|
palecur posted:By doing that, you involve anything that listens in a web of obligations and precedent (what if you thank them later for narrowly averting a stubbed toe? Do they only help with GM situations?) that destroys verisimilitude IRL, thereby breaking physics everywhere. Thanks. Broken physics is a legitimate plot hook for Mage.
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 03:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 21:09 |
|
|
canti32 posted:Wow, after reading the original post all the way the only thing I can think is that dm is either autistic or a mustardgrog. It wasn't the DM doing it, it was the other posters there, if I recall. paradoxGentleman posted:I don't think his problem is with the fact that it's a paladin doing this; it's the fact that the player took control of the narrative, thus stealing the DM's sacred duty in an act of sacrilegious hubris that fills his heart with dread. It's partially this... Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:I just cannot loving understand why this situation is so hard to grasp. Paladin gets frogged, unfrogs due to making save, and attributes this good thing to their deity. Can these people just not understand it was the paladin attributing the good thing to their deity, or maybe a statement like "I have become strong with Her blessings" but think it's a literal statement on how they unfrogged? ...And partially here. Thing is, even if literally the Raven Queen did indeed glance down and de-frog him, why give a poo poo? Because they're lovely nerds who treat consistency like a game to be won. They're actively searching for reasons to find holes in their setting so they can smugly point them out and feel superior. And then they don't know how to not do that, so they start doing it to themselves and end up ruining their own enjoyment. Again, ENWorld was the place where that one dude BRAGGED about how nobody wanted to see movies with him because he kept doing that. When they say "but if the Raven Queen grants him a blessing now, what stops him from abusing that and claiming she's involved in EVERYTHING?! And what does it mean if she isn't?!" they aren't being sarcastic. They are terrified that their players - or that they themselves - will immediately kill the game by making GBS threads on it and trying to find inconsistencies. It's why the whole "associative mechanics" or loving whatever was ever a thing - why it's STILL a thing. Nerds confuse immersion for consistency, then demand it be written in stone. It's why 3.x literally had a feat that gave you the ability to refluff your spells. That some people banned. Remember that one dude literally stated "the gods can't just do anything, they have to operate in the framework of cleric spells!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 05:50
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Remember that one dude literally stated "the gods can't just do anything, they have to operate in the framework of cleric spells!" No, I don't. I sure would like to read some details though because that sounds like it would be hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 06:19
|
|
|
canti32 posted:What is it specifically about paladins that sets off grogs? He even points it out himself that had a cleric said it it would be taken as a proclamation of faith. I think traditionally it's that they treat the paladin's code and potential for falling as a balancing mechanism against the scads-- dozens-- handful of slightly better than a fighter powers that the class gets. Since it's called out specifically in the class description, they have to apply it at every possible turn lest the character go off like a laying-on-hands grenade.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 06:59
|
|
|
Paladins used to have minimum stat requirements that was somewhere between impossible to very difficult to reach depending on which rolled stats variant your DM deigned to let you use. In exchange, they were explicitly and deliberately better than Fighters. As a counterpoint to that exchange, they had to obey a code of conduct, or else they'd be bumped down to being just Fighters. The DM loving with the Paladin player is a proud tradition, because they were more or less encouraged to do that when Paladins were first introduced. Even after Paladins became just another class that was (supposedly) balanced to be on the same playing field as everyone else, nobody ever said "no you shouldn't really try to keep screwing the Paladins out of their abilities anymore", or if they ever did, it's not like grogs would consider that to be legit anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 07:42
|
|
|
It's also a function of the Paladin's code being directly tied to D&D's ridiculous morality system, with bits like 'Cannot knowingly associate with Evil', Paladins explicitly RAW losing their powers if forced to do something while under goddamn MIND CONTROL, and the thing Cirno was talking about about the crazy nerd urge for consistency. Plus, people think it's automatically dramatic to make a Paladin fall so it's like being a cute animal on the cover of a newberry award winning children's book: You're gonna die.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 08:05
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:No, I don't. I sure would like to read some details though because that sounds like it would be hilarious. It was in my initial post. Here's the important part: quote:That's why I as a player in that group would feel uncomfortable with the fiction of the Raven Queen ending the spell. Because I know that spells are formulas for discrete expressions of magic, with duration being a component of that discrete predictable effect. My imagination would naturally and automatically consider the ramifications of the player's authorship. That bit of Raven Queen fiction starts a major domino effect that intrudes on my immersion. The other way to read it is even funnier in fact: the Raven Queen CAN'T have done it, because that means the spell duration wasn't an objective in-game fact, which is literally the foundation of my immersion!
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 10:50
|
|
|
Oh right, I thought it was gonna be something else from somewhere else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 11:05
|
|
|
Oh, we apparently just had to wait a bit for someone to declare that the gods have to follow the RULES, DAMMIT, THEY CAN'T JUST ACT ALL WILLY NILLY!quote:First let me state, I disagree with your assertion about what divine intervention is. The exact wording of the divine intervention ability makes it clear that it's purpose rests solely in whatever the character is asking help for and the DM decides the nature of the intervention... so it's purpose is not to cast a free spell (though the ability could certainly accomplish that and uses spells as a guideline for the power level of the intervention) it could also be used to do any number of things including ending an effect.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:It's also a function of the Paladin's code being directly tied to D&D's ridiculous morality system, with bits like 'Cannot knowingly associate with Evil', Paladins explicitly RAW losing their powers if forced to do something while under goddamn MIND CONTROL, and the thing Cirno was talking about about the crazy nerd urge for consistency. Plus, people think it's automatically dramatic to make a Paladin fall so it's like being a cute animal on the cover of a newberry award winning children's book: You're gonna die. There's also the problem that more than a few DMs think that Paladins should be like fundamentalist Christians, along with all the baggage that entails.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Oh, we apparently just had to wait a bit for someone to declare that the gods have to follow the RULES, DAMMIT, THEY CAN'T JUST ACT ALL WILLY NILLY! I don't understand, how is this and the rest of the "D&D gods as a simulation" stuff grog? That thread is having a mostly insult-free discussion about the merits of dramatically different game styles and everyone totally understands that their own game style may not be for everyone. There were even a handful of people coming in around page 80 I think being surprised this wasn't an edition war or how civilly everyone was talking. grogtax: quote:Back in the days of 2E, I "changed up" the Piercers a bit and gave my players a hard time. Ederick fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Feb 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
The whole "Gods must follow mechanics thing", is that in the same vein as the people who believe that because there is no rule in the books for losing limbs in DnD, it is impossible for anyone to ever have lost a limb in the history of this fictional world? Like, Christ, I can't imagine playing a game with such no-fun-having, unimaginative people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
FrostyPox posted:The whole "Gods must follow mechanics thing", is that in the same vein as the people who believe that because there is no rule in the books for losing limbs in DnD, it is impossible for anyone to ever have lost a limb in the history of this fictional world? Like, Christ, I can't imagine playing a game with such no-fun-having, unimaginative people. This would forbid pirates with hook hands and peg legs. Inexcusable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Ederick posted:I don't understand, how is this and the rest of the "D&D gods as a simulation" stuff grog? That thread is having a mostly insult-free discussion about the merits of dramatically different game styles and everyone totally understands that their own game style may not be for everyone. There were even a handful of people coming in around page 80 I think being surprised this wasn't an edition war or how civilly everyone was talking. Are you reading the same thread? They were stating that a paladin declaring their god watched out for them was the death of immersion. Because you literally cannot ever have the gods act in-game without involving specific divine powers. Also there was lots of edition warring, it's just all anti-4e, which is acceptable in ENWorld. Literally stating that you cannot have divine intervention without a level 20 Cleric using the Divine Intervention ability. Remember, grog isn't just the rear end in a top hat, it's also the bizarre, mockable, and/or the hilarious! This line of thought is built around the terror that players might act inconsistent. Taken even farther, you get dumb poo poo like that "disassociative mechanics" or whatever essay that was, which stated there must always be a single in-setting explanation for everything. It's what leads to 3.x giving a specific feat that lets you refluff your spells, because you otherwise aren't allowed to refluff things. It's what lead to people on the Paizo forums ages ago having a minor breakdown when they realize NPC lumberjacks can't actually cut down trees and they can't just handwave it away because THE RULES. It's dumb, and it's really funny, just not on purpose. FrostyPox posted:The whole "Gods must follow mechanics thing", is that in the same vein as the people who believe that because there is no rule in the books for losing limbs in DnD, it is impossible for anyone to ever have lost a limb in the history of this fictional world? Like, Christ, I can't imagine playing a game with such no-fun-having, unimaginative people. I can't believe I almost forgot about this, and it's maybe my favorite ENWorld poster/moment - the dude who stated it was fundamentally impossible for anyone to lose a limb in-setting, and if the DM ever introduced an NPC who had a cool eyepatch or a pegleg, that DM was cheating. Because THE RULES MUST REMAIN CONSISTENT! ProfessorCirno fucked around with this message at 22:26 on Feb 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:This would forbid pirates with hook hands and peg legs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
Like, why am I laughing? Because look at how dull and unimaginative this person is:quote:The answer to the non-tangential question: My immersion would be spoiled by the player making an in-character comment stemming from his PC's fervent belief and the DM actually deciding that this is not just mistaken conjecture but actual fact in the fiction, furthermore overriding a major assumption about how spells actually work in every game I've ever played in and a rule of fantasy physics that I've internalized for my suspension of disbelief. That's what would spoil my immersion. Stating flat out that creativity is bad and needs t be excised from the game, because otherwise the "fantasy physics" grow inconsistent and they lose their immersion. How loving lifeless can you imagine that being? Is there any way to better strip any chance of the actual fantastic occurring in your fantasy? And look at what his argument is: "If you read back through the ancient scholars of previous games, you'll find my interpretation of those holy text to be" holy poo poo it's a loving game about elves. How can you look at this and not laugh? Simulationist games exist to devour imagination; why not laugh at it and the people who throw themselves willingly into it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Like, why am I laughing? Because look at how dull and unimaginative this person is: All this because a paladin said "Truly, today Pelor smiles upon me" after making a tough saving roll and the GM decided to run with it for a bit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdYxlY3jNDwquote:Except for the subtle sexism towards boys, it was a semi-interesting video, that says ore about the film maker than it does about adolescent behavior. Since women/girls have been playing in D&D groups since the game came out, I am not sure what the point of this was, other than the subtle sexism towards boys. It is interesting to note there was an obvious feminist message to the video which is boys should change their regular behavior to suit girls. There is no such message for girls to change their behavior to suit boys, which would be a more equality driven message and shows the obvious sociological fallcy of the videos message. It becomes more a message of the boys innocent, natural, and normal behavior is bad and the girls behavior is better. Also they neglected to show all the negative views girls have of boys in favor of the feminist driven message of how boys view girls. This is why in Sociology we accurately view modern feminism as the female superiority movement that it really is, and not about equality as they would claim through propaganda. quote:such a brutally painful poo poo video ... this is beyond staged. quote:I don't get it. Women were always big into roleplaying. What is amazing is that anyone younger than 35 is playing a paper and pencil game. That is what is shocking to me. Im surprised they are not checking their twitter every 5 seconds. quote:even dungeons and dragons isn't safe from the sjw agenda. hilarious. quote:Women hate men today. It's sad.  Ess-jay-dubble-yoooooooooos!!!!
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
I didn't think much of it at first, but when the "African-themed setting" thread on RPGnet got locked in only two pages, I knew I had to poke my head in.quote:I've been thinking of doing an African-themed setting for a Fate Core or FAE campaign, with some influences from the game From Dust. I'd like to take as much as I can from the game and expand it with some ideas of my own, while trying to keep the primitive feeling. Oh, we're not off to a great start. quote:Cut the OP some slack here, we know what he meant by the origional question and from the discussion so far it doesn't seem the guy is unnuanced. quote:I'm not trying to set the game in Africa. I'm going for a fantasy world with a primitive feel, with African influences. Hmmmm. "I don't mean 'primitive' in a racist way. Just, they're primitive, and African. But not racist. PS I have no loving idea what I'm talking about." Oh well, hopefully he was educated a little and knows to educate himself. Meanwhile, his thread became an arena for two intellectual heavyweights to toss around college paper citations to prove how not racist they are. Check out how real it gets! quote:
"the 'race war' or whatever its called now" —A human gay buddhist maxsec shaman of the Ohsaycanyousea tribe who just happens to be """"white"""" like you were racist-ly going to assume I'm sure
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
Plague of Hats posted:I didn't think much of it at first, but when the "African-themed setting" thread on RPGnet got locked in only two pages, I knew I had to poke my head in. Back in my shaman days, I had a genuine vision. My ancestors spoke to me. They, like all preliterate peoples, called themselves 'realpeople' and others from outside their tribe 'nonpeople'. Half of the tribe names of Native Americans translate to 'the people'. The point was postmodern ethnology, and seriously , given your arguments, are you going to try to force me to identify with my birth culture? Ignore everything I am, look at my skin and label me 'white'. Yeah, racism, much. My race is human. My people are the realpeople, the Ohsaycanyousea tribe. My color is rainbow. My heroes are Venus and Polaris, and I await the day they return and slay Death itself, so all the beautiful species the notpeople have destroyed will be again. The bit about my past was showing that I've been the the trenches of the 'race war' or whatever its called now, as opposed to being some isolated intellectual.m[/quote] "the 'race war' or whatever its called now" —A human gay buddhist maxsec shaman of the Ohsaycanyousea tribe who just happens to be """"white"""" like you were racist-ly going to assume I'm sure [/quote] Next Shadowrun character spotted!
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
What leap of logic makes someone want to model a campaign on a culture they know nothing about
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
TheTatteredKing posted:What leap of logic makes someone want to model a campaign on a culture they know nothing about The innocent enough motivation of being just tired of Standard Vaguely Medieval Fantasy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
This is why we need more bibliographies in the back of fantasy RPG books, especially ones modeled off of non-European cultures.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Plague of Hats posted:The innocent enough motivation of being just tired of Standard Vaguely Medieval Fantasy. Yeah. I just can't get over of settling on a culture out of any other when he doesn't know anything to make it appealing compared to the others. Of course the answer to that is that he doesn't know anything about any other culture either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 20:40
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:It's what lead to people on the Paizo forums ages ago having a minor breakdown when they realize NPC lumberjacks can't actually cut down trees and they can't just handwave it away because THE RULES. I really want to hear more about this one.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Zerilan posted:I really want to hear more about this one. It was long ago enough that it'd be a pain to try and find again, but essentially, it was the realization that commoners wielding an axe will never roll high enough damage to bypass a tree's hardness.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:It was long ago enough that it'd be a pain to try and find again, but essentially, it was the realization that commoners wielding an axe will never roll high enough damage to bypass a tree's hardness. Searching for "paizo forums lumberjack tree hardness" returns this little trainwreck. Edit: Abraham spalding posted:
Pack it in, folks, that's the purest expression of grog anyone could ever need. Winter Stormer fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Feb 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:It was long ago enough that it'd be a pain to try and find again, but essentially, it was the realization that commoners wielding an axe will never roll high enough damage to bypass a tree's hardness. Hello. My name is Jo. I'm a pretty average fellow. I have a strength of 8. Hey, don't judge. We're not all built to lop off the heads of a hydra, you know. One day my demanding wife asks me to go out and cut down a tree. I grab my trusty hand ax and walk out to the field. I run my thumb across the edge of the ax. Boy, it sure is sharp. Taking my time, I line up my swing. The ax hits the tree dead on. Hmmm. Not a scratch. Let me try that again. Oh no. What gives? *** Forgive me if what I'm saying here is persnickety, but for some reason I'm bothered by it. My hand ax does 1d6 - 1. The tree I'm trying to cut down is (for argument's sake) about 10 inches thick. That means it has about 100 hit points. Since it's wood it has a hardness of 5. Clearly, I can not do enough damage to overcome the hardness of the tree. I can not cut it down. I can not chop firewood. My family freezes that winter. (I suppose I can work in the probability of factoring in critical hits, but I'm pretty sure that it's going to take way too long to hack through the tree even so.) *** Or perhaps I'm a halfling, and I use a small sized hand ax. This creates the same problem. *** So. My question is: am I missing something obvious here in the RAW? Can a guy with a strength of 8 actually chop wood? For instance, is there some rule that allows automatic criticals against items?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Surely a lumberjack would have more than 8 strength and a bigger axe than a tomahawk. The whole principle of rules as physics is pretty dumb but you can at least do it well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
I believe the idea is that he's not a lumberjack, he's just a dude trying to make firewood for his family.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:I believe the idea is that he's not a lumberjack, he's just a dude trying to make firewood for his family. The tree can't actively defend. It's helpless (per the condition), same as an unconscious person, and thus every attack is a critical hit (the bit about Fort saves or death we can ignore). A hand axe has an x3 crit multiplier. The expected damage output over time is 3 2/3 damage/round after hardness. It takes 27 rounds to chop down the tree. It takes him two minutes and forty two seconds to cut down the tree. loving grogs, not knowing the rules of the games they play or basic mathematics. If anyone wants me, I'll be drinking battery acid in the hope of ending the pain.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
DigitalRaven posted:The tree can't actively defend. It's helpless (per the condition), same as an unconscious person, and thus every attack is a critical hit (the bit about Fort saves or death we can ignore). A hand axe has an x3 crit multiplier. The expected damage output over time is 3 2/3 damage/round after hardness. It takes 27 rounds to chop down the tree. It takes him two minutes and forty two seconds to cut down the tree. Objects can't be critically hit. It's still a 'loving grogs' situation. My obvious answer would be to say 'this man can't do it in a combat situation', which seems perfectly sensible; while thinking about defending himself, he can't cut down a tree in a combat-applicable length of time. I'm apparently not enough of a grog to come up with 'it's literally impossible ever'.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 02:15
|
|
Winter Stormer posted:Searching for "paizo forums lumberjack tree hardness" returns this little trainwreck. The later posts in this thread are just magical. quote:Somewhat. I don't agree with you that a butcher should make more than a barrister. I think that is setting specific; frankly, I don't care what professions you personally believe should make more money than other professions. That's your choice.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
Winter Stormer posted:Searching for "paizo forums lumberjack tree hardness" returns this little trainwreck.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
paradoxGentleman posted:Is that person seriously using D&D modifiers to justify his racism Your next PbtA hack needs to use exactly 14 words for its GM principles. And use a lot of d8s.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:Your next PbtA hack needs to use exactly 14 words for its GM principles. And use a lot of d8s. huh?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 06:10
|
|
|
Error 404 posted:huh? http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fourteen_Words
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 06:11
|
|
|
Well, fuuuuuck. I did not know that. I kinda wish I didn't now. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 06:16
|
|
|
Guilty Spork posted:I still maintain that a fair number of gamers basically really badly want to play GURPS, but don't know it and wouldn't give it a chance if they did, solely because it's not D&D. D&D is not a physics simulation, and the game came from a guy who called realism "the last refuge of the scoundrel." As far as I'm aware, there really isn't a gaming system on the planet that actually does what these people want. They want a complete and accurate model of reality (as perceived) that they can run at their table, which doesn't exist in any game system and never will. Error 404 posted:Well, fuuuuuck. I did not know that. :eng88: quote:I'm a huge fan of RPG's. Over the years I have played D&D in various incarnations including Pathfinder, White Wolf games (Vampire the Masquerade, Mage the Ascension, Werewolf the Apocalypse, Wraith the Oblivion), Rifts, Champions, Heroes Unlimited, Call of Cthulhu, Star Wars RPG, Shadowrun, Runequest, Cortex, and probably a number of others I can't think of off the top of my head.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 06:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 21:09 |
|
|
Grogman posted:eugenically speaking Well, not only is Mr. Grog a shitbag for talking about eugenics, he's also got no idea how words or genetics works. 5 grogstars, would wish to have never read again. Also: It wasn't a very good play either. EDIT: Accidentally stumbled across this piece of un-fun-having in response to Very Serious Webcomic Manly Guys Doing Manly Things. The topic is on Elephacentaur Rogues and their ability to kidnap chickens by sneaking up on them. Grog posted:I’d be a hated GM by these people. I have a little thing called “common sense.” I’ll obey the Rules As Written, but not if they break the game. This situation? I calmly and repeatedly explain that the reason he is failing to sneak up on anything is that he is very, very stealthy… for an elephant. Compared to many things that are NOT elephants, however… perhaps he should always keep in mind that he is an elephant. The Lore Bear fucked around with this message at 09:08 on Feb 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 07:01
|
|
