't matter, then the system doesn't matter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:If you let someone use a teacup with the same effectiveness as they'd use a sword, you diminish the importance of swords. But, swords are, and should be, important to a number of games. Only if you pretend context isn't a thing that exists.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:If you let someone use a teacup with the same effectiveness as they'd use a sword, you diminish the importance of swords. But, swords are, and should be, important to a number of games. I sharply disagree. The sword is a tool. What matters is the guy using it. Like nobody cared if Riddick was using a knife he took from some other dude or an axe or whatever. The weapon wasn't what was important. It was the dude murdering everyone hat people cared about. When John McClane grabs the pistol hidden in his back he wasn't taking some kinda penalty, and nobody gasped and thought "That's a smaller gun! He'll never be able to kill now that he dropped his better weapon!" John Matrix kills people in an absurd number of ways, be it a goddamn arsenal of guns, just just snapping their necks, throwing knives at them, etc. Rambo is equally deadly with bow and hilariously oversized machine gun. Is McClane's machine gun "diminished in importance" because he can whip out his pistol and shoot a terrorist? Are any of THE COMMANDO's weapons "diminished in importance" when he throws a dude off a cliff or just snaps a guy's neck in the plane? What about when he's mowing baddies down with a machine gun and some grenades - do the grenades make the machine gun "less important?" No, because nobody gives a poo poo about the machine gun! We're there to watch Schwarzenegger rack up the body count! When JOHN MATRIX throws a loving pipe at a dude to kill him with a one liner, how many people went "You know, this just ruins the previous scene, why even bring all those guns if he can just kill with a pipe?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
Error 404 posted:Only if you pretend context isn't a thing that exists. Good work, but next time say something of substance. ProfessorCirno posted:I sharply disagree. The sword is a tool. What matters is the guy using it. Why was John McClane happy to get his hands on an assault rifle if it didn't really matter what he had on hand in his fight scenes?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
That's it. I'm sick of all this "Masterwork Coffee Mug" bullshit that's going on in the d20 system right now. Teacups deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
Just gotta take the "Willow Ware Warrior" prestige class.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing us that either John Wick or John Tarnowski must be right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Why was John McClane happy to get his hands on an assault rifle if it didn't really matter what he had on hand in his fight scenes? Who said it doesn't matter? Different tools for different uses. I don't remember him throwing away the pistol because look, the machine gun has +3 and the pistol has +2. What matters is that he's John McClane, Now With Machine Gun. HO-HO-HO. The machine gun is incidental to the "JOHN MCCLANE." You're the one claiming that unless John McClane has some sorta penalty to choking a dude with a chain, or unless there's some big gap between stabbing a dude with a knife and killing them with your hands, John Matrix snapping a dude's neck in a plane isn't interesting. And what that leads to is a game where nobody chokes dudes, nobody stabs with a knife, nobody shoots a bow, they all just get the One Good Weapon and keep it on them at all times.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Why was John McClane happy to get his hands on an assault rifle if it didn't really matter what he had on hand in his fight scenes? Because that is what the narrative said for him to do  Down With People posted:That's it. I'm sick of all this "Masterwork Coffee Mug" bullshit that's going on in the d20 system right now. Teacups deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that. Coffee mugs are much, much heavier than some dainty little teacup and they're going to make more effective bludgeons as a result. That's just verisimilitude. Hwurmp fucked around with this message at 01:39 on Oct 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Good work, but next time say something of substance. Really makes u think.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
Have we really gotten this far with "how deadly should a teacup be?" without a "well, what's important to your game"? I'm seeing pages of comments discussing whether or not to add paprika or cinnamon without actually discussing what's being cooked. If it's important to the game, it should be represented in the system, if not, then not. Twilight 2000 is probably right to discount martial mugs, since it's True Military Tales of the Post-Apocalypse; Feng Shui shouldn't care what you're using to murder with as long as it's part of your gimmick. Do what's right for the game. There's no one true Way of the Teacup.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:Do what's right for the game. There's no one true Way of the Teacup.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
Edit: Actually it's all dumb and we're trying to play very different games here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Who said it doesn't matter? Different tools for different uses. I don't remember him throwing away the pistol because look, the machine gun has +3 and the pistol has +2. What matters is that he's John McClane, Now With Machine Gun. HO-HO-HO. The machine gun is incidental to the "JOHN MCCLANE." You're the one claiming that unless John McClane has some sorta penalty to choking a dude with a chain, or unless there's some big gap between stabbing a dude with a knife and killing them with your hands, John Matrix snapping a dude's neck in a plane isn't interesting. And what that leads to is a game where nobody chokes dudes, nobody stabs with a knife, nobody shoots a bow, they all just get the One Good Weapon and keep it on them at all times. Hey, quick question, what the hell is all this? I notice you've peppered this post and several of your last with bizarre inanities that no one but you has ever said?? Seems weird??? Like, I was going to bold them but literally every sentence in this post after your second, except your fourth, is some kind of manic shadow-boxing. I notice you agree, though, that it does matter that John McClane has an assault rifle, because having an assault rifle is better for him than not having one, because in Die Hard what you are or aren't armed with is actually hugely important and makes a tremendous difference in what you're able to do. The climax of the movie literally turns on the fact that John McClane was secretly armed with "handgun" instead of "bare hands". Really Pants posted:Because that is what the narrative said for him to do No, I'm sorry. If someone asks "Why did ____ happen?" of a movie or book or whatever, "It was in the script" is the wrong answer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
Kind of corny but I wanted to thank TG for giving me inspiration to finally start working on my home brew system. After lurking and seeing all of the poo poo that I have felt, but never could put into words finally spelled out, it kind of kicked me in the rear end to get started. The issues with various systems, martial classes getting poo poo on in various games, hilarious CR math issues, etc. it made me see that in order to have fun, I need to create the game I want to play (and hopefully others want to as well). Hopefully in the coming week I can finally make a thread for the 'core' of it, once I manage to get them into a PDF that can be used to at least run the basics of the system.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
Nowhere in any of the movies does Riddick "serious up" and get a minigun or whatever, the whole point of Riddick is that he's always using weapons that a "normal" person (for whatever value of normal you care to assign to the average member of bounty-hunter-alien-necromancer world) would consider grossly inferior to the task at hand. He kills a variety of gun-wielding mercenaries, alien monsters, and space necromancers using nothing more than a knife or, if he's feeling fancy, two. "Riddick would be more dangerous with a gun" is a really weird argument because how, exactly? There's never a point where he tries shanking someone and uh-oh, it turns out he needed to bring a better weapon to kill that guy. Riddick kills everyone he needs to kill using just a shiv, using a gun or a magic +5 knife isn't going to make him more lethaler than he already is. Yes, using inferior weaponry all the time is to demonstrate that Riddick is an ultimate badass, but there are ways to frame that in a tabletop RPG context that don't boil down to comparing stats to penalties and don't result in some hyperbolic strawman universe where teacups are equal in killing power to miniguns in everyone's hands. Watching this entire argument unfold has been genuinely bizarre.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
Alright that's enough about teacups.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:No, I'm sorry. If someone asks "Why did ____ happen?" of a movie or book or whatever, "It was in the script" is the wrong answer. Well I mean we could try and dissect the motivations of novelist Roderick Thorp and screenwriters Jeb Stuart and Steven E. de Souza if you really want
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
Ettin posted:Alright that's enough about teacups. Now shall be the reign of the saucer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
You're introducing an alien invasion into my fantasy? That is a betrayal of the Gygaxian milieu
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
A Catastrophe posted:This is also mainly true of 3, it's jut that 3e has the support of a certain kind of fan, who allows it to associate itself with their seminal gaming experiences. As a game designer, you need to do one of the following: 1) Give systems an explicit diagetic presence. "When a fighter uses a daily power he summons up the utmost effort and concentration he can apply before resting, uses a secret technique that foes might easily counter afterward, or takes advantage of a unique, momentary situation in combat." Evidently Essentials does more of this than core 4e. 2) Give specific guidance to make the system your own. "What does a daily power mean to a fighter? This depends on the player, the DM and the assumptions of the campaign. If fighters are mystical martial artists, the fighter might use a special kata or fighting pattern that conjures magical skill. In a more grounded campaign, a fighter's daily power is a moment of peak performance, like that used by any other athlete. You can decide this before rolling but you might want to go with the result, instead of the power itself--a graze was really a minor blow, for example." These approaches meet in the middle, of course, but in any event you need to develop the system's relationship with the fiction in a more than perfunctory fashion. We tend to think of 3e in its bloated end state, but many templated bonuses and the like represented either material or magical things in the world. This was quickly extrapolated to the point of meaninglessness, but that grounding was there. You have to do this job. With 4e, they didn't really do it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
Ettin, how patriotic do you feel right now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-Op1Mng4oY
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
If I ever roll a bard for a game I think it might have to be that concept.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 15:04 |
|
|
MalcolmSheppard posted:As a game designer, you need to do one of the following: "If you don't tell the player to make what they want of the system, then they can't and it's a failure of a system"? Am I really reading that right? I don't even like 4e because I've never played it, but it sounds like you're really, really reaching for reasons why 4e is bad here. You already have a conclusion and you're looking for ways to get to it, and it's really blatant.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 02:42
|
|
