|
aldantefax posted:Does anybody have suggestions for effectively sorting and storing RPG books?
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2021 11:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 14:53 |
|
|
Sorting by genre sounds totally valid. Sorting by a clear formal aspect has the advantage of cutting down on edge cases (it seems you're already running into trouble thinking of Spire), but it comes down to how you approach your collection. I would definitely set the inspirational stuff and artbooks up in a separate section and sub-sort by... anything that makes sense to you personally, really. I'd probably do something like artbooks (sub: source i.e. paintings, video game art, fantasy art etc.), photography, poetry and so on, but you might want to have a level above that that might be genre, or time period, or subject...
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2021 13:33
|
|
|
SkyeAuroline posted:So I'm actually curious. How many of us are in ongoing (or imminent) games & what are they?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2021 10:45
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:I've had lots of fun playing Hearts with friends and I've had some fun with Skat, but I have a particular loathing in my heart for President, which is just the worst. Here's roughly how it goes.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2021 09:36
|
|
|
A wand to me is an instrument that requires some finesse. You twirl it around in intricate patterns, use it to draw runes and symbols in the air or to lightly touch whatever you cast a spell on. Easy to store, to conceal and to draw. It feels defensive and mobile. A staff says I'm here and I'm a wizard come at me, it's completely unsubtle. You hold it in the air and the end glows or you slam it into the ground. You can also hit someome with it. Maybe a staff user would also know some melee spells, similar to the sword guy. You're gonna carry it visibly at all times, it's cumbersome, you have to find a place to store it if you ever don't need it. Wand is a dagger, staff is a broadsword, whatever those two imply for you for a fighter type should probably carry over to magic types. Other associations: young casters use wands, old casters use staffs. Both are phallic to a degree so there's merit to the thought of both being the same type implement mechanically, and something else altogether is the other type (orb?). Also there are languages where both translate to the same word and it's near impossible to draw a distinction without some verbal acrobatics, if that's a concern for you 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2021 08:35
|
|
|
Lemon-Lime posted:See, this is the problem with American wizard schools. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-2ZxldMO-M
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2021 10:12
|
|
|
Gotta admit though: that's an A+ name. Superfluously spelled with an i but a solid idea.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2021 09:26
|
|
|
actually more like a D+ name
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2021 09:26
|
|
|
just realized she's a Dragonborn as well, I guess that's not a point of contention anymore e: I also legitimately quite enjoy that Hatchet Hand also has a cutlass, like it's not even crossed his mind that he's already got a weapon My Lovely Horse fucked around with this message at 13:56 on Feb 3, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2021 13:50
|
|
|
That's a good point. What are 10 more items on the list really gonna add to the process for your players? Throw out the 10 least interesting ones, and your game can only get better for it. Or if you can't decide which those are, roll a virtual d110 ten times.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2021 15:12
|
|
|
aldantefax posted:Yeah, it is all somewhat exhausting and really for awhile I just completely disengaged from the hobby as a result, but now that I'm "back into it", so to speak. e: this comes off as way more sarcastic than it's meant, it's really no, like, personal failing or anything to not know every creator's politics or criminal record or what have you, doubly so in a hobbyist sphere like RPG writing. or even, dare I say, to know them and decide you still want the thing. I mean, depending, obviously. If you're eyeing some Proud Boy's Crusaders: The RPG I'm personally judging the hell out of you. My Lovely Horse fucked around with this message at 08:15 on Feb 4, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2021 08:10
|
|
|
SkyeAuroline posted:I can't stop you.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2021 18:09
|
|
|
May not fully apply to the ren fair conceit but: Tunnel of Love. The infamous potion as a fairground ride. Off to the side an amateur company is putting on Shakespeare. Unbeknownst to anyone, the Puck is the real deal.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2021 11:51
|
|
|
I love this idea of baking in an AI or any sort of decision making system into an enemy stat block, I mostly run published adventures these days and it's a pain having to look over a predefined encounter to work out a battle plan and then keeping that present in your mind for maybe 3-4 encounters in a session. More than once I started running a battle only to realize one enemy had an ability that was cool but that would have required another step of prepping and that I absolutely wasn't going to bother with now.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2021 17:59
|
|
|
Personally I wouldn't even apply for a game like that if I wasn't at least somewhat familiar with the IP. I think that's perfectly fine. I almost feel like it's more important to make clear how closely you want to stick to established stories and canon and with the large ones, especially which. Say you run a Star Trek game, as a potential player I'd be wondering: which Star Trek? Is it explicitly TNG era, Voyager era, TOS era, and if yes to any of those, do we treat the others as canon also; do we get to influence "canon" events, like can we keep Captain Picard from ever becoming Borg or is that going to happen no matter what; is That One Guy going to be in the game who says we can't do a thing because it contradicts page 147 in some novelization... e: quote:Edit: I mean I guess it also sorta goes along with similar questions like "is it bad if I outline the exact kind of player I'm looking for, instead of being welcoming for anyone to apply"? Like, if I were wanting to run a sandbox Traveller campaign set on a free trader, I would of course be wanting to prioritize players with a higher degree of fondness for trade campaigns and an innate love of Excel. Or if I were wanting to run Apocalypse World, I would prioritize players who constantly ooze narrative and want to be a bit more "serious" about their roleplaying, etc. I just don't know if laying stuff like that out there in the LFG post is dickish, snobby, and gatekeepey, because I can't shake the feeling that it kinda is? My Lovely Horse fucked around with this message at 13:20 on Feb 11, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2021 13:06
|
|
|
It occurs to me that "you will literally be the senior officers of the Enterprise-D in Star Trek TNG, create your character and choose your position, any unfilled will be the characters from the show" would be a pretty great setup for a game that tells you everything you need to know about the level of involvement and canon-sticking. also gives the DM a hundred and seventy-eight adventure hooks My Lovely Horse fucked around with this message at 14:19 on Feb 11, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2021 14:13
|
|
|
It seems to me that if "sperging" is a slur, then " " as the visual embodiment of the word/idea must necessarily also be considered one. The image itself carries meaning; surely if people write things like "lol stop about smilies you goon" that is the main problem no matter what string they use behind the scenes to call up the image. Honestly this one in particular seems a pretty single-purpose smilie if you get right down to it no matter what tag it has.As well as that, for how many years people round here have been using " " when they wanted to write "sperging"; if we redefine what the smilie means now we'll retroactively change the intent behind all those posts and, in a way, pretend it never meant anything else that whatever harmless new name we give it. I'd rather preserve these old posts as they are even if what they are is lovely, that way we have mistakes to point to and say "we've moved on from that in particular."You know what I mean? I just can't help but picture some new guy in 5 years reading old threads* and going "wow, people have been using that sweet :singleminded: smilie for a long time, this must have always been a real friendly and inclusive place" *I do realize that scenario is being optimistic about several things
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2021 23:21
|
|
|
Whybird posted:I think the point is more that giving them another word they can say which carries all the same negative connotations -- which is effectively what renaming the smiley would do -- doesn't make things any better, it just means a different word is now bad. to will become the new disparaging shorthand for "someone who obsesses about stuff" and morph into the new slur for folks who are neuro-atypical in this specific way. I'm 100% confident in this because that's how it's been with slurs and the acceptable words that replace them for decades. By no means will it be a sudden switchover but it's going to happen over some time.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2021 16:56
|
|
|
Pedant is excellent. One I need to remind myself to use more often when the situation calls for it. And it comes from nothing worse than "teacher/schoolmaster" if wikipedia is to be believed (although in a few years we'll probably get "it's disdainful towards the idea of education and science" ).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2021 09:28
|
|
|
I do feel I should point out that the smilie itself is, if I recall correctly, literally the illustration for Asperger Syndrome from something like an old medical brochure. also I've been privately thinking of overly literal-minded, hyperfocused on technicalities people as "engineers". Like if I go on stackexchange and someone constructs the peasant railgun I roll my eyes and think "don't be such a loving engineer about it".
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2021 12:07
|
|
|
Fugu, huh
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2021 22:25
|
|
|
Nessus posted:even if you can breathe, fire is going to not work very well, while electrical attacks will work differently. *in the absence of the game system providing special rules, obviously
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2021 08:23
|
|
|
Pulled the plug on my two-year Eyes of the Stone Thief game. I posted a lot about our scheduling difficulties last thread, just reread the stuff to convince myself this was the right move and yeah, loving sucks but it totally was. Plot twist: this time it wasn't scheduling but one player throwing an enormous swearing fit about a fight that he said was completely unfair just like half of the fights they ever had and I'd say went badly for a round but would probably have turned around right away. We had a talk, he apologized and agreed he was out of line, we even agreed to meet again, roll back that entire fight and go a different route, but I mulled it over for a day, and especially night, and figured, nah, not really in the business of taking hours of prepping time out of my days to risk provoking five minute yelling shitfits anymore, if I ever was. I think, on reflection, the basic problem always was that I had players who were dead set against sacrificing anything. Like, not just "it's poo poo if my character dies randomly" or "it's poo poo if a rust monster eats my sword" but also "it's poo poo if we take damage or have to spend daily spells." And it was starting to be like, if I can't sell you on the low stakes and the ebb-and-flow of a regular combat, how can I sell you on the high stakes of the plot?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2021 13:20
|
|
|
I honestly don't even know where the daily spell thing came from this time, the wizard player usually chucks out evoked (maximized) fireballs at the slightest provocation and has completely neutralized more than one fight that way, but apparently when for once you're properly outnumbered 3:1 that's the time for single target at-will spells. Mostly: I can even see their point because I've been having my own issues with how the system is set up. Just, let's talk about it, maybe at one of the opportunities your DM says yo guys we still feelin' this (because you keep cancelling sessions and he's starting to wonder).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2021 17:26
|
|
|
canyoneer posted:oh yeah, I forgot about that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2021 08:34
|
|
|
I wish two of my players weren't always so passive in responding to mails cause right now I don't know if they accepted me shutting the campaign down and are making plans for next time, or if they're still processing me shutting it down, or if they're in fact only going to learn about it the night before our next online meeting. I'm learning to categorize that kind of stuff as Their Problem tho
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2021 11:21
|
|
|
My latest new player is so endearingly concerned with realism in his ability scores  he's making a 120 year old human mage and was like "I'd like a bit more HP but it feels like cheating the system to give him 14 CON just for HP, he's 120 years old, he'll be frail as hell" "Think about it this way: how are you even gonna make it to 120 if you don't have incredible constitution?"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2021 08:11
|
|
|
Trying to get a new game off the ground where I told my group, I'd like you to be working for one of the big heroic NPCs or at the very least be the kind of "neutral" where you actively abstain from random murder and treachery and whatnot, cause by now it's kinda been there, done that, and one of them thought up a former inquisitor while the other is "waffling between gutter runner and plague priest" and I'm like guys seriously. not remotely actually a Warhammer game by the way
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2021 08:24
|
|
|
In my new D&D game my prospective Skaven player adjusted his concept towards being more party-friendly but still a rat person, mechanically simply a reflavoured halfling, and we said what the heck, halflings in our world are just ratfolk now, makes it all a little more unique. Then we hashed out the details and I got a sinking feeling as I realized we were making a race of literal rat people who were facing prejudice for their association with disease and pestilence, and who were, in a society modelled after medieval Europe, also traditionally that society's merchants and traders. Better just gloss over one of those aspects entirely I think
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 12:57
|
|
|
That seems like design goal.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2021 11:29
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:Wir sind das Volk I mean, nothing wrong with using it per se, and especially in a clear cold war context, but it's the old dilemma of how you keep the fascists from occupying symbols while actively refraining from using the same symbols as the fascists.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2021 15:44
|
|
|
To start with, here are the rules for mounted combat. Treating the Goliath as an independent mount seems to be the least-effort method to represent them working as a unit. This kind of thing actually tends to mess with the rules quite a bit, ruling it like this would have the benefit of being established precedent in the game rules rather than something you make up. Having your mount be another PC is a bit dicey, but... give it a go and see if it works for you as a group or if it causes any unexpected issues. It would fit with these rules to make the major effect of the halfling's disability "you can only spend half your speed". This way they could still move around independently, and they could still dis- and remount. Just not both at the same time. This is probably also not too debilitating, nor would I think it paints the character as less of a person. It also strikes me that a thematically appropriate complication for a hunter of undead who has to deal with a literally dead limb is that it could fall under necromantic control. What any given necromancer could do controlling an enemy's leg, as opposed to an arm for which there is plenty of precedent in stories like Evil Dead and so on, is up to their own creativity (stopping their movement and kicking the goliath both come readily to mind).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2021 09:02
|
|
|
Double post but it just occurred to me, if anything does paint the halfling as less of a person, it would be the player's (I assume) own idea of being dependent on another person for getting around.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2021 10:11
|
|
|
It seems to come down to: Do you, as a player, want to create a hook for your character to experience adversity specifically because of their disability? Then you probably need some kind of mechanic that sets them apart from other characters, that will allow the DM to directly target it, and that may not properly represent the way your character's disability would work or impact them in the real world and may in fact be overly reductive. You may also find that you're representing disability as something that primarily creates disadvantages; it's your call whether that is more of an issue than D&D's baked in systems already creating disadvantages for characters who are extraordinarily weak, clumsy or stupid, or for that matter, for entire sentient species designated as adversaries. What you get out of it includes opportunities for narrative tension that stem from a player choice, an element unique to your character, the feeling of making the gameworld your own and representing disability in your game. My Lovely Horse fucked around with this message at 15:05 on Apr 22, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2021 13:19
|
|
|
 strong anti-undead precedent too
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2021 15:55
|
|
|
Well the fish are magically contaminated without exception but on the other hand ugh wild garlic fish so good look. One small fillet every now and then can't possibly do any harm, right? Yes yes we all know the dragon spume story listen just try this fish it is seriously loving amazing
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2021 16:04
|
|
|
Pick a game that works well in a format where the DM sets a scene and the players respond in whichever order, i.e. D&D with its dependency on a strict initiative order doesn't work all that super well. You rarely want to have to wait for a particular player to give their input, and players should be able to call up the PbP thread at pretty much any point and add something to the proceedings. I do not know of such a system but I am feeling like GBS' CYOA system is generally a bit of a better setup
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2021 16:04
|
|
|
Lou Zocchi, wasn't it?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2021 07:56
|
|
|
With my group it's always much more about mechanics than anything else. When we used to play D&D 3.5 we always had all-human parties. Same with 13th Age. Now we started on D&D 4E again where there's strong mechanical support for different races being their own thing, rather than them feeling like an offshoot of humans as a neutral baseline, and what do you know: not a single human in the party and even the one guy who plays a halfling reskinned him to be more exotic.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2021 12:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 14:53 |
|
|
Personally I'm pretty okay with the main part of the pitch being "tactical game". I will say, more-or-less standard fantasy has you immediately picture swords and bows and magic, i.e. a natural-feeling mix of close quarters and ranged fighting. Unfortunately standard fantasy also has you picture It's Okay To Slaughter The Nonhumans, My Medieval Fencing Handbook Describes A Sword Strike Differently, and Yes But How Much Would A Turnip Really Have Cost In The 13th Century.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2021 19:44
|
|