Evil Mastermind posted:

lighttigersoul posted:

Holy poo poo.

CuddlyZombie posted:

There are no other words.

FMguru posted:

So this genius's big plan to save D&D is A) Cut prices, B) Give stuff away for free, C) Give more stuff away for free. Yeah, I'm sure Wizards will get right on that. If they don't, it can only be because they're a bunch of money-grubbing kkkorporate $hill$.

Calling more a "more permissive" version of the D20 OGL is the icing on the cake. WotC already gave away 98% of the candy store with that version, so much that their greatest competition right now is someone selling zero-royalty reprints of their own material, but that's not enough for grognards.

Darwinism posted:

Let's not forget he also wants the 80s art back, too. Because D&D should always be a Frazetta painting.

oh god either that or...


No one could be so cruel. Could they?

quote:

(Yes, I got a job, in real-life, as a magic-user)


I approached this intensive study from the standpoint of Scientific Illuminism, or the Scientific Method.

Darwinism posted:

Let's not forget he also wants the 80s art back, too. Because D&D should always be a Frazetta painting.

oh god either that or...


No one could be so cruel. Could they?

Dr Nick posted:

Just thought I'd repost this little gem because, well.

Dr Nick posted:

Just thought I'd repost this little gem because, well.

Gau posted:

My favorite part about that image is that they use the term "Nil" instead of the normal English "None." I'm sure there are at least a thousand words written on the internet as to why "nil" is more precise or better or what the gently caress ever.

Evil Mastermind posted:

I just realized...this guy is living the grog dream; not only does he have a class (magic-user), it's one from OD&D, not a new-fangled "mage" or "wizard".

Someone needs to ask him what level he is.

mandrake776 posted:

Seriously keep going because that is by far the sanest thing he says.

Doc Hawkins posted:

It's the root of his problems, though. "I only like it when things 'make sense,' so any explanation I come up with that 'makes sense,' I will consider as real and defend from anyone's attempt to disprove." Typical mild schizophrenic stuff.

e: This thread is making me want to re-read Big U, especially all the roleplaying society bits.

Gomi posted:

Despite the presence of all of Stephenson's writer tics that are annoying, it also has all of Stephenson's writer bits that are really entertaining, so my take is that The Big U is awesome to re-read.

quote:

Here's the current state of my evolving thoughts on the subject:

(1) Roleplaying games are defined by mechanics which are associated to the game world. Playing a role is about making choices as if you were the character. In order for a game to be a roleplaying game (and not just a game where you happen to play a role), the mechanics of the game have to be about making and resolving choices you make as if you were the character. If the mechanics of the game require you to make choices which aren't associated to the choices made by the character, then the mechanics of the game aren't about roleplaying and it's not a roleplaying game.

This still leaves some corner cases, mostly in the arena of wargames. For example, Monopoly is clearly not an RPG about bankers (the decision to buy a property might be lightly associated, but pretty much nothing else in the game is). But are the mechanics of Risk sufficiently associated enough to count as "roleplaying a commander-in-chief"? "Moving your armies" and "choosing which area/country to invade" are highly abstracted in the game, but they're still pretty directly associated.

So we might add something about mechanically defining the characteristics of a role and allowing those characteristics to affect the resolution of action to our definition in order to eliminate games like Risk and RoboRally.

This still leaves some fuzziness. For example, where's the dividing line between a Warhammer miniature game and playing multiple characters simultaneously in a D&D game?

(2) Storytelling games are defined by narrative control mechanics. The mechanics of the game are either about determining who controls a particular chunk of the narrative or they're actually about determining the outcome of a particular narrative chunk.

Storytelling games may be built around players have characters they're proponents of, but the mechanical focus of the game is not on the choices made as if they were those characters, but on controlling the narrative.

Wushu offers a pretty clear-cut example. The game has basically one mechanic: By describing a scene or action, you earn dice. If your dice pool gets more successes than everyone else's dice pools, you control the narrative conclusion of the round.

Everyone in Wushu is playing a character. That character is the favored vehicle which they can use to deliver their descriptions, and that character's traits will even influence what types of descriptions are mechanically superior for you to use. But notably the mechanics of the game are completely dissociated from the act of roleplaying the character. Vivid and interesting characters are certainly encouraged, but the act of making choices as if you were the character -- the act of actually roleplaying -- has absolutely nothing to do with the rules whatsoever.

That's why Wushu is a storytelling game, not a roleplaying game.

(3) More controversially, consider Dread. The gameplay here looks a lot like a roleplaying game: All the players are roleplaying individual characters. There's a GM controlling/presenting the game world. When players have their characters attempt actions, there's even a resolution mechanic: Pull a Jenga block. If the tower doesn't collapse, the action succeeds. If the tower does collapse, the character is eliminated from the story.

But I'd argue that Dread isn't a roleplaying game: The mechanic may be triggered by characters taking action, but the actual mechanic isn't associated to the game world. The mechanic is entirely about controlling the pace of the narrative and participation in the narrative.

I'd even argue that Dread wouldn't be a roleplaying game even if you introduced a character sheet with hard-coded skills that determine how many blocks you pull depending on the action being attempted and your character's relevant skill. Why? Because the resolution mechanic is still dissociated and its still focused on narrative control. The fact that the characters have different characteristics in terms of their ability to be used to control that narrative is as significant as the differences between a rook and a bishop in a game of Chess.

Another way to look at this is to strip everything back to freeform roleplaying: Just people sitting around, pretending to be characters. This isn't a roleplaying game because there's no game -- it's just roleplaying.

Now add mechanics: If the mechanics are designed in such a way that the mechanical choices you're making are directly associated with the choices your character is making, then it's probably a roleplaying game. If the mechanics are designed in such a way that the mechanical choices you're making are directly associated to making choices about the narrative, then it's probably a storytelling game.

(4) This gets fuzzy for two reasons.

First, few games are actually that rigid in their focus. For example, if I add an action point mechanic to a roleplaying game it doesn't suddenly cease to be a roleplaying game just because there are now some mechanical choices being made by players which aren't associated to character decisions.

Second, characters actually are narrative elements. This means that you can see a lot of narrative control mechanics which either act through, are influenced by, or act upon characters who may also be strongly associated with or exclusively associated with a particular player.

When you combine these two factors, you end up with a third: Because characters are narrative elements, players who prefer storytelling games tend to have a much higher tolerance for roleplaying mechanics in their storytelling games. Why? Because roleplaying mechanics allow you to control characters, characters are narrative elements, and, therefore, roleplaying mechanics can be enjoyed as just a very specific variety of narrative control.

OTOH, people are primarily interested in roleplaying games because they want to roleplay a character tend to have a much lower tolerance for narrative control mechanics in their roleplaying games. Why? Because when you're using a dissociated mechanic you aren't roleplaying (i.e., you are not making choices as if you were your character; you're making a completely different sort of choice). At best, dissociated mechanics are a distraction from what the roleplayer wants. At worst, the dissociated mechanics can actually interfere and disrupt what the roleplayer wants (when, for example, the dissociated mechanics begin affecting the behavior or actions of their character).

Which is why many aficionados of storytelling games don't understand why other people don't consider their games roleplaying games. Because even traditional roleplaying games at least partially satisfy their interests in narrative control, they don't see the dividing line.

Explaining this is made more difficult because the dividing line is, in fact, fuzzy in multiple dimensions. Plus there's plenty of historical confusion going the other way. (For example, the "Storyteller System" is, in fact, just a roleplaying game with no narrative control mechanics whatsoever.)

Personally, I enjoy both sorts of games: Chocolate (roleplaying), vanilla (storytelling), and swirled mixtures of both. But, with that being said, there are times when I just want some nice chocolate ice cream; and when I do, I generally don't want heavily dissociated mechanics screwing up my fun.

Evil Mastermind posted:

Vivid and interesting characters are certainly encouraged, but the act of making choices as if you were the character -- the act of actually roleplaying -- has absolutely nothing to do with the rules whatsoever.

quote:

no, but according to 4e rules, prone does in fact mean lying on the ground, and I think the rule implies back, face or any other part - up

quote:

Don't know if you're aware, but your post made it on grognards.txt, Justin.

quote:

They had the Rules Compendium, and Heroes of the Fallen Land available at my local bookstore...

Really liked the digest sized books, the clearly readable fonts, and the layout.

+1 for actually having a table of contents.

Some additional observations...

Character progression is very fast from levels 1-10 for all character classes. All the core classes were represented though. With Essentials, you'll hit level 10 by gaining around 20,000 experience points. With original D&D that's gets you a 5th level character.

A 10th level mage only has nine spells that they can cast each day. 3 of these spells are per encounter. 3 can be cast once daily, and 3 are Utility, whatever that means (Can't be used for combat?). Mages must have magic items for sustained campaigns to stay on par with other classes.

At every level, the character receives either a class power, or an attribute bump. Attribute bumps are inline with 0D&D and occur (with fighters at least) at 4th,and 8th level, I would presume that continues up to 20 just like with original D&D.

With Rules Compendium, skills have been further refined resulting in even fewer skills that cover a broader spectrum of tasks. The emphasis remains focused on combat, and that emphasis is only enhanced with this version.

In summary, looks like a fastplay version of 4e. The notation on BAB for attacks was cryptic (1w + Str Mod)(2w +Str Mod) at 20th level, and in the short time that I looked it over, I couldn't determine to hit values for any character over 1st level. There were no notes with the character classes on how combat actually worked so it appeared confusing and would require rooting around in the book some to figure out how this works.

The focus away from roleplaying and the continued fragmentation or modularization of character classes makes this a no-buy book for me.

Evil Mastermind posted:

Oh poo poo guys they (they being RPGSite) are onto us!

ProfessorCirno posted:

There was no benefit from playing a female character, and I don't remember anyone ever raising their voice over that issue.

quote:

And this is actually getting to the crux of the problem, which is more fundamental than simple stat bonuses; the depiction of men as the baseline for people, and the othering of women as something abnormal.

quote:

Consider: why do you have the traits "Fairer Sex" rather then one oriented towards a male gender?

quote:

That nails it right there. For the purposes of a lets pretend game, let's not saddle the girls with artificial constraints. If the cost of that is "muscle bound women warriors with 18 str)" and their chain mail is no longer a bikini

quote:

And don't EVEN try to respond with "realism"- we both know that actual historical roles for women were far more complex and variable than that. There were far more complex dynamics at work than the "weak oppressed manipulators" stereotype that games such as Pendragon (the John Normen of rpgs) would have us believe.

Evil Mastermind posted:

Evil Mastermind posted:

Oh poo poo guys they (they being RPGSite) are onto us!

quote:

I think it's being blown out of proportion. In a system with randomly generated stats, it's quite possible for Joe the fighter to have a 14 strength while Jill the fighter with a minus two to her roll has a 16 strength. To me, it's just not a big deal.

Evil Mastermind posted:

It's this thread.

Pharmaskittle posted:

dammit are we not behind the paywall anymore? make up your minds

ProfessorCirno posted:

Ok, I know that this is a sensitive subject, but... In RPGs, should there be difference between genders?

This concept must be totally alien to younger gamers, but old school enworlders still remember the 70's. We had a game called "AD&D 1st edition". It was a massive game back in the day.
Halfling females had the lowest STR-cap, but if you made a male halfling character, the cap was higher. All genders had difference in weight, height and STR-cap. There was no benefit from playing a female character, and I don't remember anyone ever raising their voice over that issue. Nowadays we only have differences in size, and no one is arguing that. But that's where the differences end.

I also vaguely remember the same from Runequest, but the "physical frailness" of feminine gender was only applied to NPCs. No benefit was given to female NPCs, only some sort of penalty.

In my game I treat PC (creation of) women and men the same, although I feel really frustated about the fact that 150-lbs PC can have the same strength as 300-lbs PC... There are no weight-classes in D&D-wrestling, I guess... In my free-form game I take bodysize and weight strongly into account, and "girly" characters (men or women) are in a world of hurt. Of course this is not directly linked to gender-issue, but since females tend to be lighter, they tend to suffer in mêlée (block that big fist and end up on your a$$). But sneaking and hiding is easier in my freeform-game, if you're lighter.

So what's your opinion?
Men and women are the same, women just are lighter and shorter? In the farms 18-year old girls often participate in hauling the logs with men or is there some reason why women stay home and men do physical work in your fantasy world? Or do they?

Liesmith posted:

I mean, it is a cesspit, but it's basically imported from their own posts, sooo

Liesmith posted:

I mean, it is a cesspit, but it's basically imported from their own posts, sooo