|
Omnicrom posted:Ars Magica is also a system where players are meant to have multiple characters because Wizards are going to be spending lots of time in their wizard labs inventing magics because getting good at magic requires a lot of time and effort in Ars Magica. And it's also a setting where Wizards literally need representatives because having magic inherently makes people hate you. Ars Magica knows it has Caster Supremacy and still made wizards (and all the other weird rear end characters you can play) interesting. Even without (some) of those assumptions there is a lot of interesting poo poo in there. My players weren't comfortable rotating characters and wanted to play mages, but it still worked because they quickly realised (because a mundane character caught them off guard after they got careless) that mundane stuff is important - so one of the players devised spells from his Arts to buff himself in direct combat, and they hired extra mercenaries to also help out. And facing a lot of problems in mundane interactions made the roleplay very interesting - one of the players started focusing on mind spells so that he could send unwilling emissaries to talk to mundanes. It's just a massively better system overall. Not sure why it's not more popular - perhaps the historicity of the setting is offputting? Cause everything else is solid - it's a simple system (just a few types of rolls, all with d10) with incredible depth. Anyway, I digress. D&D magic bad lol dex_sda fucked around with this message at 00:18 on Jun 29, 2019 |
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 00:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 18:19 |
|
|
So in order to surprise your enemies you basically have to either go alone, and SPECIFICALLY call out that you are using Stealth. Or the entire party needs to be built for Stealth, and specifically calling out that they are using Stealth. Only under those circumstances is it even POSSIBLE for Surprise to happen. It has nothing to do with being constantly alert and omniscient. When two groups meet if no side is trying to be stealthy no one is surprised. When two groups meet if one side is trying to be stealthy, and thus rolled Stealth, the other side rolls Perception and if a Character A manages to beat the Stealth of even a singlCharacter B on the other side then that Character A is not surprised. When two groups meet if both sides are trying to be stealthy, and thus rolled Stealth, then both sides roll Perception and if a Character A on a side manages to beat the Stealth of even a single Character B on the other side then that Character A is not surprised. Either way Initiative is rolled as normal, there is no surprise round. Everyone goes in initiative order as usual. If a Character is surprised then they cannot act in the first round, cannot make Reactions until after their turn in the first round, and once their turn is over they are no longer surprised. What this means is that for the Assassin's ability to come into the Assassin must either be alone, and not have the enemy's Perception beat their Stealth, or their entire party must do well enough on Stealth that the enemy's Perception doesn't beat the Stealth of anyone in their party, and they must go before the enemy as well. There are just too many things that can go wrong. And don't say anything about dickhead DMs. That is rules as written.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 00:22
|
|
|
What kind of DM wouldn't let you plan an ambush?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 00:23
|
|
|
change my name posted:What kind of DM wouldn't let you plan an ambush? If the DM is letting your combats be an ambush on demand then there are way better things you can do than a little extra damage on hit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 00:25
|
|
|
Okay that is a weird thing to say. 99% of the time it isn't the players planning an ambush, as the players are usually the more mobile group, with the enemy entrenched. But even ignoring that I am not sure what that comment is about. Even if you plan an ambush that doesn't change ANYTHING I said. It would still mean the party would need to roll stealth, the enemy would need to roll perception, and if the enemy's perception beats the stealth of anyone in the party the Surprise doesn't happen. Also the Assassin would still need to roll better Initiative.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 00:26
|
|
|
Ryuujin posted:When two groups meet if one side is trying to be stealthy, and thus rolled Stealth, the other side rolls Perception and if a Character A manages to beat the Stealth of even a singlCharacter B on the other side then that Character A is not surprised. Perception isn't rolled in either case, the Stealth check is made against the opposition's Passive Perception scores.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 00:27
|
|
|
Splicer posted:What if you're not the attacker? Then at least you aren't surprised  Conspiratiorist posted:It's just a little bit of extra damage once per battle when the stars align and you get to Surprise and go first and hit with your attacks (4d8+4d6 at level 12 assuming you hit with both) - nothing to write home about. Pump dex at ASIs in a heavy dex build and god's mercy on all if there's a amulet of health in the campaign. The damage is the cherry on top. e; fixed Willie Tomg fucked around with this message at 00:44 on Jun 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 00:31
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:Pump dex at ASIs in a heavy dex build and god's mercy on all if there's a periapt of health in the campaign. The damage is the cherry on top. What does immunity to disease have to do with DEX-heavy builds? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 00:40
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:Pump dex at ASIs in a heavy dex build and god's mercy on all if there's a periapt of health in the campaign. The damage is the cherry on top. *Amulet of Health 21 AC for a sword & board build at level 12 using a Rare attunement item  S&B setups tend to be rocking that level of AC from level 5, without magic. Barbarogue is an okay build but not for these reasons - you're hyping up aspects that are, at best, average.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 00:45
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Barbarogue is an okay build but not for these reasons - you're hyping up aspects that are, at best, average. is one of the reasons "to be really awesome at grapple/shove"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 06:47
|
|
|
How do I best increase my Thac0 during the missile phase of a surprise round?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 11:22
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:is one of the reasons "to be really awesome at grapple/shove"? Yes. A STR build can take advantage of Rage and Reckless Attack (and consequently on-demand Sneak Attacks), and going STR already follows the standard Barbarian attribute array (16 14 16). Since Barbarian is front loaded, after 3~5 levels it switches to Rogue for a much better progression with Uncanny Dodge (stacks with Rage), Evasion, and a natural Sneak Attack damage scaling that eventually catches back up to a standard GWM Barbarian. And yeah, high STR plus Advantage on STR checks plus Expertise on Athletics plus Bear Totem Rage plus Uncanny Dodge makes for an excellent grappler.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 14:26
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Barbarian. Right now I'm running a vhuman Barbarian with the Mobile feat, mostly using TWF to double-dip on the Rage damage, but also to be able to tag two enemies and move away from both without provoking. If you're mixing in Rogue, does it make more sense to go rapier+shield, and use Cunning Action to disengage, in those situations (and then you don't need the feat)? Or does it depend on if you're Barbarian5 vs. Barbarian3 (i.e. how important is the extra swing, on a barbarogue?)
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 18:18
|
|
|
Read that as "v. human batman" for a moment, got confused as to what thread I was in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 18:33
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Right now I'm running a vhuman Barbarian with the Mobile feat, mostly using TWF to double-dip on the Rage damage, but also to be able to tag two enemies and move away from both without provoking. If you're mixing in Rogue, does it make more sense to go rapier+shield, and use Cunning Action to disengage, in those situations (and then you don't need the feat)? Or does it depend on if you're Barbarian5 vs. Barbarian3 (i.e. how important is the extra swing, on a barbarogue?) Besides an additional chance to land your Sneak Attack (which becomes increasingly significant as you take on more Rogue levels), an extra swing (1d8+7) does far more for your damage than 1d6~2d6. OTOH Uncanny Dodge and Evasion are really good survival abilities, so it's about what you wish to prioritize (eventually you'll want to grab both EA and the Rogue goodies, as it's not like you'll ever reach the Rogue archetype capstones anyway). And maybe you've got a friendly Sorcerer that's casting Haste on you, in which case SA is more important than EA. It's a versatile build where the options are all close enough to be circumstantial. Ditto dual wielding vs rapier + shield; if you find a magic shield that can be huge, but if you care more about doing damage while relying on Rage to carry you through, go ahead and TWF. Obviously there's a lessened impact from TWF if you get up to Barb 5, but an additional attack is still an additional attack. The definitive thing I'll say is that I'd never considered taking Mobile on a Barbarian. I guess if you've got two other party members that are really tough? Or a Druid that likes summoning Cave Bears?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 19:46
|
|
|
Does anyone have any advice for running a game in a Tibetan and Mongolian inspired setting? I imagine travel would be a bigger theme, and many cities would be nomadic. Maybe have a faction that has a giant traveling machine that no one knows how to control or fix? I'd also probably want to reskin some classes to be more Tibetan Buddhist, Bön, or Tengrist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 20:17
|
|
|
There's a 2E setting book called "The Hordelands" which could help out. Maybe look up MtG's Khans of Tarkir for visual inspiration.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 21:59
|
|
|
Blooming Brilliant posted:There's a 2E setting book called "The Hordelands" which could help out. Maybe look up MtG's Khans of Tarkir for visual inspiration. It's The Horde, not the Hordelands (that's the name of the region it describes, though) https://www.dmsguild.com/product/216679/The-Horde-2e
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 01:46
|
|
|
Yeah, that looks good, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 03:53
|
|
|
I’m playing a real basic greatsword wielding fighter with savage attacker and great weapon master, and it’s actually a lot more fun than I thought. I never play the tank, even my paladins are usually supporting the main fighter/barbarian. Also, I’ve never had anyone play a wizard. I kind of want to make one to see how nuts they get.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2019 02:14
|
|
|
I found this on a 5e Facebook fan community. Presenting, the best archetype:
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2019 02:18
|
|
|
Looking forward to playing a Mountain Dwarf Three Halflings in a Trenchcoat
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2019 03:03
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:The definitive thing I'll say is that I'd never considered taking Mobile on a Barbarian. I guess if you've got two other party members that are really tough? Or a Druid that likes summoning Cave Bears? Yeah I wanted to make a skirmisher to kinda bridge the gap, since the rest of the party consists of a tanky Life Cleric, and an archery-focused Rogue. (We recently added a Sorcerer, though.) I'm still getting used to "Rage tanking" (and admittedly I don't think it particularly jives with the feat) but the hit-and-run tactics are handy once you've spent your Rages for the day, and are low on hit dice and whatnot. An interesting quirk of Rage that I stumbled upon in the process, is that you can technically be 80ft back and plinking away with a bow, while still maintaining your Rage. Granted, you won't get the extra damage by doing so, but if you're just trying to make an escape (or otherwise put distance between you and the enemy) you can use the Rage to soak damage while you give yourself some space. Or, you can use the feat to stab a dude and then run 40ft away, every other turn  So, like I said, it's for skirmishing; basically you're always putting out damage, while always being able to keep yourself at a distance. You don't really have any tools to hold aggro, so it's not really tanking, but it's a little bit of a more interesting way to run a Barbarian, than just standing in there and trading blows.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2019 05:40
|
|
|
Libertad! posted:I found this on a 5e Facebook fan community. Presenting, the best archetype: "So what did you do today?" "I went to Keep on the Borderlands today! I did a Grapple!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2019 20:14
|
|
|
If you were going to offer up an alternative view of a D&D race that sticks to much of the lore while contesting something about them as the product of misunderstanding or propaganda, what might you do? For example, I think there's a lot of room to work with the Duergar as stoic and puritanical, but unfairly portrayed as evil by Dwarven society. If the histories of the underworld are written by the victors, it stands to reason the Dwarves tell us much of what we know about the Duer, and see their stoicism and rejection of finery as an evil joyless existence. But it kind of echoes American propaganda about the Soviets, doesn't it? In your People's History of the Multiverse, what other people are unfairly demonized or unjustly lionized?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 20:36
|
|
|
I talked about this in the worldbuilding thread, but I did something like that with the Drow in my college homebrew setting. Their contemporary society was still ruthlessly ambitious and matriarchal, but their original rebellion against greater Elfkind, for which they were cursed by Corellon to never walk in the daylight again, was justified. Like, Elf society was a corrupt aristocracy and the first Drow were legitimate revolutionaries who only didn't build a better world because the Elven creator god isn't a socialist. That's not the story the Elves tell, obviously. Orcs in that same setting were a kind of nomadic steppes people who represented the "barbarians" separating a Romanesque human empire and the "far east". They were raiders, but their aggression was largely retaliatory because the leadership of those human societies wanted to eliminate them to build our world's silk road. Attempts at diplomacy with them were backhanded colonizer poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 21:01
|
|
|
No. 1 Apartheid Fan posted:I talked about this in the worldbuilding thread, but I did something like that with the Drow in my college homebrew setting. Their contemporary society was still ruthlessly ambitious and matriarchal, but their original rebellion against greater Elfkind, for which they were cursed by Corellon to never walk in the daylight again, was justified. Like, Elf society was a corrupt aristocracy and the first Drow were legitimate revolutionaries who only didn't build a better world because the Elven creator god isn't a socialist. That's not the story the Elves tell, obviously. No. 1 Apartheid Fan posted:I talked about this in the worldbuilding thread, but I did something like that with the Drow in my college homebrew setting. Their contemporary society was still ruthlessly ambitious and matriarchal, but their original rebellion against greater Elfkind, for which they were cursed by Corellon to never walk in the daylight again, was justified. Like, Elf society was a corrupt aristocracy and the first Drow were legitimate revolutionaries who only didn't build a better world because the Elven creator god isn't a socialist. That's not the story the Elves tell, obviously. I quite like this. While I'm rather tired of the traditional fantasy races, I enjoy moral greyness and I have gotten rather sick of this idea of undeniable good vs pure evil. I'm fine with those as concepts and also perhaps soulless (literally soulless) extraplanar creatures that are purely one way or another, but I would like to see more nuance without progressing to a Dark Sun dystopian world. Years ago, I had an idea that never left the ground but which drew from the Cold War mentality. I wanted to have two realms, one of which was very wealthy and laissez-faire but also hid massive poverty and stratification versus another country that was militarily their equal and much more authoritarian while being less "wealthy" yet much, much more egalitarian. I wanted the dynamic to be that the latter society offered a model for better living to the many low-class people in the former nation and tried to spread their philosophy, but were not directly aggressive. Meanwhile, the highly unequal nation saw the egalitarians as a threat to their way of life (read: ludicrous wealth and hegemony) and did everything to propagandise the more equal nation for fear of an uprising from the numerous members the exploited lower classes. Eventually, propaganda turned into outright hostility towards vassal nations and the egalitarians became belligerent due to being bloody sick of constant attacks, both on the PR level as well as physical, and things became very tense. I wanted to simulate the simmering cauldron of the situation and have the players be sent by the classist nation to undermine the other, then find out that their target was not as bad as they thought, though much more authoritarian, while being faced with the reality that their patron nation was much more "free" but totally uninterested in the lot of the lower orders. Nobody really wants full on war (Mutually Assured Destruction), but the whole situation is a powder keg and the players, who are questioning their priorities, could very well be the matches.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 21:47
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:I quite like this. While I'm rather tired of the traditional fantasy races, I enjoy moral greyness and I have gotten rather sick of this idea of undeniable good vs pure evil. I'm fine with those as concepts and also perhaps soulless (literally soulless) extraplanar creatures that are purely one way or another, but I would like to see more nuance without progressing to a Dark Sun dystopian world. I assume you're deliberately building this off the Cold War. I'd recommend watching The Americans. It's about deep cover soviet spies in the US and how they relate to their new home/motherland/American children and might give you some good ideas! e duh missed you saying it was cold War based Miftan fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Jul 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 21:51
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:Years ago, I had an idea that never left the ground but which drew from the Cold War mentality. This is very cool. I've always found it passing strange the way so many fantasy settings build their geography on the back of Earth geography, but ignore Earth history (or focus entirely on medieval and ancient history, like the Hundred Years War). The problem being that we understand more modern history much better, and generally (if we try to focus on good sources and avoid propaganda) have a much clearer picture of who did what and why from which to build an understanding of people and societies. One of the things I dug about Eberron was the attempt to use WWI as inspiration.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 22:07
|
|
|
A sci-fi setting I was working on awhile back had three main factions: Corporates, Democracy, and Theocrats. Corporates are basically top-down authoritarian, with limited personal freedoms but a high quality of life. Democracy was the reverse: plenty of personal freedoms but only as much quality of life as you could grab for yourself. One person, one vote, and everything got voted on (with some handwavey sci-fi to facilitate this) meant that they also had a lot of trouble focusing on anything. And the theocrats struck a middle ground of sorts: in their society, you either cared for others, or you were cared for, one or the other. So you had some degree of personal freedom so long as you contributed to the social safety net, but if you needed help of any kind, then your personal freedoms were stripped. It's basically meant to take a few basic ideals (being productive, being free, taking care of others and contributing to society) to their respective extremes, and thus isn't remotely realistic, but it's fun to think about.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 22:19
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:the theocrats struck a middle ground of sorts: in their society, you either cared for others, or you were cared for, one or the other. So you had some degree of personal freedom so long as you contributed to the social safety net, but if you needed help of any kind, then your personal freedoms were stripped. I don't know if it was intentional, but this part is very creepy. Unless I'm misreading this, anyone who is impoverished or too sick to work essentially is enslaved, and that's kind of hosed up. That can be hosed up in a cool way if that's part of the flavour of the setting, but I wasn't sure if I was reading it correctly. Personally, I just want to rip the piss out of modern ideas about "freedom", because it's nearly US Independence Day and I am sick and tired of people misusing that word. All modern so-called freedom is about negative freedom and what it basically means is that everyone is self-interested and wants to do whatever he wants without regard for the consequences; this is putting aside the "gilded cage" aspect of what passes for allegedly democratic societies. I personally want to explore the option of positive freedom that requires all to sacrifice for the benefit of society, such as progressive taxation, universal health care, education and so on, but which runs into the problem that people are selfish fucks and that those the most capable of sacrifice are usually the most selfish. JustJeff88 fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Jul 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 22:41
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:I don't know if it was intentional, but this part is very creepy. Unless I'm misreading this, anyone who is impoverished or too sick to work essentially is enslaved, and that's kind of hosed up. That can be hosed up in a cool way if that's part of the flavour of the setting, but I wasn't sure if I was reading it correctly. You know who arent selfish fucks? Skeletons.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 23:13
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:I don't know if it was intentional, but this part is very creepy. Unless I'm misreading this, anyone who is impoverished or too sick to work essentially is enslaved, and that's kind of hosed up. That can be hosed up in a cool way if that's part of the flavour of the setting, but I wasn't sure if I was reading it correctly. It's intentionally over-the-top. You aren't enslaved, more like "treated like a child" -- you're not allowed to do much because you're a ward of the state. The basic idea here is that the society only has two categories: the givers and the recipients. If you are in one category then you aren't in the other, and it's much, much better to give than to receive.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 23:20
|
|
|
Nehru the Damaja posted:If you were going to offer up an alternative view of a D&D race that sticks to much of the lore while contesting something about them as the product of misunderstanding or propaganda, what might you do? In my 5e game Half Orcs, Halflings and Half Elves are biologically the same people. The different presentations and prominent/prized physical features of both groups is informed by hosed up politics Eladrin enforced in the past. High Elves created all 3 races for different historical purposes. The "Half" part of their name doesn't imply half human in this world. It refers to these races being half a person legally speaking. Fast forward to game time and the 3 Halves have liberated themselves long ago. They inhabit a system of rivers and creeks surrounding one giant lake. They've formed 3 distinct societies around a core value of their original races(Cunning for Halflings/Sin-Ka, Friendship for the Half-Elves/Ulaki, Growth for the Half-Orcs/Braga Tir). Since these are cultural identities and not biological there's a lot of overlap. There are 3 foot nothing Braga Tir fighters that are mechanically Half-Orc. There are 200 pound Sin-Ka that are just as sneaky and clever as their smaller cousins. Youth experience the 3 cultures by travelling between them for apprenticeships/schooling and choose their home tribe when they grow up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2019 04:32
|
|
|
Nehru the Damaja posted:If you were going to offer up an alternative view of a D&D race that sticks to much of the lore while contesting something about them as the product of misunderstanding or propaganda, what might you do? I think this tends to be setting-specific. I had an elf-centric continental empire as a setting for a campaign, and the surface elves had crafted a massive enchantment that outright killed any drow setting foot on the surface of the continent. They were further convinced that the Underdark was full of drow plotting to defeat the enchantment and conquer the surface, as evidenced by drow raiding parties appearing in a few magic-dead places and a periodic attempt by drow to kill the elf lich whose soul became the anchor for the enchantment. (The lich arguably created the nation-state but was generally painted as a villain and traitor whose continued existence hung upon being that anchor.) The elves were constantly trying to seal all the routes to the Underdark. While the PCs never explored in this direction, in fact the drow beneath the surface were perfectly happy with their own civilization and wanted nothing to do with their psychopathic cousins who had sacrificed thousands of souls to fuel a murder-enchantment. They were, however, quite happy that their own extremists kept rushing to the surface to kill elves or break the enchantment: it kept them from messing up drow society and inevitably disposed of them entirely. The elves had also, in very ancient times, made a deal with the indigenous inhabitants of the world to provide them with genetic material which got used to create dwarves, humans, halflings, and gnomes. All of whom were initially enslaved by their creators. The elves didn't much care at the time. When those indigenes up and vanished and their creations were freed, the elves covered up the whole thing to the extent of falsifying their own ancient history. They were also locked in a war that had lasted on and off for centuries with another nation, which neither side actually wanted to fight. When the PCs came along with the intent of winning the war, they found that multiple groups within the elven nation wanted to perpetuate it, while the patron deity of the other nation was desperate to lose the war, preferably in a way that detached or killed a bunch of wizard-leaders of that nationwho were leeching off her power. The initial campaign arc concluded with the elves being forced to admit that they were directly responsible for millions of deaths which could have been prevented, after the PCs forced the elven monarchy to install a human regent who proceeded to end the war in a little over a year. Tl;dr: Elves are terrible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2019 04:49
|
|
|
No. 1 Apartheid Fan posted:I talked about this in the worldbuilding thread, but I did something like that with the Drow in my college homebrew setting. Their contemporary society was still ruthlessly ambitious and matriarchal, but their original rebellion against greater Elfkind, for which they were cursed by Corellon to never walk in the daylight again, was justified. Like, Elf society was a corrupt aristocracy and the first Drow were legitimate revolutionaries who only didn't build a better world because the Elven creator god isn't a socialist. That's not the story the Elves tell, obviously. I'm running my elves as capitalists running a successful propaganda campaign against the fully automated luxury gay fantasy communist drow. The drow don't do a good job dismissing this as they very much believe in eating the rich.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2019 04:52
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:I quite like this. While I'm rather tired of the traditional fantasy races, I enjoy moral greyness and I have gotten rather sick of this idea of undeniable good vs pure evil. I'm personally incredibly tired of shades of grey in settings that are meant to be escapist power fantasies. It's a horrible trend that's infected the genre for the past 20 years. I'm not saying don't have good orcs or whatever, but I am desperately tired of fantasy stories with no clear villains and difficult moral choices and nothing changes in the end. That goes against everything fantasy is supposed to be, to me. A fantasy story is you kill the bad guy and his evil castle crumbles and his armies disintegrate and everything is great now and there's a big party. I don't want to feel like I'm a shadowrunner when I'm playing a medieval fantasy game. Being cynical and incorporating real world discrimination and political backstabbing and red tape and oppression and just overall shittiness into a fantasy setting is no more mature and nuanced than having Batman decapitate people and shoot guns. It's mistaking adolescent misanthropy and an inability to experience wonder for maturity. This isn't an attack on you specifically or your ideas it's just how I feel about 'simple' fantasy vs gritty shades of grey fantasy. Lurdiak fucked around with this message at 06:27 on Jul 3, 2019 |
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2019 06:24
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:I'm personally incredibly tired of shades of grey in settings that are meant to be escapist power fantasies. It's a horrible trend that's infected the genre for the past 20 years. Shades of grey are only good if its about the players punching the shades of grey in its dumb face because the shade of grey is actually just straight up evil and dated.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2019 07:40
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:I'm personally incredibly tired of shades of grey in settings that are meant to be escapist power fantasies. It's a horrible trend that's infected the genre for the past 20 years. Especially when the real world is currently proven that straight up evil people do exist and are in power.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2019 07:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 18:19 |
|
|
Lurdiak posted:I'm personally incredibly tired of shades of grey in settings that are meant to be escapist power fantasies. It's a horrible trend that's infected the genre for the past 20 years. Being that it's fantasy and a product of our imaginations, you go do whatever you enjoy. I don't think that it's necessarily a case of inserting real-world things into fantasy gaming, however. It is very much feasible to have low-level players sent to kill some marauding orcs only to find out that those orcs only act that way because humans kill all their game and just hate them because they are ugly and pig-faced - it's a thing that people do. Personally, I am becoming rapidly sick of dichotomous (read: black and white) thinking and, on a personal level, am fascinated by the idea of leading a comfortable life with more restrictions versus utter freedom but a very high chance of starving to death due to, for lack of a better term, market forces. I will admit here that my interest was piqued by reading an article or two wherein surveys showed that a surprisingly high number of solider Russians reported being happier and better off under communism. I don't want to start a political argument here, but this really shocked me and, as someone who has been utterly betrayed by the glorious job market/social contract, it made me realise that some people are fine with the idea of less negative freedom in exchange for security and perhaps more positive freedom and I wanted to explore that dynamic. Piell posted:Especially when the real world is currently proven that straight up evil people do exist and are in power. Politicians have some of the highest rates of sociopathy in the world, right up there with lawyers and so-called "business leaders."
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2019 14:33
|
|