|
I know Reddit is cheating, but this is kind of delightful:How to become a Tarrasque posted:Step 1: Make yourself a Clone, hide it somewhere safe. Good start, but it needs to be GRIMDARKER posted:I'm picturing a scene where, as the caster is beginning to shunt into the gith-tarrasque it begins to chuckle and then bursts into mad maniacal laughter. As the tarrasque's soul leaves its body the caster senses something is horribly wrong. The magic jar was suppose to contain the creature's soul...but...how...is.... quote:Step 2: Hire a small army (50+, skilled hirelings are easily affordable) of mages. Cast a bunch of annoying save spells at it. Some will have to stick eventually. The Tarrasque should have no reason to NOT choose to succeed. quote:hahahaha, love it. If anyone wants their campaign's tarrasque to be less force of nature more evil mastermind, this is the way to do it. :P quote:It would be a great answer to "Hey...I thought it was just a godlike beast", then you explain this and your players realize the game can be very, very deep. Yes. Very "deep."
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 08:46 |
|
|
I actually like the Grimdark McBadguy version (toned down from the overwrought inky black and all that) and I think my players would too because they could say "Nice job, Steve, you just *had* to be loving Tarrasque" at the offending player.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:I actually like the Grimdark McBadguy version (toned down from the overwrought inky black and all that) and I think my players would too because they could say "Nice job, Steve, you just *had* to be loving Tarrasque" at the offending player. Yeah, this idea can potentially be great.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
I know this is missing the point a bit, but the tarrasque's Wisdom and Charisma saves are both actually +9 so, given its advantage on the roll, it'll shrug off the Magic Jar and Polymorph attempts. As is so often the case with these "hilarious" munchkin tricks it relies on "accidentally" not reading the the rules correctly and outright cheating.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
Capturing one hundred Dragon-Blooded (dynastic demigods for whom portion of divine blood has a real and measurable impact on their power and on the likelihood of their children being Dragon-Blooded as well) of the highest pedigree and mind-controlling them into staying inside an isolated compound for decades in order to gently caress an unstoppable army of supersoldiers into being: what could POSSIBLY go wrong?Isator Levi posted:Dehumanise the actual Exalted involved. It's like looking at Mad Max: Fury Road and thinking that Immortan Joe had a pretty sweet setup. Thank you, Isator Levi, for stating the obvious and settling this weird and hosed-up argument for- Thoth posted:...So if the Terrestrial exalted are bred (rather than built or created) and since they are designed to fight and win by numerical advantage, they basically copy the zerg play style. Bearing in mind that all Exalted are living "weapons" rather than naturally evolved or people who chose to take this life path, I would say the comparison stands. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 05:25
|
|
|
What is it about Exalted that brings out the  over and over and over?I am unfamiliar with the customs of those forums. Is saying to someone "You are a loving creep, shut the gently caress up" in those exact words a faux pas? quote:(I am generally of the view that in the decadent part of the First Age, if there was a way to degrade and lessen their fellow Exalted, the Solar's found it, weaponized it, and probably also had sex with it.) Asexual murder hobos with no interests beyond lootin' and murderin' are a core part of this hobby for a very very good reason. Ronwayne fucked around with this message at 05:45 on Jul 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 05:39
|
|
|
Thesaurasaurus posted:Capturing one hundred Dragon-Blooded (dynastic demigods for whom portion of divine blood has a real and measurable impact on their power and on the likelihood of their children being Dragon-Blooded as well) of the highest pedigree and mind-controlling them into staying inside an isolated compound for decades in order to gently caress an unstoppable army of supersoldiers into being: what could POSSIBLY go wrong?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 05:43
|
|
|
Apparently from what I can tell that guy is a proponent of exalted rape camps in general across multiple threads?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 05:45
|
|
|
Ronwayne posted:What is it about Exalted that brings out the loving I've never seen such a gap between how a game was originally intended (Exalted 1E, which wanted to by mythic and high-powered fantasy adventure with starting PCs like Gligamesh and Hercules instead of D&D's level one shitfamers with 3 hp) and what it eventually became (a leaked 700 page 3E draft written by fans who can't get enough of writing rules for forced demonic pregnancy spell chains).
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 05:47
|
|
|
Nihilarian posted:"oh, gosh, I can't tell who the movie wants me to think of as the good guy. Is it the rapist warlord, or the woman who opposes him? I wish they would make it clearer." FMguru posted:I suspect it's the bloodline-linked-to-power thing, combined with the everything-is-mechanically-defined approach to magic. Want an army of demigod warriors? Better break out the mind control spells and start building rape breeding camps, which you can actually fully extrapolate from the rules as written.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
FMguru posted:I suspect it's the bloodline-linked-to-power thing, combined with the everything-is-mechanically-defined approach to magic. Want an army of demigod warriors? Better break out the mind control spells and start building rape breeding camps, which you can actually fully extrapolate from the rules as written. That, and isn't one of the original points of Exalted that those characters were intentionally problematic to the normal people around them and caused as much (or more) trouble than they solved, hence the whole 'first age collapsed in madness' thing and the Great Curse? I cannot believe anyone would go to see Fury Road and not take 'We are not things' as basically the movie's tagline, or grasp that the film is basically about how people who dehumanize others are responsible for the situation they claim requires them to dehumanize others and that reaching for something better is the only way out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 05:53
|
|
|
FMguru posted:I suspect it's the bloodline-linked-to-power thing, combined with the everything-is-mechanically-defined approach to magic. Want an army of demigod warriors? Better break out the mind control spells and start building rape breeding camps, which you can actually fully extrapolate from the rules as written. In fairness, the source material had Gilgamesh demanding prima nocta with everyone's wives until they prayed to the gods to make him stop it already, and Herakles impregnating fifty princesses in a single night, but I really wish the game would emphasize more that these are bad things and you are supposed to stop them, and that pulling poo poo like this was what got your last incarnation slaughtered by their pissed-off subordinates.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
The sad thing is that the Realm basically is a Terrestrial mass-breeding/eugenics enterprise, and one successful enough to largely maintain stability in Creation for centuries, and yet those guys still can't stand up to a handful of Solars. What could you possibly get out a few decades of a bottlenecked, accelerated version of that besides some broke-rear end Harlow's-monkey-style DBs who are probably less effective than the Celestial implementing the project just fighting on their own? Then again, a guy stupid and/or venal enough to watch Fury Road and consider Furiosa the bad guy probably considers the rape camps a desirable end in and of themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 05:59
|
|
|
Nessus posted:What's even funnier is that the film does briefly consider this factor and makes it clear the wives are deliberately rejecting their position of relative safety and comfort in order to reach freedom. But horrors, a non-tactically optimal action-- worse, agency on the part of female characters! Lunars can have animal-people children by mating with mortals. Which is kind of a thing, half-god people turning out wrong is thematic to all sorts of Mythologies. But people took that to the logical extreme and came up with hypothetical situations where Lunars set up 10,000 year breeding programs with multiple sires to create hypothetically optimal animal-men. Also lots of furry sex.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 06:00
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:Lunars can have animal-people children by mating with mortals. Which is kind of a thing, half-god people turning out wrong is thematic to all sorts of Mythologies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Considering this makes me think one of the issues in Exalted is that PCs may not make great 'adventurer' characters. Sadly I'm sure Ex3 won't be moving towards troupe style, Ars Magica-fashion. That's definitely one of the problems with Lunars, the Thousand Streams initiative (Or whatever it was called) encourages you to play the long game, as in the thousands of centuries long game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
Its is the 41st millennium, and the furries are still sitting in the woods with a thumb up their rear end.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:Lunars can have animal-people children by mating with mortals. Which is kind of a thing, half-god people turning out wrong is thematic to all sorts of Mythologies. God, I hate that I remember this: Lunars (in 1E, at least?) specifically created beastmen by mating with mortals in animal form, or with animals in human form. The 1E Player's Guide broadened this concept to state that any (Celestial?) Exalted of Essence 4 and up could also conceive beastmen via sex with animals, in case your players were regretting missing all those juicy bestiality-related plot hooks because they didn't play Lunars, I guess?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 06:08
|
|
|
I don't care how much sex is part of the human and mythological experience, I'm pretty okay with absolutely zero attention paid to where babies come from and focusing on the ultraviolence. Maybe its the American in me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 06:11
|
|
|
Ronwayne posted:I don't care how much sex is part of the human and mythological experience, I'm pretty okay with absolutely zero attention paid to where babies come from and focusing on the ultraviolence. Maybe its the American in me. I'm glad they are dialing back on 3E the fucky parts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 06:11
|
|
|
TheLovablePlutonis posted:You melted down when people said Gone Home was a bad game, Dickeye. That's not Dickeye, I'm Dickeye, and you not even knowing who you're talking to proves what a goddamn idiot you are.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 06:57
|
|
|
All poo poo looks the same even from different asses.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 07:01
|
|
|
I wouldn't mind some references to sex where it is appropriate, but I sometimes feel like grogs cannot be trusted with the slightest reference to the birds and the bees.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 07:17
|
|
|
Antivehicular posted:God, I hate that I remember this: Lunars (in 1E, at least?) specifically created beastmen by mating with mortals in animal form, or with animals in human form. The 1E Player's Guide broadened this concept to state that any (Celestial?) Exalted of Essence 4 and up could also conceive beastmen via sex with animals, in case your players were regretting missing all those juicy bestiality-related plot hooks because they didn't play Lunars, I guess? Don't worry, Ex3's got you covered (from the Abyssal preview)  TheLovablePlutonis posted:I'm glad they are dialing back on 3E the fucky parts. oops
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 07:40
|
|
|
Dialing back is not the same as removing completely, sadly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 07:45
|
|
|
"I am a dark deathknight of dark seductive darkness, and I crave the forbidden carnalities of mortal love. A cat is fine too."
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 08:09
|
|
|
There's also a couple of sex charms as core for solars.paradoxGentleman posted:I wouldn't mind some references to sex where it is appropriate, but I sometimes feel like grogs cannot be trusted with the slightest reference to the birds and the bees. For real. Like, I've had groups that handle sex as not-weird (presently have in my current game, even; it's a baffling low bar to clear and people keep not doing it!)and even I kind of want to remove sex from game lines wherever possible because they just become "that sex game tee hee" to like 90% of the traditional gaming playerbase.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 11:43
|
|
|
Im a mountain dwarf and i am lvling up to 3 and i dont know what path to choose. And im a noob. (first time player) please help me!quote:Champion: The less complex fighter. You crit twice as often (on a 19-20 instead of just 20, and on an 18-20 at high levels). You also get a boost to all strength checks, an extra fighting style, and regeneration as your capstone feature. This one works well mechanically with half-orcs (extra crit dice for dayz), and really starts to shine when you hit fifth level and get more attacks. Less choice, but it's "always on", and I personally like always having something "extra" that my character can potentially do as opposed to a limited amount of "extra" that I have to manage and budget - I get hung up on decisions and I feel bad when it doesn't work. quote:If you want to go very simple, play a Champion. Champions are very good at what they do. They have a sword (or a bow, or whatever) and they hit things with it. Hard. For lots of damage. The Champion Fighter is probably the simplest class to play, but consequently, can also become more boring. You've essentially hit upon a key thematic problem with Fighters in that "Fighter" doesn't really mean anything besides "guy who fights", which is vague and non-descript compared to a Barbarian or a Paladin or a Ranger (although even that last one is a little vague itself). It used to be a Fighter meant "unequivocally better than everyone else at fighting", but the game has since moved more towards a model where all classes are (at least supposed to) be balanced against each other. 4E tried to give the Fighter a specific role, but apparently that didn't sit well with people. The idea that a Fighter is the most versatile at fighting (Barbarian only does lots of raw DPS, Paladin has healing and support, Fighter can easily swap across multiple roles) isn't well supported by the mechanics either. The Fighter being considered a dull blank slate isn't really a separate problem from the lack of mechanical interaction with the rules - it's two sides of the same coin. The Fighter is "boring" because no amount of flourish added to the description of your attacks nor word count of the Fighter's backstory is going to change the fact that they cannot engage with the game on a level deeper than "I roll to attack, I hit/miss" quote:This is what makes the Fighter one of the best classes. They are a blank slate. You play exactly the character you want, no worrying about gods, oaths, nature, spell books, pacts, or instruments. Just your imagination and your character to guide you in a world full of choices. quote:I don't think it needs a mechanical heft - I like being able to define what happens myself. It allows combat to be finished with really quickly so it becomes more of a beat in the adventure than the 1-2 hour affair they have been in previous editions - but an epic fight with back and forth dialogue against the boss of a dungeon can feel, emotionally, different. quote:Honestly I feel the opposite. I prefer fighters because you have to creatively solve problems instead of just plugging in a spell.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 12:25
|
|
|
quote:This is freeing and allows you to interact with the game world on a deeper level. "Well I go up to the innkeeper and say... and... I say... gently caress, my ability to roleplay has vanished! IF ONLY I HAD NOT PLAYED A BARD!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 12:29
|
|
|
FMguru posted:(a leaked 700 page 3E draft written by fans who can't get enough of writing rules for forced demonic pregnancy spell chains).  that's not in the leak at all, you incredible weirdo
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 12:41
|
|
|
spectralent posted:For real. Like, I've had groups that handle sex as not-weird (presently have in my current game, even; it's a baffling low bar to clear and people keep not doing it!)and even I kind of want to remove sex from game lines wherever possible because they just become "that sex game tee hee" to like 90% of the traditional gaming playerbase. What about Monster Hearts/Apocalypse World? Bedlamdan fucked around with this message at 13:16 on Jul 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 13:06
|
|
|
Bedlamdan posted:What about Monster Hearts/Apocalypse World? In AW I've often felt the sex elements added little while inviting "Tee hee it says butt" commentary. I would enormously support making them "intimacy moves" instead and also trigger on other moments of emotional bareness with people like being comforted while you're crying or getting drunk together, since that both evades that and covers situations I've always felt should be represented by emotional connection rules. Plus I've always felt it's a bit sad how the game had sex as the only thing representing an intimate connection*. Monster Hearts has sex a bit more fundamental to the paradigm it operates under so I think it justifies it's sex elements way more. That still being said, it's the kind of game I cringe when I see threads about it on 90% of boards because it's almost always either people trolling (usually people who're misreading or misreporting how Turn On works) or people being righteously indignant about the idea of fictional characters having sex their players consent to, which is in fundamental opposition to the laws of All RPGs Ever as writ by Gygax. *But that said maybe that's the intent.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 13:26
|
|
|
spectralent posted:In AW I've often felt the sex elements added little while inviting "Tee hee it says butt" commentary. I would enormously support making them "intimacy moves" instead and also trigger on other moments of emotional bareness with people like being comforted while you're crying or getting drunk together, since that both evades that and covers situations I've always felt should be represented by emotional connection rules. Plus I've always felt it's a bit sad how the game had sex as the only thing representing an intimate connection*. Yeah, there are a few sex moves that don't actually involve sex, from what I remember, but those aren't that common and sex seems like its intended to be a pretty big element of the game. I think the worst convo I ever read re:AW was a bunch of people speculating if you could use sex moves on unwilling partners, though. spectralent posted:Monster Hearts has sex a bit more fundamental to the paradigm it operates under so I think it justifies it's sex elements way more. That still being said, it's the kind of game I cringe when I see threads about it on 90% of boards because it's almost always either people trolling (usually people who're misreading or misreporting how Turn On works) or people being righteously indignant about the idea of fictional characters having sex their players consent to, which is in fundamental opposition to the laws of All RPGs Ever as writ by Gygax. Well, as best as I can understand from secondhand discussion of the mechanics, what gets non-grogs unhappy is that while characters can consent in MH, the players themselves don't really get much say. At least, I think that's the case, it might just have been someone messing with me. Bedlamdan fucked around with this message at 13:43 on Jul 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 13:38
|
|
|
Bedlamdan posted:Well, as best as I can understand the mechanics, what gets non-grogs unhappy is that while characters can consent in MH, players don't really get much say. That's actually patently false: in Monsterhearts players always retain control of their characters and there's no "seduction as mind control". Even if someone does use Turn Someone On on your character, you still retain full control of what your character does in reaction, no matter how high the other player rolls. The only thing you can't control is the exchange of Strings, and the exchange of Strings can have more readings than "your character now has the hots for mine." e: Also, you can't use Strings to say "And now your character does this." At best you can offer them an incentive to do it (in the form of using a String to offer them experience if they do what you ask them to) or having to keep their poo poo together if they refuse. Ratpick fucked around with this message at 13:44 on Jul 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 13:42
|
|
|
Bedlamdan posted:Yeah, there are a few sex moves that don't actually involve sex, from what I remember, but those aren't that common and sex seems like its intended to be a pretty big element of the game. Yeah, which is exactly why I, as someone who hasn't generally had an issue with sex at-the-table, still want it minimised wherever possible, because people keep taking any mention of it as free licence to do poo poo like that. quote:Well, as best as I can understand from secondhand discussion of the mechanics, what gets non-grogs unhappy is that while characters can consent in MH, the players themselves don't really get much say. At least, I think that's the case, I might just have someone messing with me. I'm not sure that's accurate; having Turn On rolled on you doesn't demand sex on an IC or OOC level. It's been a while since I played but the target player always picks their response, and I'm fairly sure you can take conditions or strings, and I think even the "have sex" bit is just a sub-variant of giving the seducer something you think they want. You could also just, like, offer to carry around their bags, and it's entirely possible that's what you'd want it for anyway. I think I have seen criticism, that is relatively well supported, based around the fact you can't just say "Nawh, that's not what my character's into", and this definitely includes being turned on by homo/heterosexual stuff. The former is a boundary thing I'd have to trust people to talk out ("Damnit, Dave, stop trying to make my character furry") but the idea of sexual orientation being fluid and shifting is one that's fairly hard-coded into the game; you're meant to be playing sexually confused teenagers, since part of the metaphors it's going for are ones related to queer experiences as a teenager. Now, personally, I both see why people could be uncomfortable with that (in a bad way; I think there's a lot about MH that's meant to be slightly cringeworthy but that's because you're playing messes of teenage hormones) and respect their wish not to play and think that's great that it exists, because I can't think of a whole lot of RPGs that put that actual experience of being a teenager with confused sexuality as being uncomfortable and awkward so front and center. I also think, again, in play with people who don't go "Butts. Hehehe." it's a lot of fun. But I also hate that it's licence for people to show up with their troll faces on and go "I play a fat otherkin witch. I roll to seduce. You have sex and love furry". Because that is the only level about nine tenths of the internets can engage any talk about sex with, apparently. e:fb
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 13:51
|
|
|
You know, in light of all the stories of crazy players going crazy with sex mechanics, I'm not sure what to make of the Red Rule thing in Ex3. Basically a player can throw up their hands and shut down someone else if they think it's creepy. I mean it's nice to have "hell no" hard coded into the rules now, but what does it say given the devs felt it needed to be an outright mechanic? Is this a commentary on the game? The people playing the game? The hobby in general?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 13:58
|
|
|
It's an acknowledgment that creepy people exist and that maybe the writers have had experiences with them in the past. While a game shouldn't need a mechanic for dealing with creepy players, it's nice to have some justification for shutting them down. Often I feel like people don't talk about the expectations for the game beforehand and throw up barriers to the stuff they don't want to see happen. I think that most people assume that everyone else is on the level and aren't gonna use the game as a vehicle for creepy fantasies (perhaps unintentionally) but I've seen it happen more than once and had to put a stop to it as well. We hear a lot of stories about creepy, uncomfortable, and sometimes blatantly offensive stuff happening in RPGs to often that it forms a distinct trend. And since our hobby is based around (mostly) face-to-face interaction and is pretty small, people have had to come up with ways to deal with weirdos and creepers. I can't say whether or not RPGs attract more or less creepy people than other hobbies, but I know I've come across more than my fair share of them over the years, and it's nice to see some justification for shutting them down baked into the game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 14:08
|
|
|
The thing is that Exalted fans don't actually like Exalted. They like maintaining the Exalted wiki.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 14:12
|
|
|
Bedlamdan posted:You know, in light of all the stories of crazy players going crazy with sex mechanics, I'm not sure what to make of the Red Rule thing in Ex3. Basically a player can throw up their hands and shut down someone else if they think it's creepy. I mean it's nice to have "hell no" hard coded into the rules now, but what does it say given the devs felt it needed to be an outright mechanic? I'd go "Hobby in general". Like I say, start a thread featuring sex visibly on reddit or /tg/ or something. People with opinions will just magically teleport in like sigmarines.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 14:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 08:46 |
|
|
This reminded me of the X card, a thing that kind of takes it too far into the opposite direction (I am looking at you, "you don't need to explain yourself" part) but whose basic principles could be of some use at cons where it is not practical to explain what you are comfortable with to a bunch of strangers: http://thisjustinfromgencon.com/2012/08/this-just-in-from-clyde-an-interview-with-john-stavropoulos-of-nerdnyc/
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 14:19
|
|