|
I read with a little irritation the recent thread about the trend toward humanising orcs in TRPGs, by a refusal to accept orcs as naturally or irredeemably evil. Instead, according to this trendy view, they must be human in monster drag with comprehensible human motivations, with perhaps some psychological window dressing. I wonder at this trend. Enlighten me: is it part of a general trend in fantasy games to humanise all monsters, so that no monster can simply be evil, but must essentially be a human and find its evilness in terms of its humanity? Is this a robust trend or a probably short-lived one? How much of this trend existed in original/old school TRPG participants and was perhaps overlooked? ---- Some will always want to humanize everything. That is just how some people are. It's not a trend, but there are more of them here on the boards then the people that think otherwise, because reasons. Old School players are of a different mindset. There is no middle ground between the two. --(discussion re: racism)-- Perhaps, but that is an ABSURD parallel to draw. Christ, way too many people taking things way too seriously in this thread. I think people feel that they need to humanize monsters because of: 1. Intense narcissism manifested by assuming just because creatures share some traits with us (intelligence/sentience/sapience) they necessarily share all of our traits/values/behaviors. Just because you can't imagine them being different just because they share a few traits with us doesn't mean they cant be radically different, that's simply a failure of your imagination. 2. Taking things at the table WAY too seriously; really, leave this stodgy philosophical crap for real life. Strongly agree with the OP. This is an obnoxious trend; one that thankfully has remained on the forums and out of most games I play in. ---- Come down off the high horse and stop irresponsibly injecting controversy where there is none. The behavior you describe is an inextricable facet of human biology, a trait passed on due to its usefulness in helping previous generations survive and reproduce. We are a species that relied on visual input and rapid processing/decision-making to carve out our evolutionary niche...and it still serves important purposes today. Not that such a thing really has anything to do with the OP's point, but people in this thread have stretched it out into an absurd exaggeration that needs deflating. ---- The issue here then seems to not be an inherent problem with the idea of irredeemably "evil" races/species/etc. Instead, lack of thought and bad world-building leading to unfortunate implications. One of the reasons racist sterotypes were so effective is because they tapped into pre-existing fears and ideas that grabbed the imagination. The idea of savagery and bestial urges lurking beneath a veneer of civilisation were still there before racism came into the picture. People just tapped into that and turned it into a weapon of hate by applying it to actual people instead of supernatural monsters (like werewolves for example). I think that the idea of personfying these fears to use in a story is still a valid literary tool and can be done without reinforcing racism. Like...take Pathfinders Africa-pastiche in their campaign world Golarion. There is a ape-man demon lord that sends out chattering ape-men minions to do horrible things to the surrounding people...who are black tribespeople. They fight against the ape-people and are just as good and intelligent as the people in the europe/amerca/etc countries. Are the ape-men racist? They certainly make use of imagery that could be quite racist. But I think there's a very clear dividing line that stops the unfortunate implications. ---- Every time I see threads like this my stomach clenches up. The debate swiftly becomes a litmus test for real-world racial beliefs and a competition to prove who is the most enlightened. Some few attempt to bring reason to an emotion fight and suffer a predictable backlash, and after a fairly short time the outrage- Outrage, I tell you!- wanes until the next time someone raises the topic, when it flares up just as brightly as it did before. So let me ask you all this: How many times, and I want examples, have you personally encountered these kind of situations in games you've played in? What was the average age of the players involved? Can you cite proof or even circumstantial evidence that the GM or the other players were deliberately inserting or attributing characteristics to the 'Orcs' of your game that were stereotyped insults directed at you, your background, or your beliefs? Most importantly, has this been the predominant theme in your gaming experience so far? If not, then please stop arguing that fantastic simplification automatically equates to real racism. This has to stop. Posts that insist this have to stop. Threads that raise this have to stop. I can't tell you how utterly wearying it is to read smug, sanctimonious, and simplistic attempts to assert that using [insert fantasy creature here] as Teh Evul RaceTM is really an attempt to justify or perpetuate some hateful personal belief using RPG mechanics. "Bob the DM is using Orcs as the bad guys in his campaign? Clearly he's a closet racist! " Please, just desist. ---- Why? Because not everyone on this forum is necessarily in agreement with that sentiment, which hinges on an absurd slippery slope argument to make the connection between generalizations about fantasy creatures begetting real-life racism. I think it's incredibly irresponsible to inflame people by suggesting a serious link between the two. It also completely disregards any differences between the biology of different in-game species (for example orcs and humans)...biology which may result in profoundly different spectra of behavior for each species. Silly as it is to talk about this type of thing with respect to elf games, that's where this thread has wound up
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 09:15 |
|
|
So what you're saying is, all creatures in game can only ever have positive traits lest they be considered some analogue that offends some person who was once called whatever the insult happens to be. Frankly, that sort of player isn't going to get very far in life, that level of thin skin and ability to project into things that aren't all that similar to themselves is going to make them offended by pretty much everything. This isn't just for orcs either, other races all have these various traits that are just as negative, removing those traits and just making them picture perfect people who can do no wrong sounds really, really awful. I mean, even creating a villainous human nation is going to rub some people who are like that the wrong way.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Frankly, I get tired of being told that I'm racist because of my skin color. And that carries over into being tired of being accused of it for having likes that the speaker has decided he is offended by. We have a very loud and vocal subculture of the professionally offended in our society, and it's doing nobody any good. If you see "yourself" in the orc tribe your party is expected to slaughter, ask yourself why. What about them reminds you of yourself? Is it their mode of dress? I'm pretty sure that there's no mode of dress amongst medieval fantasy characters that really translates well to modern clothing options; are you saying you identify with a mode of dress because "it's your ancestors?" You are not your ancestors. More importantly, though, why is your party attacking them? I doubt it's because they object to their style with dyed leather and carved animal bones. Though maybe it's the carved demihuman bones. But even then, for what it implies, not for the decorative effect. Are you offended because you see yourself in the orcs' behavior? Which behaviors? Are those behaviors why the party is attacking them? If so, then perhaps you're right to be offended...or you need to re-examine your own behaviors. I doubt, however, that any of us is a pillager and rapist who burns villages down while taking their stuff. If we were, I'm not sure I'd want to be gaming with them. Even when orcs are "always evil," it tends to be because they're acting the part that adventurers go after them. To stop them and their acts of evil. I mean, it's not like any one race or culture has an exclusive on being stereotyped (subtly or not) as "always the bad guy." Watch Law & Order; at least nine times out of ten, if you see a rich white person (particularly if they're religious), they'll turn out to either BE the killer, or to be somehow morally culpable for the killings. Same with the "oh, it's a CEO of a company; he's obviously the villain" trope. So I do sympathize, but seriously, grow a thicker skin. Unless the behaviors you see in your "monster race equivalent" are totally benign when you do them, but characterize anybody who engages in them as "always evil," you're probably not being targetted. I feel like we have gotten to a point where the cries of "racism" are, themselves, racist, because they just assume that all actions of a particular race are motivated by it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Der Waffle Mous posted:That's why they pass around the collection plate. Follow the money
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
Bendigeidfran posted:Oh hey they're discussing Jennifer Clarke-Wilkes' layoff on EN World! No wait they're discussing her layoff on EN World 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
paradoxGentleman posted:Is that person seriously using D&D modifiers to justify his racism
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Hipster Occultist posted:I don't know what to say to this other than "haha nope"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
In a thread about how awesome the 5e Champion is.... ---- I just don't understand why this is even an issue. You want options? Play something else. There is plenty of other martial classes with options. If your hang up is that they don't have as many as a caster, then play a caster. Making statements of this type is fruitless. ----- The caster has more options, yes. No one is really arguing that. But the champion hits harder, tanks harder, and his options last all day every day. A lot of people don't realize how big those three things are. ---- (I swear I am not making this post up.) Champions are encouraged to get creative with their strength, dexterity, and con via remarkable athlete. If you want real world applications of that, it means that champions are pretty good at giving massages, can carry much heavier objects, and can last a long time in bed. One could keep coming up with uses for the physical stats, and therefore the champion advantage to checks with those stats. It's not a reality warping spell, but there is a lot you can do with it.  ---- I'm responding here because this argument is silly. You are correct, telekinesis can lift more. Tenser's can carry more. Now, next question. Does the fighter need to prepare either of these? No. Why? Because his abilities don't require preparation. He just does them. The argument that a caster can do anything anyone else can do is a fallacy. While it is true that the "possibility" exists, that in no way means it "will be". In my experience, more often than not, the casters just don't have the right stuff memorized for the moment things like this crop up. Nor does the party have any inclination to wait for them to change up their spells. This is even more common with the shrunken spell lists. You're position is flimsy at best. It does exist certainly, but its a flimsy argument.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
quote:You're a dragonborn barbarian for godssake, are you wondering if it's EDIBLE??? If you eat the whole loving doorframe, I'll let it count as a pound of food. Who else in the party wants to eat this loving dungeon?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
quote:I like a lot of things that 5e brings to the table. However I'm not liking the high HPs and high damage its reminding my a lot of World of Warcraft. Time to wrap it up.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:From what I've seen, Tito tried to play it neutral, which meant being attacked by sealions for not being a True Believer, then ultimately being kicked out by Macris (the guy who's literally bragged about SPENDING HIS WHOLE LIFE PREPARING FOR THIS WAR), only to be snapped up by WotC for reasons nobody is entirely sure of yet. And too bad about circvsmaximvs going to poo poo. That was my internet forum home for about 2 years. Haven't been there in like 5, but whatevs.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
Poster says, "I want to create an oathless paladin." What kinds of responses do you think he got? Come on. You know it's "You're playing D&D wrong." tarlison posted:I was thinking if we could design a non neccesarily evil variant of an Oath Breaker .... i was thinking this type might be called Ronin, Oath of the Wanderer, The Fallen, the Oathless or maybe all of the above although it would be understandable if other Paladins simple calls them Oathbreakers too .I was thinking thier powers and spells might be more on weapon combat enchamcement and mobility got an idea on the spells he gonna have give me some suggestiom these are the spells im thinking of : Grand Warchief posted:The problem you have is that a Paladin without his oaths has no where to get his powers from. He has no direction and no guidance. He is essentially a fighter. Wolfsraine posted:So... a cleric? Flashy posted:I have to agree with the people above, this concept has confusing fluff. Who is giving this (essentially fallen) paladin her powers? True Neutral doesn't work terribly well as the basis for a class founded in championing ideals. Lord Raziere posted:"Paladin" and "doesn't believe in their oath anymore" are mutually exclusive things. Paladins are the Oath. They are nothing without them. eastmabl posted:So... a warlock with an acolyte background? That's how I hear this going. Giant2005 posted:Do you? What is the middle ground between a Jedi and a Sith? The answer is the same for the Paladin: A commoner. Giant2005 posted:But they do. Hyena posted:There already is an oathless paladin in the game. It's called "fighter". Psikerlord posted:The defining aspect of a paladin is the oath. Otherwise he's a fighter or cleric. Every paladin comes with baggage that restricts their choices. Such is the price of being a paladin.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
I just... ------ Thief/rogues, a character class that should not be? I'm not saying they're overpowered or something like that, I question the morality of this class. I mean seriously, why would thieves be a core class along side soldiers and intellectuals? And really, who would want to go on any sort of trip with a guy who's likely to rob you? And that's the best case scenario: he could just sneak attack you and walk off with all your belongings, leaving you to rot in the middle of nowhere. I mean, in all seriousness why would you have a class that is by its very definition a criminal? Yeah okay, adventurers tend to be racist and essentially genocidal, but at least they aren't a problem to their own society. They kind of fixed this with rogues, and not just with the re-naming. You don't have to be a pick-pocket if you so choose. But it seems that the only reason to bring one along is to deal with traps. And they still reak of 'criminal', despite the fact that they can be any alignment. Why do I have such thoughts? Well, I was reading up on stuff about the Kender (I'm only really familiar with the Forgotten Realms, just so we know), and everywhere I see criticism of them being kleptomaniacs. Also a lot of criticism of them (and halflings) being infantile, but that's not relevant here. But I do agree, why would anyone tolerate a race of kleptomaniacs? It makes no sense. I certainly wouldn't see a miniature and somewhat immature thief as cute. Not that I'm trying to troll, but I honestly don't see why this is a core class. It seems more like something you would see in the supplements that detailed the assassin and blackguard class. And playing on that NWN server, most people played their rogues as either thieves or assassins (though strangely enough, few were evil, though most were chaotic neutral). I mean, at the very best they're grave-robbers and spies. Why is it that one of the classes by its very nature has to be either selfish or evil? Unless you go with a robin-hood character, I don't see anyway you could be good (and even that is questionable, I don't recall hearing anything about robin hood stabbing people in the back). I mean seriously, what kind of a decent person would have a skill set like this??? The things you excel in are lockpicking, sneaking around, disabling people's defenses, and stabbing people in the back. Oh, and you can also be a pick-pocket. Is there anyway to play a rogue that isn't an obviously atrocious individual? I'm sorry if I offend anyone, but I don't understand why this class is one of the standard options. Clerics make sense, druids make sense, fighters, monks, wizards. Yeah, sorcereres and barbarians are iffy, but sorcerers is more just the stereotype that having a high charisma means your character is arrogant. And just because you prefer brute force in combat doesn't mean you're evil, its just a different tactic. And besides, barbarians don't have to be stupid. I mean Conan himself was fairly clever, and just because you like brute force doesn't mean you can't be good at other things, like smithing or riding or whatnot. Honestly, you think about it intelligence is kind of a dump-stat, since really the only characters that have high intelligence are wizards, for everyone else its only above charisma on the priority list (unless you're a paladin or sorcerer or bard or something else that relies on charisma). Heh, you think about it there's actually more classes that rely on charisma than there are for intelligence! But that's kind of a tangent...perhaps something for another thread. -=-=-=-=-=-
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
I wasn't going to post this until I was hit by the killer combo of, "I only know Forgotten Realms," and holding up Conan as a moral standard.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
ENWorld hates it when people ask if 5e's license has been released. ..... The only reason this thread pops up again and again is that people are passive-aggressively protesting against WotCs decision not to prioritize any license. In a most irritating and completely useless manner; since WotC isn't basing it's business decisions on threads at EN world. So, yeah. It would be far preferable if new threads were started, since that would mean these people would have to retype their arguments. More work means fewer posts. And each time, the arguing would get lighter, just like time heals all wounds. Meanwhile, when and if any real info becomes available, all these threads will be instantly ignored for new ones. Meaning that, yes, there are all kinds of reasons to lock this sucker and put a lid on the infected bile. PS. Especially if the main reason for a monthly "overwatch" is simply to circumvent Morris' decision in the first post. That is, to make this shambling mound never get five months old. Folks, a rotting pile of leaves is still a rotting pile of leaves no matter how often you stir it. ------ LEAVE %E ALONE!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
FireSight posted:I paid $150 for one out of print book for WFRP 2e. I am one of those people. *sob*
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
One of my players, a brilliant if eccentric fellow, has built a character that I am having a very hard time conceptualizing. This forum has a track record of getting me to reconsider my hardline restrictions, and I have no desire to just say "no" to creative character concepts so I am asking the playground to try and argue on his behalf. The character is a Halfling Monk with the street urchin background. He only builds characters using backgrounds and traits from the book. My player's idea is the character ran away from home, spent a couple years on the street, and then got picked up by a monk who took him to a monastery. It seems to me that the discipline required by the monk class conflicts with a large portion of the street urchin traits. The monk class seems to demand that the character spent formative years training in a monastery which conflicts with the idea of an Urchin background that is really sensitive to the urban heartbeat. Now I know I have the power to hand wave a lot of this and just let it be, but the idea seems like it would wreck verisimilitude a bit. I suppose part of the issue comes down to a specific question: are some character classes incompatible with certain backgrounds? I think an Urchin Druid would be a troubling pairing for instance. Is this an inflexible and unreasonable position, or should I ask him to rework the character?
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
So, I may be a little late to the party, but I would like to way in on the 4E= WoW discussion. I personally played and enjoyed World of Warcraft for 10 years. Before that I played other MMOs and the Warcraft RTS games for another ten years. I would hardly say that I am someone who disliked WoW. When I look at WoW vs. 4E I find three major sources of comparison: 1: Lack of Strategic Play World of Warcraft allows characters to more or less come into every fight at full strength. Your performance in previous encounters rarely if ever influences your chances with the current encounter. In World of Warcraft I would say this is a very good thing. It allows every encounter to stand on its own and be exciting (at least in theory. A lot of trash pulls in dungeons now serves no purpose except to pad out the length of content). I remember in Everquest trying to solo and having to sit for upwards of half an hour to heal to full between fights. Even in groups mana regen buffs were the most valuable thing in the game and players would have bards who did nothing but sit in the corner playing songs to speed up resource regeneration. This was terrible. I remember a lot of people praising Halo with its regenerating shield system as a break through in FPS design as it allowed you to treat every encounter as a standalone showpiece challenge. Now it seems like every FPS has a similar mechanic whether or not it has any in universe justification like the Halo shield. 4E does something very similar. Few status conditions last longer than a few rounds, let alone an encounter. Healing surges allow people to recover from almost any injury in a matter of hours. The AEDU system allows you to, aside from daily powers, be completely refreshed between every fight. In theory this should work out cool, as it eliminates the 15 minute adventuring day and frustrating situations where you have a run of bad luck / decisions and have to abandon the quest. But, on the other hand, it makes combats dull. Most fights have virtually no chance of actually killing the PCs (which is good, as you can't just respawn at the graveyard and try again), and therefore they don't do anything but slow the party down (see trash pulls in WoW above). Furthermore they reward static play where the only incentive is maximizing efficiency, and since the same powers are available every fight there isn't as much reason to deviate. Now, don't get me wrong. A well done 4E combat is fun and plays like an exciting tactical board game. But if the combat isn't exceptionally well done it really has no bearing on the whole of the adventure and just slows everything to a crawl. Note that pre 3E the game was very tactical and all about conserving and tracking limited resources. 3E kind of got rid of this with the whole 15 minute adventuring day thing, and 4E tried to just roll the 15MWD into the base assumption of the game rather than going back to earlier edition's style of play. This is a very WoW like decision. 2: Class Roles: WoW didn't invent class roles, and in fact was a lot more lenient about them than most earlier MMOs. Note though, that WoW changed the landscape, and in my experience while class roles in MMOs were fairly common before WoW they were not ubiquitous like they seem to be now. IMO these were the worst parts of WoW. I don't know how frustrating it was to constantly be told that my class was only good for one thing or have the designers throw a "hybrid tax" and anyone who tried to play outside of their class's assigned role. Early WoW was very much bring the class not the player, and even within given roles there were many things that required a specific class. Not fun. Now, earlier D&D kind of had roles, but they weren't clearly defined. Anyone could, theoretically, tank, do damage, or focus on ooc skills. Healing was pretty protected, and a lot of skill stuff was rogue / bard only, but it wasn't too hard to play against type. 0-3E warriors could easily out DPS rogues, rogues could, with the right build, easily out tank warriors, and casters could pretty much do anything you wanted them to. 4E comes along and gives everyone clearly defined roles, both in intent and practice. It is the first edition to actually spell out roles in the book. While there are a few cases where you can be OK at a secondary role (just like early WoW), but never as good as a "pure" class. Furthermore the game really doesn't reward unusual builds. Playing against type has gotten harder and harder in each edition of D&D. The 3E skill and saving throw system was really bad in this regard, but 4E made it worse. The game also assumes that everyone is a combatant, which is a very Warcraft way to look at it. In earlier editions I could play a scholar or a healer or a diplomat or a scout and not have to get my hands dirty. 4E does virtually nothing to differentiate characters out of combat and one has to try very hard to play a pacifist character and still contribute in combat. 3: Lack of Realism Ok, call it what you want. Lack of realism, lack of logic, lack of verisimilitude, lack of simulationism, disassociated mechanics, overly gamist / narrativist design choices, overuse of abstraction, what have you, the sentiment is the same. Earlier editions of D&D like to keep up the appearance of a consistent world. Most every power in the game has an explanation, and they try and keep consistent with known real world laws (or consistent fantasy world laws). Things have explanations and generally follow common sense. Most video games do not have anywhere near the fidelity towards logical cause and effect that D&D does. The game doesn't question why characters can't break down a locked door, or climb over a short obstruction, or how they can fit 2,000 round of ammunition in their pocket, or why simply touching the water kills them. These are accepted as limits of the programming or taken for convenience sake. D&D, with its living DM, generally has a much tighter reign on this sort of thing. Warcraft is particularly bad about this. The game doesn't try and explain why people can heal from any injury in moments, why you can carry a dozen horses, five dragons, three suits of armor, and half a million gold coins around in your bags without being encumbered, why you can teleport in and out of dungeons, why your enemies respawn every week, why killing monsters gives you "points" that you can trade to NPCs for gear, why a wolf in Pandaria is higher level than The Lich King, why items become bound to you once you use them, why you can craft a motorcycle in 10 seconds, how you can have two different character builds that you can switch between but never mix, etc. etc. etc. The developers of WoW are on record as saying that their policy is that if the gameplay conflicts with the lore the gameplay will always win out. 4E does not go to nearly the same levels as WoW does, but it is a lot closer than any other edition of D&D. Marks, minions, AEDU powers, healing surges, level requirements on items, spending on action to command a minion, enemies taking damage from powers with no apparent cause, tripping slimes and snakes, poisoning skeletons or making them bleed, the list goes on and on. These require a lot of mental gymnastics to justify, and more often than not the books don't even try. So yeah, 4E and WoW are not the same game. But they have made a lot of the same design decisions and are a lot closer than any previous edition of D&D, and these design decisions do not always transfer properly across media. posted in the Year of Our Lord 2015 without irony
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
GrizzlyCow posted:edit: Dwarf, was this a legit post from you or some grog? I am easily deceived and confused. And yes, the 15min work day happens because of powerful daily resources. It's definitely a "thing" in AD&D. Later SSI gold box games even hotkeyed the grand cycle of Cast Heal Spells -> Rest and prepare all your spells as healing -> Cast Heal spells -> Rest and prepare the spells you really want -> Adventure bullshit that you had to do in AD&D to recover.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:I've paid just enough attention to Pathfinder to see that it has a bunch of stuff that is just like 4e powers, but because it's "3/day" or otherwise couched in overcomplicated 3e rules, it's somehow okay. quote:Challenge (Ex) quote:Tactician (Ex)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
It's time for another double hand crossbow post!DEFCON 1;6640464 posted:Because they wanted to clarify their intentions on how they originally thought it supposed to work... knowing full well that anyone who didn't like it could just ignore the errata and play it however they wanted to. JackOfAllTirades;6640543 posted:Nobody's saying that having two hand crossbows, with no hands free to reload them, mysteriously getting reloaded anyway, round after round, is over-powered. CrusaderX;6640600 posted:One man's fun is another man's cheese. I've seen several posts stating the the idea of going pew-pew-pew with dual hand crossbows violates the so-called "rule of cool". To many, dual-wielding hand crossbows isn't cool at all, its just silly and cheesy. This next dude is  at the idea of others having fun. spinozajack;6640660 posted:Their decision was both wise and necessary. How can you load a crossbow without a free hand? Unless it's fully automatic. You're free as a DM to create such a "load free" variant, but you can't play with the default crossbow and fire with it every round with anything in your other hand, a fork, a knife, a spoon, another crossbow. cmad1977;6640667 posted:Objectively: dual wielding hand crossbows that magically reload is silly. And now for this guy again.  spinozajack;6640676 posted:As Umbran likes to say "don't let perfect be the enemy of good". The way he spells Woo is making me so I guess fair's fair?spinozajack;6640683 posted:Needing to use two hands to wield a bow, such a tyrannical obsession with realism! spinozajack;6640692 posted:Yes it is. John Wu or Neo in the Matrix shooting two guns at the same time is fine, because it's an automatic weapon. spinozajack;6640699 posted:Wait a minute, I thought telling people you were ignoring them was a faux-pas on this forum? JackOfAllTirades;6640884 posted:I've not seen any of the above do things that require them to sprout two extra arms. spinozajack;6641073 posted:I bet any money there's going to be a fully automatic reloading crossbow in a future "Arms and Equipment guide 5e" type book, and it will cost some extra money or be a magic item (even better). ExploderWizard;6641178 posted:No. Hand crossbows are light weapons. You can still fire one from each hand, you just can't reload them both. It is really a shame that such a clarification was needed. That some gamers today seemingly cannot tell the difference between a hand crossbow and a semiautomatic pistol is kind of sad. spinozajack;6641723 posted:To paraphrase pemerton (who adamantly refuses to abide by the ignore feature, so I give up) : "why not jump both feet into the patently absurd, while we're already one foot in towards the implausible".
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2015 19:09
|
|
It was when I did it. I guess not. No matter. Don't care, bro.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
 Gaming-Poet;19332539 posted:Could someone please cite for me the experience points formula for a cleric's turning of undead (or provide for me page number and column in the DMG -- or wherever it happens to be)? Digitalelf;19332964 posted:Table 34 in the DMG says that Priest's receive 100 XP for each successful use of a granted power. I personally give characters 1/2 XP (in addition to the 100 XP) for successfully turning/destroying undead... Gaming-Poet;19336765 posted:True, but it goes against the overall D&D philosophy if a cleric who kills off (i.e. "dispels") a 6000 XP undead with a particularly successful Turn Undead earns only 100 experience points but that same cleric who ignores the Turn Undead ability and insteads kills off that same 6000 XP undead with a particularly effective critical success mace bash now earns 6000 experience points. Digitalelf;19337563 posted:I don't think it does, because if the cleric enters melee with the undead, he is using his hard won skill at arms to defeat the creature, but, if he uses his turning ability, he is "simply" calling upon the might and holy righteousness of his deity to channel through him in order to drive the foe away (or destroy it if he is high enough level to do so). Gaming-Poet;19338596 posted:That's D&D 4th edition thinking, not AD&D. Digitalelf;19341637 posted:I never played 4th edition, so I wouldn't know. :smalltongue: And now things get  Gaming-Poet;19340838 posted:That's my fear. Digitalelf;19342031 posted:Why all the hostility and snark?? Gaming-Poet;19342176 posted:I have a great deal of respect for other opinions, including those which differ from mine (so long as they are rational or are clearly owned by the person). Digitalelf;19342441 posted:Wow... Just wow... Gaming-Poet;19343029 posted:Oh? I will take your word on this and try to remember it in the future.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
Rand Brittain posted:Oh, I remember Gaming Poet. He was the guy who came to RPGnet to have a minor tanty about how evil Changeling: the Lost was for presenting its fake fairy tales as "the truth." I missed that one. I was just in awe of how much he went off of the dude who seemed to be sincerely trying to help. Like saying he accused him of lying, taking 'if you care to look' as an accusation of laziness, etc. The whole thing is just  gradenko_2000 posted:I only just got into the hobby two years ago, I love Basic D&D and would like to run AD&D someday, and boy does this make me mad. dwarf74 fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Jun 19, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
I bolded the section most important. I am citing this as an example of Players dictating the world to the DM. I do not agree with this method of play. A game system only needs a framework to resolve a situation with a questionable outcome. It does not need rules constraining the DM about the world they are trying to portray for their characters to live in, nor should it have them. Yes, there are things you need to know to play a character. How much can they lift as an example. These present the framework for what the character can do, and should offer enough information to derive any chosen action. If I know my character can lift 300 pounds, it is reasonable to assume I am capable of knocking down a wooden door, and seriously questionable if I can smash through a metal one. It is up to the system to provide a way to resolve that, and a DM's job to arbitrate any unusual circumstances. (Enchanted door. Rusty metal door. Etc.) It is not my job as a player to tell the DM how to run their game. I find this thought process rude and disrespectful to the person who is devoting unknown amounts of time to my fun. We need to know how skills work, attribute checks work, spells work, attack and damage rolls work, and what class abilities do. We do not need DCs assigned to how hard the ground is for digging, what the difference in DC is for climbing an evergreen vs. a maple tree. These are extraneous rules that bog down the game, slow down game play, and allow players to attempt to dictate the world to the DM. I find this unacceptable.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
In a thread about gender conventions... Grog and non-grog both. Segev;19465872 posted:This is the result of stereotypes and political correctness cutting both ways. A male seducer is a creep, skeevy, evil, malign, and horribly abusing his female victims. While the female seductress can be evil and manipulative and cruel, she doesn't have to be and is not so, inherently. Moreover, the stereotype nowadays is that men won't - and often almost can't - say "no" to an offer of sex. Socially, in fiction especially, it's expected that men are willing, eager, and actively seeking sexual encounters with women. For a seductress to act on a man, he must resist his carnal nature and usually must have a strong reason to say "no," such as a committed girlfriend/wife, an unusually (and often "quaintly") moral objection, feel that he shouldn't take advantage of this girl (despite her being the seductress), or knowing that he's doing a job that he should not betray for sex. Steampunkette;19466486 posted:Bisexuality isn't sexual fluidity. It's as solid a sexuality as heterosexuality. There are sex fluid individuals who shift through attraction to different genders, of course. But Bi? Solid as any other. Segev;19466833 posted:I'll be honest, I'm not sure I appreciate the difference. "I like chocolate ice cream today; yesterday I liked mint, but I don't feel like it today," seems the extent of it as I've heard it portrayed. That sounds a lot like "bi" but with a mood-based preference. Segev;19466929 posted:Eh, no. Psyren;19467098 posted:The difference is that there are folks who like both chocolate and mint all the time. Thus they are not fluid - they know what they want and it does not change. Thus when others say things to them like "you might say that, but I know you really just like chocolate", or "sure you like chocolate and mint, but you obviously like chocolate more" or even "you're just saying that, because I haven't seen you have mint in like forever" can be insulting. Segev;19467193 posted:I'm fine with shrugging and agreeing with them as long as it doesn't get to the point of ridiculousness and begin impeding communication. Or they're getting rude/deceptive with it. Though that's less likely when dealing with sexual preferences than ice cream preferences. At least, I hope nobody would be huffy over not being offered sex by somebody they'd turned down on the grounds of not swinging that way. Segev;19468474 posted:If you want to claim something I think is false, it's usually not my place to call you on it. However, if you claim you identify as one thing despite your body disagreeing, and that's okay, but that other person identifying as another thing despite his body disagreeing is NOT okay, that's one place I draw a line. If a person can identify as a particular sex in contrast to their biological reality, then they had better respect another's identification as a particular race, regardless of that other's biological reality. Steampunkette;19468858 posted:Race is just as SOCIALLY relevant, even if it's not biologically relevant. Segev;19468909 posted:I do not think this forum is the place to debate whether color blindness works or not; I will say that, anecdotally, it was working in my tiny world until the last decade's resurgence of insistence on attention being paid to it. But that's anecdotal. Steampunkette;19468972 posted:If it doesn't bother you then it doesn't bother you. And that's all well and good. You're not obligated to be upset by the same stuff that upsets others.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
Plague of Hats posted:If memory serves, Segev was one of the superstars in an Exalted thread that progressed from "while evil, that doesn't mean the Empire isn't an important part of the world that does in fact form the foundation of many lives" to "you know it's not like slavery is that big a deal." Yeah he is a font of terrible MRA opinions.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
This one confuses me. On the one hand, great! A paladin can be gay and sexually active! On the other hand ... Something about this bugs the poo poo out of me.quote:In one of my group's games (Pathfinder) my paladin is gay, and he's not a virgin. I didn't intentionally create him that way, but it fit naturally with his perspectives.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Oh my God, I don't want to snipe your grog but I read his other posts and he is the most ridiculous human being alive. spinozajack;6654495 posted:Thanks for not telling me what impinges on my fun or not, bro. spinozajack;6654508 posted:It's irrational to play a game that I find ridiculous, yes.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
OH SNAP spinozajack posted:I already answered your first question, above (using but one example, there were many others). dwarf74 fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Jul 1, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
Otisburg posted:And they treat it like some kind of foot fault on the serve that gives them a point regardless of the merits of the argument.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2015 05:53
|
|
|
Hemlock;6657549 posted:If the essence of being a fighter is "being a trained combatant" as you say, then there are no non-combat related bits. That's like asking about the non-magic-related aspects of being a trained wizard. At most you're talking about skill proficiencies, but fundamentally the non-magic-related aspects of being e.g. Mercury Boltblaster don't originate in his being a wizard at all--he has non-magic-related aspects like crazy hand-to-hand combat skills and a close relationship with the Queen of Raelna, but those things originated in his background and martial arts training, not from his training as a wizard.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
The Deleter posted:I am really appreciating the SJW to skeleton plugin right now. 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
Nihilarian posted:"oh, gosh, I can't tell who the movie wants me to think of as the good guy. Is it the rapist warlord, or the woman who opposes him? I wish they would make it clearer." Totally worth it. I was giddy like half the movie about how audacious the whole thing was.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
Antivehicular posted:I'm not sure anyone besides Raven c.s. McCracken claims to have actually played Synnibarr. I'll admit that I kind of want to, just to see what the hell goes down, but it's kind of the roleplaying equivalent of wanting to go to the moon: you probably can't do it, and if you did it you'd probably just die or get bored. The newest kickstarted one? poo poo's basically Timecube. Or else it's actually written in Venderant Nalaberong.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2015 05:09
|
|
|
Antivehicular posted:Yeah, I backed that KS and got about as far as the "basic" combat example before my eyes started to glaze over. (I got as far as the fiction about the kid from the bee-vine forest before pretty much giving up entirely.)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2015 06:08
|
|
|
Kylra posted:From a quick google that system is supposed to be OD&D based so it might not be as useful a trade there. I can't remember how stats worked pre-3e.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:I admit I've not been to GitP in a long time but I thought the place was one of the distinctly more progressive RPG boards?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 09:15 |
|
|
NGDBSS posted:I'm guessing you meant "as dwarf74 pointed out"? And yeah, that matches my experiences, too. The mods are amazingly recalcitrant about doing anything to stop their spam problems, too.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2015 18:03
|
|