|
NachtSieger posted:tag yourself im sensual broken unnecessary Hallow
|
#
?
May 13, 2018 23:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 00:48 |
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:I agree with not making such things go looking for the PCs, but there's still the case where the PCs go looking for them. I can make them fail to find or reach them as many times as I want I suppose, but that's pretty unsatisfying for them. The only way to absolutely prevent it is to not introduce any even vaguely antagonistic entity anywhere in the universe until they can kill it, which is... an odd narrative constraint to apply because you want to resolve combat with a grid.  I disagree that there isn't a gradient between "absolute predesigned sandbox, PCs can get hosed up if they step in the wrong zone" and "PCs never fight anything that could threaten their lives" because there absolutely is. Like, if your players want to fight Ancalagon but they have only just left the Shire, maybe have them fight some minions of his, lieutenants and the like, before finding just where the father of drakes lives. Make a campaign out of it; character goals don't always need to be realized in two sessions.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2018 23:37
|
|
|
when i ran unfair enemies in Strike i just told the players that the enemy couldn’t be defeated by normal means and gave them an alternate objective or means of victory
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2018 23:39
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:I agree with not making such things go looking for the PCs, but there's still the case where the PCs go looking for them. I can make them fail to find or reach them as many times as I want I suppose, but that's pretty unsatisfying for them. The only way to absolutely prevent it is to not introduce any even vaguely antagonistic entity anywhere in the universe until they can kill it, which is... an odd narrative constraint to apply because you want to resolve combat with a grid. I had a GM once directly tell the group when we wanted to fight something we weren't meant to, "Seriously, guys, if you try to fight the minotaur right now, you're gonna die in no time flat. All the NPCs are running like hell from this thing and you should be doing the same". A lot of players are gonna chafe at that (we sure did) so it's not a great solution for every group, but it is a thing that GMs do sometimes and can be a valid part of a particular play style.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2018 23:47
|
|
|
I can understand a world where not everything is leveled to be appropriate for the players to fight at any time, but if you have set in stone statblocks for monsters, and the players want to do something that is absolutely going to kill them, why would you let them do it?!
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2018 23:51
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I can understand a world where not everything is leveled to be appropriate for the players to fight at any time, but if you have set in stone statblocks for monsters, and the players want to do something that is absolutely going to kill them, why would you let them do it?!
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2018 23:54
|
|
|
NachtSieger posted:tag yourself im sensual broken I'm Unnecessary Hollow EDIT: Elfgames posted:unnecessary Hallow Fukt
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 01:16
|
|
|
Fellowship's Set Pieces address this problem in a cool way- some large monsters like giant stone collossi or spider-tanks aren't treated as enemies per se so much as a collection of parts that all have to be dealt with before the threat can be taken down.
Vulpes Vulpes fucked around with this message at 01:32 on May 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 01:23
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:You're talking about MDA framework, but you're using jargon incorrectly. You should go read about MDA framework. That is actually really interesting and thank you for linking it. But that seems to particularly revolve around the idea that the game's aesthetics are completely determined by its mechanics, which applies to computer or board games but not necessarily RPGs because there is a GM who can emit aesthetics directly. The question in the RPG is what aspects of the aesthetics and dynamics actually require mechanics rather than going through the GM. The properties they want to deliver are a bit backwards for RPGs as well - for example, they talk about the expression trait, which is "your own creativity", and give the example of dressing up an avatar. But unlike in a computer game, in an RPG the default is that all of your own creativity is expressible; it just may not be accepted by the group, or may feel hollow because there is no avatar to actually see.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 01:38
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:I agree with not making such things go looking for the PCs, but there's still the case where the PCs go looking for them. I can make them fail to find or reach them as many times as I want I suppose, but that's pretty unsatisfying for them. The only way to absolutely prevent it is to not introduce any even vaguely antagonistic entity anywhere in the universe until they can kill it, which is... an odd narrative constraint to apply because you want to resolve combat with a grid. In a situation like this requires one or more of the following: 1. An out-of-character agreement that if the GM says "You can't possibly beat this foe in direct combat" then either a workaround or retreat will be required. 2. A system that has division and clear indicators between unbeatable foes the PCs might run into and want to fight, and mooks they'll be expected to mop the floor with. and 3. A GM who's willing to allow for the possibility that players might beat the enemy, but numbers aren't in their favor. The PCs might elect to fight anyway, and if they win the GM will just have to revise who the big baddie or chief lieutenant or whatever is. If they lose the GM might want to consider a way of debilitating or depriving the characters of something that isn't permadeath. Spellbound Kingdoms offers a pretty interesting take on engaging unbeatable foes. It's a known fact of the in-universe reality that being deeply passionate about something causes you to be narratively immortal. All of the most powerful figures in the kingdoms are therefore immune to unnatural deaths, but most PCs will be, too. PCs are expected to be butting heads with their foes, directly and indirectly, but until one side has sufficiently undermined the passions of another, the other side will inevitably escape with their life. There's plenty of lesser enemies along the way that don't have that level of immunity, but taking down any major enemy takes work. Their target will be working to take them down at the same time, and any major deaths for either side with take some work to accomplish.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 01:39
|
|
|
NachtSieger posted:tag yourself im sensual broken Socializing Unnecessary
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 01:42
|
|
|
Pathfinder 2nd edition announced.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 03:25
|
|
|
am I missing something obvious or is that article two months old?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 03:27
|
|
|
Starfinder but on the ground?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 03:29
|
|
|
Kestral posted:Socializing Unnecessary the Final RPG
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 03:34
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:am I missing something obvious or is that article two months old? yeah we've known about pf 2e for awhile now, long enough for people to start grumbling at changes like goblins getting to be a PC race
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 03:34
|
|
|
Brother Entropy posted:yeah we've known about pf 2e for awhile now, long enough for people to start grumbling at changes like goblins getting to be a PC race Countblanc posted:am I missing something obvious or is that article two months old? I was chained to a desk until April 18th so I didn't hear about this.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 03:35
|
|
|
Brother Entropy posted:yeah we've known about pf 2e for awhile now, long enough for people to start grumbling at changes like goblins getting to be a PC race Wait, Goblins were already a PC race in first edition. I guess it's an issue about them being a core race?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 03:36
|
|
|
next thing you know D&D will start putting dragon people right in the PHB, it's madness
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 03:37
|
|
|
Covok posted:Wait, Goblins were already a PC race in first edition. I guess it's an issue about them being a core race? core, yeah. iirc pf 1e had them a PC race as like, some april fools thing or a free rpg day supplement or something
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 03:40
|
|
|
Covok posted:Wait, Goblins were already a PC race in first edition. I guess it's an issue about them being a core race? yes
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 03:48
|
|
|
By all means go to the Pathfinder thread to learn more about the wet fart that Pathfinder 2 looks to be so far.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 04:44
|
|
|
Let's talk about Pathfinder Kingmaker instead. Anyone super hype by the new gameplay vids coming? Truly a masterpiece worth of the greatest min in the field, Chris avellone
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 04:53
|
|
|
I'm playing a campaign using those rules and they're a nightmare. Not really doing the adventure path tho.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 05:04
|
|
|
Cassa posted:I'm playing a campaign using those rules and they're a nightmare. I started a Kingmaker campaign and it died early, thats my story. Plutonis posted:Let's talk about Pathfinder Kingmaker instead. Anyone super hype by the new gameplay vids coming? Truly a masterpiece worth of the greatest min in the field, Chris avellone I've seen nothing about it, how bad are we talking (please make this answer relative to hit video game Pillars of Eternity 2). kingcom fucked around with this message at 05:27 on May 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 05:22
|
|
|
hyphz posted:That is actually really interesting and thank you for linking it. But that seems to particularly revolve around the idea that the game's aesthetics are completely determined by its mechanics, which applies to computer or board games but not necessarily RPGs because there is a GM who can emit aesthetics directly. The question in the RPG is what aspects of the aesthetics and dynamics actually require mechanics rather than going through the GM. The properties they want to deliver are a bit backwards for RPGs as well - for example, they talk about the expression trait, which is "your own creativity", and give the example of dressing up an avatar. But unlike in a computer game, in an RPG the default is that all of your own creativity is expressible; it just may not be accepted by the group, or may feel hollow because there is no avatar to actually see. Both of these points are correct. RPGs are sort of an inherently "expression"ist game format. Consider though that having high levels of expression are not actually needed in a RPG and were actually not formally embraced until later. Early games mainly addressed characters as tools. They were what they did, no more a character than Mario or Link is. Later we realized that people wanted more expression and/or that RPGs were strong in expression and began to experiment (awkwardly at first, think WoD) with adding it. So the other point you mentioned which goes along with this is that due to the benefit of having a GM (or just humans at the wheel, a GM isn't totally necessary) you can deal with aesthetics that are not powered by the mechanics, and some of these can work well that way and some not so well. The mechanics are a constraint on the use of aesthetics. If you want to add tactical challenge to most games as a GM that's going to involve dozens or hundreds of hours of work (fixing the combat system), but expression is generally more easy. To tie these two thoughts together I'd suggest considering the difference between a type of expression like 'character belief' in different systems. To say "My character believes X" in PBTA or D&D is one thing (not mechanic enforced), in FATE is another (there is a non-belief themed mechanic you could use for this), and in Burning Wheel (the game is about your character's beliefs and enforces this very specifically in mechanics) is completely different. Anyway, I hope that was some help.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 06:25
|
|
|
Thuryl posted:I had a GM once directly tell the group when we wanted to fight something we weren't meant to, "Seriously, guys, if you try to fight the minotaur right now, you're gonna die in no time flat. All the NPCs are running like hell from this thing and you should be doing the same". A lot of players are gonna chafe at that (we sure did) so it's not a great solution for every group, but it is a thing that GMs do sometimes and can be a valid part of a particular play style. gradenko_2000 posted:I can understand a world where not everything is leveled to be appropriate for the players to fight at any time, but if you have set in stone statblocks for monsters, and the players want to do something that is absolutely going to kill them, why would you let them do it?! Late to this particular discussion, but one possible solution is to run a game where there are 'defeat' outcomes which aren't 'everyone is dead, start again'. Hell, you could just port a system like Unbound's stake-setting ('if we win, x happens; if they win, y happens') straight into D&D with minimal problems. Just establish before any given fight what happens on a win or loss.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 12:11
|
|
|
I had a dream last night I had found a translated Disgaea TRPG on my collection I'd never touched. I then was deeply disappointed when I opened it up and found it had been localized into D20.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 13:58
|
|
|
It's what Disgaea deserves
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 14:18
|
|
|
That is just a mean thing for your subconscious to do. Mean.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 14:20
|
|
|
Trying to parse the homebrew system we're using this weekend and every aspect of it fills me with equal parts dread and antipathy. It covers so very few things and it covers those things in such excruciating detail. ten ability scores
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 14:42
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:RPGs are sort of an inherently "expression"ist game format. Consider though that having high levels of expression are not actually needed in a RPG and were actually not formally embraced until later. Early games mainly addressed characters as tools. They were what they did, no more a character than Mario or Link is. Later we realized that people wanted more expression and/or that RPGs were strong in expression and began to experiment (awkwardly at first, think WoD) with adding it. See, that's where I think that comparing the two is wrong. A board game with no mechanics is an empty board. A video game with no mechanics is a blank screen. But an RPG with no mechanics is Let's Pretend, or its solo variant Close Your Eyes And Imagine, and it already satisfies expression to pretty much the maximum degree possible. Adding mechanics can only vary the methods by which it does so. The same applies to many of the MDA goals. Sensation - well, the typical RPG is not going to involve much in the way of experiences beyond talking and rolling dice so the idea of anything completely unfamiliar is out. Fantasy - Let's Pretend can do that. Narrative - Let's Pretend can do that too. Challenge - one of the things mechanics can provide but only if they're much more locked down than in typical RPGs. Fellowship - depends more on the game marketing. Adding tactical challenge (by the MDA definition of "ability to master something") to a game as a GM doesn't just involve fixing up the combat system, it also involves surrendering the GM roles of fudging dice or modifying encounters on the fly. If you don't do those, that's not wrong, it's just adding sensuality rather than mastery - the feeling of rolling dice and subtracting numbers as an activity to engage in apart from just saying you swing a sword.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 15:22
|
|
|
Hyphz, why are you interested in tabletop games? You seem to have issues with a lot of them for a wide variety of reasons, but I also accept that this may be a case of sampling bias, and we just don't hear about the parts you enjoy.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 16:05
|
|
|
grassy gnoll posted:Hyphz, why are you interested in tabletop games? You seem to have issues with a lot of them for a wide variety of reasons, but I also accept that this may be a case of sampling bias, and we just don't hear about the parts you enjoy. I don't really have "issues" with them, it's just a case of understanding how some of the more story-driven ones are meant to work, because I really like the idea a lot of them but can't see how they'd get by with most of the players I know. Which basically does seem to come down to them not being the right kind of player, but possibly not for the reasons I thought that was the case. There's the odd triumph. When my regular group wanted to start 5e again, I tried to get them to try Strike! and they ignored it, but when I showed them SotDL the regular 5e GM immediately announced he was going to run that instead - which was totally unexpected but a nice surprise 
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 16:27
|
|
|
Just curious. You seem to have a very different take on a lot of games than most folks and I was wondering how that plays out at the table. SotDL is pretty sweet, and way better than 5e. Hope you enjoy it.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 16:56
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:Trying to parse the homebrew system we're using this weekend and every aspect of it fills me with equal parts dread and antipathy. It covers so very few things and it covers those things in such excruciating detail.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 17:15
|
|
|
grassy gnoll posted:Just curious. You seem to have a very different take on a lot of games than most folks and I was wondering how that plays out at the table. Most of the time it doesn't, I sit home writing big theories to cover the fact that it's still an area where getting to play SotDL is a remarkable surprise. 
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 18:02
|
|
|
Hostile V posted:I wish to know more.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 20:40
|
|
|
Well, tell us about the new edition of Mutants & Masterminds.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 20:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 00:48 |
|
|
Wasn't that the one that was meant to be about the DC Universe until DC was like 'pen and paper games are dumb'?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 21:08
|
|
