Kemper Boyd posted:

This loving thread http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?p=10557810#post10557810

The General posted:

Sometimes I wonder if a simple questionaire would keep them out. 'You see a young girl bound and helpless. Do you rape her? Yes/no'. Because god damned they are quick to do poo poo like that in game the first chance they get.

The General posted:

Note: Good for balance though, but gently caress balance, this poo poo aint been balanced for 30 years.

Etherwind posted:

UMI'd? Do I even want to know?

Etherwind posted:

Counterpoint: Legend of the Five Rings 3rd Edition.

DeclaredYuppie posted:

I could be thinking of a different game writer, but I thought there was a blog post of his in this thread about 4th edition. Something to the extent of "I watched a group play it for an hour or two, it looked boring." and some whine about what could have been if only [insert various writing buddies] had been given a chance to really make something different.

I'm pretty sure it also featured Robin Laws telling him to STFU.

Drox posted:

gently caress yes skaven

The General posted:

How desperate would your character need to be to do that? I mean right now I personally am, but my characters have pride damnit!

Alpha Phoenix posted:

Heck, even the Fallout Pen&Paper game doesn't make liberal enough use of the fallout guy.

Mikan posted:

You can, and easily. One of the newer books even discusses the best ways to do it.

Ashenai posted:

The General posted:

I need to know all the modifiers of wearing a hat. Surely there would be a -1 to hit, because it blocks my vision. Or possibly gives the guy trying to hit me a -2 because of all the colours of my spectacular hat.

Do you suppose these ordinary robes give me +2 diplomacy while dealing with common folk, while a -5 while dealing with nobles?

What about my shoes? Surely they effect the number of miles I can travel in a day.

Mother fucker, I need this book.

NorgLyle posted:

I see Romance in the game as a battle between Charisma and Wisdom. Whenever a character is introduced to another character of importance (including their own party) each character makes both an attack and a defense, with Charisma being the attack and Wisdom being the defense.

Should both parties fail their defense, a mutual attraction is announced. It doesn't need to be roleplayed in depth to the point of embarassment, just mentioned causally as character motivation points.

For example, X and Y have a new "thing" and NPC X wants Y to join him at his manor for a Ball he's throwing. Y and her party know they need to return quickly to the Caves of Plenty before their hoard of treasure is discovered by anyone.

Conflict is created, and the possibility for any number of tangents that will delight both player and DM.

You may want to continue with Wisdom checks each time one "In love" character tries to impose their will on their beloved.

X wants y to go to the Ball, but the player of Character Y would much rather go retrieve treasure from the Cave. But is this what Y would really do, or would they give in for the possibility of true love? Check Wisdom to find out.

This should keep things quick and simple, allowing things to move along.

It can also makes things fun and interesting if only one character fails their defenses. Any number of things can result from this that can really make things interesting in the city.

All this is done with as much or as little role-played dialogue as your group desires or can handle, but less dialogue is safer in most circumstances, as it tends to break down into groan-worthy cliche' and silliness right away.

I have more thoughts on this if anyone finds this system intriguing.

The General posted:

lighttigersoul, you're a loving genius and my hero.

Fenarisk posted:

You're all missing the worst point of the whole "BBEG kills the girl" post.

Why would the players even give a poo poo about someone they've known for a few hours? If I was in a group I'd just be all "Oh, well, uh...we didn't know her so I guess we'll give her a proper burial or something? Anyway let's go on to NPC's or plots that lasted more than a few minutes and that we might care about."

I'm more mad that there is zero imagination or creativity in what that guy wrote than the specific actions themselves.

Stuntman Mike posted:

I think in most parties the torture wouldn't bother them anyway - adventurers are indiscriminate sociopaths who loot the bodies of those they kill and often have no qualms about torturing NPCs to get what they want.

Malachamavet posted:

Welcome to America

Stuntman Mike posted:

Let me tell you about the time that the insane gnome wizard fireballed some stubborn city watch who wouldn't let the party onto the rail platform to defuse a dangerous bomb.

Or the time the favored soul cast Sound Burst on five level 1 NPCs who were enchanted into sleepwalking off a cliff, because that would to wake them up. Three of them died.

Or the time that that same favored soul shot a villain in the middle of his explanatory speech, because "well he's a villain, we're gonna fight him anyway!"


...D&D makes people crazy.

Fuego Fish posted:

Jesus Christ shut the gently caress up about Wushu already

Squizzle posted:

Being drugged and made to perform under penalty of death is more on the rapin' side of the scale than it is playful erotic domination.

Angry Diplomat posted:

pretty much. there are some accounts suggesting that it was really common for the average recruit to soil himself during his first battle.

Really Pants posted:

Gwendolyn Falcon Merlin Kestrel