grognards.txt - sandbox gamers are the John Galts of the RPG world

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > grognards.txt - sandbox gamers are the John Galts of the RPG world

«‹›67 »

Chaltab: Feb 16, 2011; So shocked someone got me an avatar!

So it turns out K knows as little about game design and actual play as Frank

---

The instant that you start to fetishize certain weapons, the stupid happens.

Players will pick the obviously good choice regardless of how stupid it is. Adding splashing mechanics that interact with sneak attacks means that 3.X created a new archetype of the flask rogue, but that's only because players will gravitate to the best mechanics regardless of how silly they are.

If phoenix feathers were weapons that used the touch attack mechanic, were cheap, and allowed sneak attacks, then "feather rogues" would be a thing instead.

Allowing any kind of weapon or style specialization means that players feel picked on the instant the DM puts them in a situation that is not catered to that weapon. The sword and board fighter is annoyed at the DM when fighting the flying manticore who shoots spines at range and feels personally slighted when magic bows show up in the treasure.

Even tactical specialization works that way. The trip-tastic tripper feels like the DM is going out his way to make the game less fun whenever legless monsters make an appearance.

Both of these things happen because specialization means that you don't have generalization. If you only have one good attack because that's the one that uses your +4 sword, the game stops working for you when you don't get to attack with that sword.

Generalization has to be the way. Players need multiple tactics both for their own variety, but so the DM can throw variety at them in a fair way. The 3.X Rogue is a lot more fun to play when he has a way to meaningfully fight undead and constructs because undead and constructs are awesome. He's even more fun to play when he doesn't have to be a flask rogue in order to meaningfully contribute in combat.

It's fine to have weapons that have minor bonuses and penalties, but those have to be trade-offs. A swordbreaker can just be a better weapon for disarming people, but it needs to be worse at something else so that the obvious choice is not to always take the swordbreaker and force the Swordbreaker archtype into the game.

DnD has sold a lot of books by catering to the Build Culture where people are constantly scouring sources for an extra +1 or feat to make some tactic better, but no one has noticed that it tends to make less fun games for everyone because it leads to people using the same tactic for every problem and being useless and unhappy in every other problem.

---

Word of advice: find less awful players

# ? Dec 28, 2013 08:56

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 28, 2024 11:18

ProfessorCirno: Feb 17, 2011; The strongest! The smartest!
The rightest!

Sorry K is legitimately 100% correct there, D&D style specialization is ridiculously awful and better balanced choices leads to more fun and more viable characters. 3.x and 4e both absolutely had a "build culture" based around scouring for feats or weapons that gave that little +1, and the general end result made for far less fun games. 3e especially had the "you do one thing, but do it super good" problem, most noteworthy when it came to fightan man style classes. That's pretty much anti-grog to the max.

:colbert:

Also, grog tax, let's keep it short and simple

~*~

Video Games ruined the purity of the Role Playing Game experience

# ? Dec 28, 2013 10:46

Crosscontaminant: Jan 18, 2007

Chaltab posted:

The instant that you start to fetishize certain weapons, the stupid happens.

Players will pick the obviously good choice regardless of how stupid it is. Adding splashing mechanics that interact with sneak attacks means that 3.X created a new archetype of the flask rogue, but that's only because players will gravitate to the best mechanics regardless of how silly they are.

If phoenix feathers were weapons that used the touch attack mechanic, were cheap, and allowed sneak attacks, then "feather rogues" would be a thing instead.

Allowing any kind of weapon or style specialization means that players feel picked on the instant the DM puts them in a situation that is not catered to that weapon. The sword and board fighter is annoyed at the DM when fighting the flying manticore who shoots spines at range and feels personally slighted when magic bows show up in the treasure.

Even tactical specialization works that way. The trip-tastic tripper feels like the DM is going out his way to make the game less fun whenever legless monsters make an appearance.

Both of these things happen because specialization means that you don't have generalization. If you only have one good attack because that's the one that uses your +4 sword, the game stops working for you when you don't get to attack with that sword.

Generalization has to be the way. Players need multiple tactics both for their own variety, but so the DM can throw variety at them in a fair way. The 3.X Rogue is a lot more fun to play when he has a way to meaningfully fight undead and constructs because undead and constructs are awesome. He's even more fun to play when he doesn't have to be a flask rogue in order to meaningfully contribute in combat.

It's fine to have weapons that have minor bonuses and penalties, but those have to be trade-offs. A swordbreaker can just be a better weapon for disarming people, but it needs to be worse at something else so that the obvious choice is not to always take the swordbreaker and force the Swordbreaker archtype into the game.

DnD has sold a lot of books by catering to the Build Culture where people are constantly scouring sources for an extra +1 or feat to make some tactic better, but no one has noticed that it tends to make less fun games for everyone because it leads to people using the same tactic for every problem and being useless and unhappy in every other problem.

I want to frame this quote and hang it on my wall. It's concise and well-presented.

ProfessorCirno posted:

3e especially had the "you do one thing, but do it super good" problem, most noteworthy when it came to fightan man style classes.

It appears user Koumei disagrees!

Koumei posted:

That certainly is a very noteworthy problem of current D&D - many comics and such have made jokes about this, in fact. If only there were another edition that cut down on that crap, like some kind of third edition of D&D!

# ? Dec 28, 2013 15:46

ProfessorCirno: Feb 17, 2011; The strongest! The smartest!
The rightest!

What, you want to play the game? God, what a terrible player!

~*~

quote:

They don't need to be balanced. They just need effective contributions. No one should say, "Well, my character, being useless here, hits the tavern. You guys come get me when you're done," and then make dice towers for half an hour. That's not fun.

Sure it is. That's called "spotlight sharing". It happens all the time.

What no one should say is "Well, my character being useless here, I'll sulk and complain as if I've been wronged in some way."

# ? Dec 29, 2013 05:26

That Old Tree: Jun 24, 2012; nah

quote:

quote:
Is there any way of estimating how (ir)relevant the industry as a whole views TBP?

I know that Very Well Known Game Designers who write to me once in a while consider the place a pack of useless loving jackals.

This was one of the more interesting outcomes of posting there in the first place: spontaneously getting correspondence from people in the industry (that is: full time people, not computer dorks who freelance on occasion) were like "Why Zak? Why are you talking to RPGnet? Why talk to any of them?"

"BTW I'm a big deal, Very Well Kn�" oh he made the joke for me!

Bonus points for being contemptuous toward the vast majority of content creators in the entire RPG industry.

# ? Dec 29, 2013 22:45

GorfZaplen: Jan 20, 2012

Cyberpunk Rocker (CR 5)
Medium Chaotic* Monstrous Humanoid (cyborg)
*equally likely to be Chaotic Good, Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Evil, but CE is the hottest, because crazy is always kinda hot
XP 1,200
Init +3 Senses Darkvision 90 ft, lowlight vision, wifi/cellular/television and radio reception, Perception +7
Languages Galactic Common, English

Defense
AC 16 Touch 10 Flatfooted 16 (+6 natural)
HP 6d10 + 12 hp (45 HP)
FORT +6 REF +7 WILL +1
Immune Cyborg Immunities (drowning, hunger, suffocation, thirst, vacuum, the sickened and nauseated conditions, death effects, ability drain, energy drain)

Offense
Spd 40 ft
Melee +9/+4 mwk dagger (1d4+3 slashing, 19-20/x2)
Ranged +9/+4 Death Falcon Rocker (2d8 sonic, 20/x2, 50 ft range increment, single shot, 6 internal cell)
Or +14 Perform check as a full round action rather than a Ranged Attack Roll
Special Qualities Famous Monsters of Fuckywood T-Shirt, Take It All Off!, Unhealing

Statistics
Str 15 Dex 16 Con 14 Int 10 Wis 11 Cha 14
Base Atk +6 CMB +8 CMD 21
Feats Catch Off Guard, Exotic Weapon Proficiency (rocker), Personal Firearms Proficiency, Skill Focus (perform), Simple Weapons Proficiency
Skills Knowledge (local) +4, Perception +7, Perform (rocker) +14, Stealth +10
Gear Death Falcon Rocker, masterwork dagger, sexy Famous Monsters of Old Fuckywood concert tee, miniskirt without underwear, Guitar God�s Gloves

Ecology
Environment any urban (underground concert halls, drug dens and the occasional cyber-strip club)
Organization solitary or accompanying a rowdy bunch of galactic garage rockers, drug dealers, petty criminals and other scum
Treasure standard (including usable cyber-components scavenged from her body)

Special Abilities
Famous Monsters of Fuckywood T-Shirt (SU)
The Cyberpunk Rocker loves her concert tee, and has an entire closet of similar t-shirts. Each shirt bears a one word description of a famous Fuckywood monster (and the title of one of the band�s albums. Concert dates and locations are on the back. Depending on which t-shirt she�s wearing, the Cyberpunk Rocker gains one of the following benefits. This is a property of the Cyberpunk Rocker and her stalkery devotion to the band, not the shirt itself�.though the Rocker would argue otherwise.

Frankenstein!
It should be �Monster� but everybody just calls the fucker Frankenstein, including the band. The Cyberpunk Rocker gains a 25% chance to ignore critical hits or sneak attacks, as if she possessed the light fortification feature.

Ghost!
The Cyberpunk Rocker can become ethereal as a swift action for up to two rounds. This ability is usable once per encounter.

Gillman!
The Cyberpunk Rocker gains a 40 ft Swim speed and a +8 enchantment bonus to Swim checks.

Vampire!
The Cyberpunk Rocker gains the following spell-like ability (CL 4th � Concentration +6). 1x/day � Vampiric Touch (DC 15)

Werewolf!
The Cyberpunk Rocker gains the Scent special quality and inflicts +2 damage with her dagger.

Take All It Off! (SU)
As a move equivalent action, the Cyberpunk Rocker can rip off her shirt, destroying it. Doing so reveals her beautiful metal tits, providing her with the following benefits. These benefits last for the duration of the encounter.
+2 deflection bonus to Armor Class
Increase base land speed to 50 ft
The Cyberpunk Rocker can make one additional dagger attack per round, at her full base attack bonus.

Roleplaying
Hot chromed out bitch, dressed in sexy fetish club gear. Full cyborg conversion never looked so good. She�s hiding those fine titanium-alloy titties behind a Famous Monsters of Fuckywood concert tee. She�ll show �em off when the band goes into a guitar solo (or if she starts getting really pissed off in combat). Or if she needs to get into a club and the bouncer likes mecha. Or if she�s getting free drinks or cyber-maintenance. Or if things are too quiet and she wants to start some trouble with Command law enforcement. Or if�..

The Cyberpunk Rocker is pretty crazy, at least as far as her devotion to her favorite death metal band goes. She�s killed people and stolen starships to get to gigs in out of the way places. She�s a decent guitarist herself, wielding a Death Falcon Rocker modeled on one the band�s lead guitarist uses on stage.

When it comes times to throw down, she pulls a knife out of her boot and goes to work, hacking away maniacally, though she really prefers to unleash sonic-blast solos on her rocker. If she can�t get to her dagger or rocker, she�s got no compunctions about bashing somebody upside the head with an amp. In fact, she usually starts the fight. If somebody pisses her off (especially by insinuating that Famous Monsters� older stuff was better) she usually settles the dispute with a beer bottle to the temple.

e

GorfZaplen fucked around with this message at 01:12 on Dec 30, 2013

# ? Dec 30, 2013 01:03

Owlbear Camus: Jan 3, 2013; Maybe this guy that flies is just sort of passing through, you know?

Pretty much classic, according-to-Hoyle grog posted just today:

quote:

I just don't get it
Being a OD&D Player and DM since the early 1980's I cannot understand why people prefer the more up to date ie complicated sytems.
The beauty of the Basic, Expert, etc sets were in their simplicity with the emphasis on fun.
Some people complained you can't mix Race and Classes. Why not ??? Simply combine the Racial abilities with the Class Restrictions and there you go you have a Halfling Magic User, An Elven Cleric even a Dwarven Thief.
I look through Pathfinder, Warhammer FRP, etc and just see page after page of pointless tables and complications where there need not be any.
This coupled with the blatant rip off of multiple Rulebooks and new systems every few years: D&D Next ??? Pathfinder ADVANCED Players Handbook ??? WTF ???
Is it any wonder new players are few and far between when they are confronted with 600+ page Rulebooks ???
Games designers should be spending more time on creating a fun, streamlined, User friendly system and THEN creating scenarios, campaigns, etc.

Why? Why do people not know old thing good and new thing bad?

New thing bad. Old thing good! I don't get it.

# ? Dec 30, 2013 07:18

That Old Tree: Jun 24, 2012; nah

Out in the wilderness of the G+ RPG community, a lone post howls:

quote:

Go and read a story. Read a bunch of stories. As you read those stories ask yourself this; what is the author doing?

Now run an RPG. As you run the RPG ask yourself this; what are you doing?

How is it like the stories? How is it not like those stories? How are they alike? What are the differences?

-When you run a game are you relating anything? Are you narrating anything? If so, how?

(Yes, I am tired of this story telling memeplex in RPGs. Let roleplaying games be what they are, instead of trying to make them what they don't need to be.)

~~Collaborative storytelling becomes not-storytelling when you use dice to do it!~~By relating one very specific way in which someone passively engages a certain kind of storytelling, I have shown that RPGs are not a form of storytelling.

# ? Dec 30, 2013 08:06

Guilty Spork: Feb 26, 2011; Thunder rolled. It rolled a six.

That guy has built quite the straw man about what "storytelling" RPGs are about.

quote:

Let your sessions be what they are, instead of trying to make them what they are not and cannot be.

quote:

When the need to control ruins a hobby.

Back years ago Ron Edwards said that RPGs include narration. Unfortunately, Ron got narration wrong. From this the meme that RPGs involve story telling grew, and no few people insist that play must include story.

Big problem, once the reader learns what's involved in narration and story, and what is involved in RPGs, it becomes apparent that RPGs don't involve narration, can't involve narration, and don't need to involve narration.

So why the insistence?

Because treating RPG play as little bits of life makes some people uncomfortable. They think they need to have control over their players, and that letting those players do as they will means ruining the session and will end in the death of the game.

Moose Poop.

Trust your players.

If you don't know what I mean by 'trust your players" look up the meaning of 'trust" online and see what it says. If you find that you can't trust your players...

...Then you're not ready to be a GM.

# ? Dec 30, 2013 16:58

Owlbear Camus: Jan 3, 2013; Maybe this guy that flies is just sort of passing through, you know?

quote:

So what have we learned ?

Modern CORE Rulebooks are faaaar too weighty, complicated and expensive this is having a detrimental effect on any prospective New Blood.

In the old days you could pick up a complete Game ( 100 pages ) for a few pounds and hit the ground running which is the very reason so many people played back in the day as starting a new group with a few friends was easy and inexpensive.

Nowadays any prospective Player will look at the size, price and versions ( 3,5, 4E, Next ) of a complete Rules system and be put off. Why buy a Game if in a year or so it will be obsolete ???

Someone of course points out the obvious hilarity in the counter-grog follow up:

quote:

Requesting permission to find it funny that someone playing a game written in the 70s believes that my 3.5 books written in the 00s are now "obsolete."

# ? Dec 30, 2013 21:43

That Old Tree: Jun 24, 2012; nah

quote:

why is it it's the same people who throw fits about "realistic" strength limitations for women because fantasy, but also harp about art not being realistic because everyone is good looking? If you're going to suspend realism for one thing because of fantasy, why not the other? Seems hypocritical.

personally, I don't favor "realistic" gender limitations because it is a fantasy game, but likewise I have no problems with most of the PCs and key NPCs being good looking either.. Heroic fantasy games are just that: heroic. I don't want to see a lot of fat ugly fucks in my artwork. I'm pretty sure most people don't.

# ? Dec 31, 2013 04:30

Nancy_Noxious: Apr 10, 2013; by Smythe

quote:

So far we've had some Good points and Bad points which are always essential to a debate so for that I thankyou.
We have also had some comments which were off topic, sarcastic and also idiotic ( you know who you are ) so please don't reply
New is not necessarily bad BUT the very replacement of existing rules obviously pertains to an obsolete / defective system which needs replacing. However OD&D and AD&D were the standard system for many years enjoyed by Millions so why change them ??? Anyone who believes that all those different D&D Editions ( 3E, 3.5, etc ) are necessary are sadly deluded
Also some people spend waaaaaaaaaay too much time on their characters which is obviously not what the game is about.
The object is to create the bare bones and then send your Character out to experience the World and grow and learn but having said that different strokes for different folks
At the end of the Day people enjoy what they enjoy and who's to say that's a bad thing ???
My initial Post was simply to ascertain WHY people enjoy the more complex systems and this has been answered.
I currently play in a OD&D, Warhammer FRP and Pathfinder game but enjoy the OD&D game more simply because it is solid, streamlined and has a good pace.
I hope to meet some of you round the Gaming table sometime............ as for the others ????? I would IF I frequented the same dark alleys that you do

# ? Dec 31, 2013 19:40

Dedman Walkin: Dec 20, 2006

From a thread on WotC's D&D Next board, entitled, "Why Balance is Bad":

quote:

First things first 3rd edition was a bit to far in its balance problems than I like. However I am a perma DM so I do not really care about any class being better than another, DPM or any other thing the charge of the brigades of balance seem to trumpet.

Balance is also not required to actually sell D&D. 1st ed and 3rd ed have been the best selling versions of D&D ever while Pathfinder is not really balanced at all. Complexity and not balance is actually a bigger issue for me. My players prefer 3.x derived games I prefer OSR games myself as I am the DM and they are easier to run. D20 based clones of AD&D/BECMI are the easiest D&D I have had the pleasure of running.

Being a D&D newb with only 20 years of D&D under my belt, (19 of them DMing) I have become used to D&Ds erm D&Dism's and it is what I expect from the game. Apparently scaling vancian spells are broken so I can no longer have ye olde traditional fireball. Unless I buy a version of D&D not made by WoTC.

This 20 years of experience with ye olde traditional fireball makes it very easy to switch from BECMI through to 3.5. Since late 2012 we have been playing 2nd ed, Myth and Magic, Adventurer Conqueror King, and my home brew D&D. I have not played 3.5 since 2010, 4E since 2010, or Pathfinder since 2012. Having mostly the same spells makes it very easy to do this and converting from one OSR game to another is very easy as a general rule. Its not hard to run a Castle and Crusades adventure in homebrew, AD&D or even 3rd ed.

If balance was the number one objective for the D&D player base the OSR revival and the mass defection to Pathfinder would not be happening. The obsession with balance is going to hurt D&DN more than help it IMHO as a fireball is 1d6/level not 3d6+int bonus or 6d6 or whatever they have made it in D&DN. I'm not sure who the largest % of players for D&D are but I suspect it is Pathfinder followed by 3rd ed and OSR+3.x would be the largest % of D&D players. New players will not really care about balance, complexity I imagine will be a bigger issue for them. They may not be the largest % responding to D&DN surveys as they have other games and options but even New Coke had good results in testing

Balance in the modern sense is not required or even desirable it seems from the largest numbers of the D&D player base. Just saying.

# ? Dec 31, 2013 21:40

FMguru: Sep 10, 2003; peed on;
sexually

Dec 2, 2011
"... First off, let me start by saying that we're going to have to push delivery of the FAR WEST Adventure Game back a month, into January. ..."

Mar 28, 2012
"... I know what you're all most interested in is the status of the Adventure Game. We're not going to make my goal of the end of March -- and it's entirely my fault (I've only got so many hands). April delivery is on, though. ..."

May 4, 2012
"... We're currently looking at a May delivery of the PDF to backers. ..."

May 23, 2012
"... Delivery will be pushed into June, but it won't be long. ..."

Jun 18, 2012
"... This will mean that we will be delayed by another month. We will deliver the Kickstarter exclusive edition in late July -- and will miss our window for debuting the retail edition in time for GenCon and an August ship date to stores, because I want to ensure that our Backers have their exclusive well before the general edition is released. You folks come first. ..."

Jul 19, 2012
"... Layout will be completed and the PDF version of the Adventure Game will be sent out by Friday, August 31st. The game will then go to our printer, and delivery of the physical copies (as well as digital delivery of non-PDF editions like Kindle, Nook, etc., for those who requested) will occur through September. ..."

Aug 31, 2012
"... We're really pleased with how everything is turning out, and we should be able to deliver the final product to all of you in September. Finally! ..."

Sep 29, 2012
"... Our print-scheduling window looks as though it will hit in November -- obviously we'll be looking to deliver the PDF before that. ..."

Oct 19, 2012
"... I'm still pushing for a November delivery of the PDF to you and to the printer. ..."

Nov 19, 2012
"... It's pretty much a guarantee at this point that final PDF and delivery to the printer will occur in December ..."

May 9, 2013
"... The FAR WEST Adventure Game core rulebook will be released this Summer, first to backers of the 2011 FAR WEST Kickstarter, and then to distribution world-wide. ..."

Jul 24, 2013
"...We can finally see the light at the end of the tunnel, and thanks to securing the assistance of Cubicle Seven, we'll be delivering the core book to backers at the end of the summer. ..."

Sep 4, 2013
"... I'm still targeting having the PDF and various other digital format versions out to backers by later this month ..."

Oct 18, 2013
"... We will be going to press in mid-November, a bit less than a month from now. Delivery of the digital version of FAR WEST will occur to you fine folks at around the same time we send to the printer (to ensure that you all get the latest, most-correct, final proofed version). ..."

Nov 11, 2013
"... Popping in to let you know that we're chugging along -- I'm looking at digital delivery occurring late next week ..."

Nov 21, 2013
"... We will be ready to deliver the files to the printer (and the digital copies to you) in the next few days, though -- hopefully this weekend, definitely before the US Thanksgiving holiday next week. ..."

------------

vvv Stuff is late all the time, but when someone promises that it'll be out "by the end of next month, no foolin it's 99% done" for two solid years, well, now you're worthy of being immortalized in grognards.txt. Add in the fact that the creator loves to style himself as a Big Shot Professional Game Designer who doesn't have to answer to likes of you, is also years late on several other products (Icons Team Up, Buckaroo Banzai, Bas-Lag), seems to have infinite time to engage his critics on twitter etc., and advertises his services as a paid consultant to other game publishers, and you've got something special.

FMguru fucked around with this message at 23:21 on Dec 31, 2013

# ? Dec 31, 2013 22:09

That Old Tree: Jun 24, 2012; nah

FMguru posted:

Dates and dates.

I don't want to wag my finger. But (of course) I kind of think that just posting what amounts to "Is bad at release dates" isn't really grog. It's just sort of an accusatory finger, and while GMS' pile of slipped deliveries dwarfs many others, missing an announced release is hardly remarkable in the RPG industry. I dunno. I'm not a mod!

Plus, they missed some posts in December (of this year�), including one right before Christmas that was along the lines of "By God, Far West will be out before Christmas!"

What good grog really needs is some out-loud chuckle element:

Eternal Optimist posted:

As hard (impossible?) as it may be, try to look past all the crap and imagine how cool this game could be. That teaser may be too late, but taken on its own makes me excited!

Again, don't mistake hope for blind faith, I just love the concept of FW and want to play it without clouding an honest try with negativity.

Eternal Optimist posted:

quote:
quote:
He posted this on Twitter a little while ago: https://t.co/4DLRLBNmNl (yes, he's aware there's a typo and lamented that he didn't catch it before he posted the video). GMS says it's 99% finished now.

He did almost the same thing with Team-up - posted a picture of the book in layout and said it was 99% done.

The book didn't come out in PDF for what, a year later? And the print version still isn't out.

What?! Nooooooooo!!!

Meanwhile, Zak S continues to be completely un-self-aware.

quote:

quote:
Yes, THEY brought the toxicity. The Swine. Let's be clear about things here.

Actually, G+ isn't free of the toxicity of other fora, but it does better than that: the toxicity is confined to the toxic people.

I got over a thousand people in my circles--when I posted the list of pro-fake-rape-threat people there was absolutely zero fracas about it among any of them--they were just like "Wow, what a bunch of dicks". People talked about it in that one thread, but that's about it.

You had to actually climb past the reasonable people and go find the usual gang of rubes (like Ettin) in order to find anyone who was actually talking about the list or arguing about it--and they were tearing each other apart.

So: the system works.

"I compiled an Enemies List. My friends didn't give a poo poo. This shows how obsessive my enemies are!"

Here's some bonus content featuring RPGSite discussing WoD: Gypsies!

quote:

quote:
Really looking for sarcasm here.

If not, yes, there's a drat big difference between playing up real world racial stereotypes and giving bonus for magical fantasy species. But hey, if you want a game were Jews are inherently magically greedy and blacks get negative modifiers to education and ability to maintain long term relationships, have fun with that. Im sure it'll go over really well.

Yeah, this is the down side of "Death to SJW." Some poo poo really is vile.

"The downside to making fun of people's arguments is when they have a point."

# ? Dec 31, 2013 23:10

Nancy_Noxious: Apr 10, 2013; by Smythe

quote:

I have to disagree with many of the opinions about this particular monster being just completely awful. I realize that some people have had truly awful experiences with rape in their lives, and as someone who has had that same experience i do understand how something like this can be a nasty trigger for all kinds of traumatic memories, but i still don't think that a truly horrific monster should be excluded or 'toned down' because of it. If you don't like the content of the book let your wallet do the talking, but i'm just really uncomfortable with the culture that seems to be springing up around our hobby that demonizes anything that might be even remotely objectionable. I like running and playing games with a horror theme, and I have the ability to separate a fictional depiction from something actually harmful. And as has been said in this very thread, all you have to do is talk with the other people at your table about what kind of content is acceptable for the group as a whole. As for the people who run PF and other games for their kids i know this won't go over well, but you should be monitoring the things they are exposed to anyway - that's called good parenting. Or even better, teach the the difference between what is acceptable and what isn't.

# ? Jan 2, 2014 19:22

That Old Tree: Jun 24, 2012; nah

quote:

OG exists on RPGnet, and will continue to exist, for the same reason the token black character in a 90's sitcom exists.

Clinging to that one user as 'proof' lets them pretend the rest of it isn't baselessly biased shite.

quote:

Really? All this time I thought the rationale was: "we have to keep this Gygax groupie on board no matter what. How can rpgnet claim to be the center of the online RPG universe otherwise?"

Old Geezer posted:

quote:
Bingo.

OG:RPGnet::Spinachcat:theRPGsite during the Great 4e War.

'We don't hate old school, see we have Old Geezer!'

Never mind that no one takes him remotely seriously and it takes Orwellian levels of doublespeak pretend he's not completely at cross-purposes with the vast majority of the userbase ...

They're not racist, they have a black friend! See!

Goddam, that's frighteningly plausible.

I'm just not sure if I think they're that organized.

# ? Jan 2, 2014 21:24

That Old Tree: Jun 24, 2012; nah

Here's a gem hiding in a really stupid fight about whether the Fate system is super boring or OMG innovative.

quote:

If you can play a freeform game that DOESN'T quickly devolve into arguments over who's capable of what and what sort of thing happens in response to a particular event, I want to know what fairytale world you live in.

I'm kind of disappointed to discover that my fairytale world includes a crappy job, crappy apartment and chronic health problems.

Oh, and our good friend Guy Who Was Very Angry About the "Legit"-ness of Dungeon World makes a return!

quote:

Hold it right there.
That's exactly what I've been saying. The only thing that approaches legit gaming system mechanics are Skills and Stunts, which you'll agree are hardly revolutionary enough to justify FATE popularity.

So please, take my "having a point" and apply it to Aspects and all the blank spaces you have to fill in FATE and you just got to the same conclusion I did. Their gimmik, their main feature is not really there. The game tricks you, or convinces you if you want to be less harsh, to buy into the idea of it without providing a worthy execution, thereby making said idea only as good as you and your group are able to.

Customization may be a great feature to have in a game, but customization can have many aspects. Selecting from a lot of details and carefully crafted mechanics to build what you want is a great way to implement customization. But FATE doesn't do that.
What FATE does is basically giving you a blank sheet and tell you to write what you want. There are no details or carefully crafted mechanics, you are supposed to come up with them with your group.
FATE only manages to get away with it because it was clever enough to have you share this workload with the whole group. Players aren't used to shape a campaign like in FATE, so they didn't call the bluff and bought into the idea like there's no tomorrow.
I insist that this proves that FATE doesn't provide with real game mechanics any more then four wheels provide you with a car. Sure, four wheels are essential if you want to build a car, but they are still not a car.
FATE does the bare essential, meaning deciding on details such as what dice to roll and what you should add to said roll, and leaves you to do the rest.
Of course the few mechanics of FATE work. Four wheels still work, right? All they need to do is be round, after all. FATE mechanics are so simple that it would be astounding if they didn't work.
But again: not a real car/game system.

The fact that, with enough patience and work, you can build any car from those four wheels doesn't change the fact that they didn't provide you with said car from the start.
The fact that with enough patience and work, you can run any campaign in FATE doesn't change the fact that they didn't provide you with the means to do it from the start.
That is what's wrong with FATE.

# ? Jan 2, 2014 22:09

That Old Tree: Jun 24, 2012; nah

quote:

I think of rpg.net as like wikipedia. Who writes the articles? Who makes edits? Not professionals at the subjects, those people are too busy making a living from their expertise. It's enthusiastic amateurs with spare time. That's why a list of GURPS fan books was deleted for lack of notability, but pages on porn stars remain - the typical wikipedia writer spends a lot of time jerking off.

Wikipedia represents the consensus of people with too much time on their hands.

Likewise, who posts on rpg forums? Mostly it's people who don't game much, because when you're gaming a lot, you're too busy to bother with all this, and if you occasionally dabble you find you don't really give a poo poo about all the trivial arguments.

rpg.net represents the consensus of people who don't game.

loving psychics over on RPGSite.

# ? Jan 3, 2014 10:00

ProfessorCirno: Feb 17, 2011; The strongest! The smartest!
The rightest!

Ahahahahaha!

"See you KNOW wikipedia is poo poo because they have information on g-g-girls, and NOT MY GURPS FAN BOOKS."

Grog tax: having fighters be as good as wizards means you are no longer playing fantasy. There is no fantasy where fighters can defeat wizards. NO. THERE IS NO FANTASY WHERE FIGHTERS DEFEAT WIZARDS.

~*~

For me, the problem with balance is that too much pursuit of it leads to an unbalanced role playing game. A role playing game should, in my opinion, balance the focus on both gamism and simulationism - not focusing not the gamist aspects at the expense of the game's ability to simulate its genre. Gamist structures are there primarily to make the simulation playable, but not necessarily strictly equitable. This is why it's not only common to see wizards and priests with reality warping powers in fantasy games while martial characters lack them, I think it's appropriate. Giving such powers, in considerable numbers without some kind of equipment (which is certainly possible to do), to martial focused characters places the gamism above the simulationism and, I think, throws the balance between the two issues out the window.

For some genres, a more strictly similar result between "magical" and "martial" characters can be appropriate. Take any of your typical superhero RPGs for example. There's no real prejudice between what a swordsman and wizard can achieve in terms of mechanics. But then, that's the superhero genre. It's not really the fantasy genre, though, either with pulp swords and sorcery or with a higher Tolkienesque fantasy or even with D&D-influenced Steven Brustian fantasy.

~*~

In short, Conan was a superhero.

# ? Jan 3, 2014 10:45

That Old Tree: Jun 24, 2012; nah

ProfessorCirno posted:

Ahahahahaha!

"See you KNOW wikipedia is poo poo because they have information on g-g-girls, and NOT MY GURPS FAN BOOKS."

I originally didn't even think of that angle. "What's so important about actual living people that makes them more notable than niche supplements of an elf-game I like?"

Meanwhile, someone revived a "Why is D&D4 the Hitler of editions of D&D?" thread with some top shelf grog.

quote:

D&D is trying to do 2 things which are counter-intuitive to each other:

1: It is trying to compete against other products in the pen & paper ROLEPLAYING game market.

2: It is trying to appeal to new customers, rather than the existing fan base, specifically the WOW/MMO generation.

The trouble with trying to achieve point 1 whilst constantly trying to also achieve point 2 is that they ended up making a product in 4E which, technically, is no longer really a Roleplaying game. It is a game where combat is more important than anything, where the things that make a character unique have all been homogenised and magic and class abilities no longer have any real differentiation, where you create a 'build' rather than a 'character', and most importantly - where the rules as they are presented now for the first time make it actually harder to do anything other than combat compared to previous editions of the game.

Even up to 3E, D&D was never just about combat - but about roleplaying a character and telling a shared story with your friends. And when you did have to resort to combat, at least you didn't have to buy a whole load of figures or minis in order to use the combat system.

D&D 4E is not an RPG yet not really a tabletop miniatures game either - its fallen into some horrible half-way house in-between and so doesn't really satisfy either type of gamer. For all the new customers it may have won with 4E, it has lost more than it gained - otherwise Pathfinder would not be massively outselling it the way it is.

I haven't looked at D&D Next, and there is a part of me that hopes they are steering the product back towards being a proper RPG. But my guess is that, being owned by Hasbro, they will inevitably be under pressure to tie-in a requirement to buy additional 'extras' like minis, terrain tiles, floor plans etc in order to play the game.

Wizards understand RPGs. Hasbro doesn't.

I clearly and distinctly remember how D&D3.x absolutely did not have grid-based minis combat right there in its explanation of how the system worked, and it never used language like "you can move 30' (6 grid squares) per turn." I remember how 4E was completely different in this regard, where it would tell you that you move 6 grid squares, nowhere explaining what that meant in real world distances, and I'd be like "What the gently caress does that mean in concrete terms, like those used in 3.x?" I have very clear memories of this poo poo.

PS. The Far West "where is my book?" thread on RPG.net is morphing into a love-fest for Fred Hicks and the Fate Core Kickstarter. Not really grog, but considering Skarka's adamant( :v:

) insistence that Hicks is some evil puppet master, it's certainly worth a laugh.

# ? Jan 3, 2014 17:32

ProfessorCirno: Feb 17, 2011; The strongest! The smartest!
The rightest!

Player entitlement seems massive these days. We went from Pathfinder back to OSR type games.

No magic weapon to hit XYZ creature= tough luck. Fighter is a bit useless.
Thieves can only back stab living creaures
Magic resistance and antimagic hose wizards.

The game is actually kind of fun again and no magic mart. The I must deal damage every round mentality is ruining D&D and is bad wrong fun IMHO. If the game is turning into a DPR calculation you are doing it wrong.

# ? Jan 3, 2014 19:30

Akunin: Mar 12, 2002; Hello, Cthulhu!

FMguru posted:

(Icons Team Up, Buckaroo Banzai, Bas-Lag)

Mieville gave THIS shitheel the rights to do Bas-Lag? Way to do your research, China.

# ? Jan 3, 2014 23:51

Rulebook Heavily: Sep 18, 2010; by FactsAreUseless

Akunin posted:

Mieville gave THIS shitheel the rights to do Bas-Lag? Way to do your research, China.

He was probably the only one who asked. This hobby doesn't particularly seek out licenses as it turns out, and even when it does most people just go "everyone else has probably asked".

Tax:

quote:

You're Mean!
(or, Why I Hate All You Hairless Monkeys)
By Mark Damon Hughes, 2002Jan09
On a regular basis for the last 3+ years since I started this page, I have received various complaints of "You're mean!", rants, death threats, and other kinds of nastiness from D+D fans. Not a one of them has proven wrong, explained, or fixed any of the problems on this page, they're all filled with excuses and venom. (As if I don't get enough of that in my sex life.)

This page has two purposes. One is explained in the Manifesto. The other is that I got tired of reposting the same arguments - I wanted new arguments. For that, I had to have someplace to record what has gone before, so I can just say "Go here. Now that you've read that, ..."

But no, the D+D fans don't see it that way. I'm apparently a threat to their way of life, sapping and impurifying their precious bodily fluids by having this web page. I'm not talking here about the more-or-less normal ones who just play it (either because that's all they want or because they don't know about better games); unfortunately, they don't send me email. I'm talking about the hardcore religious zealots.

What amazes me is the number of D+D freaks who exist, and are amazed and astounded that anyone would not be exactly like them, and especially that we'd dare to express ourselves in public. It's like they're 1950s American middle-class white christians suddenly transported to the modern world, surrounded by atheists, pagans, cultists, and members of every religion in the world; people of every race miscegenating; gays, lesbians, transvestites, and drug users out in the open; confronted with genetic engineering, quantum physics, and cryptography. Their eyes glaze over, their brains seize up, and they start foaming at the mouth like revivals in Warren Ellis's Transmetropolitan - they can't handle the fact that there might be more to the world than their trivial little game.

As for threats, or praise for how amazingly brave and/or insanely suicidal I am, what of it? Do you think there are going to be gangs of sickly, undernourished/overnourished, greasy D+D players coming by to pelt me with dice for it? gently caress that. The day I knuckle under, join the herdthinkers, and refuse to speak my mind on a subject, I'll go into politics. Not to mention, you know, that my nickname is Kamikaze for a reason. If I can take my enemy out with me, I will do so.

I am almost universally lambasted by them for not instantly converting to their position, but they never budge one smegging inch, never acknowledge a single point on the page with "Oh, that's a good point". That's standard operating procedure for kooks. With a different background, they'd be writing books on how the Templars come from the lost continent of Atlantis.

One psycho has even put up a web page of an email argument I had with him (I was bored and he seemed sane at first, okay?). No logical argument, just ad hominem attacks. <sigh> In the immortal words of Spider Jerusalem, "If you loved me, you'd all kill yourselves today."

Every single one of them repeats #2 and #3 from Top 10 Excuses by saying "But D+D is the most popular game! Everyone I know loves it! What's wrong with you?". One more time for the hard of thinking:

Popularity does not equal quality.
Popularity is based on marketing.
Successful marketing does not make something good.

Another stock response is that I have no idea what I'm talking about. Bollocks. I've read D+D, played it for years. Studied it and done mathematical analysis. And it's nonsense. It's an accumulation of random rules thrown together, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

And the final one repeated over and over is that it's a role-playing game (I guess the implication is that the rules and what's in the books therefore doesn't matter, but I can't be sure, as none of them ever explain what their point is).

D+D, all editions, are all about combat. That's what you get 99% of your experience for. That's what all the classes are about. That's what all the monsters (the name itself is a dead giveaway) are for - they even stripped out the ecology and cultural notes on the monsters in D+D3, and put in more damned combat notes. There's almost nothing in any edition of D+D that's about anything but combat. Worst of all, there are no personality or background systems - new characters are these formless blobs who crawl out of chargen with 6 stats, a race, class, and alignment.

D+D is just an upgraded version of Chainmail, AD&D was a further upgraded version, and D+D3 is pure hack-and-slash, and nothing but.

But if you don't want to try better systems, if you're happy just doing hack-and-slash, well, fine. But stop mailing me these 500-line messages saying "You're mean!", or I'll shoot you with a bowel disrupter set to "Prolapse" and then sell your little brother to Dahmer's Restaurant.

Rulebook Heavily fucked around with this message at 00:01 on Jan 4, 2014

# ? Jan 3, 2014 23:58

ProfessorCirno: Feb 17, 2011; The strongest! The smartest!
The rightest!

quote:

The monk is somewhat debatably under the fighter-like martial characters.

A mace and shield cleric is not a class. Cleric is a class. There are some cleric characters who are combat characters, and some who are not (probably quite a few if you consider what the typical NPC clergyman is doing during the day). Thus the cleric is not a combat class.

quote:

See, this is where you go off the tracks. Every Cleric is a combat character. If its not a combat character, its probably not a Cleric. The generic NPC clergyman is most likely not even a spellcaster. To put him in 3e terms, he's likely an Expert, maybe an Adept, maybe a Healer(a class that SHOULD NOT exist) and the outside a 1-2 level Cleric. These are Adventuring classes. That assumes a base level of adventuring competence, which includes combat(at least after 1st level).

There is no such thing as a non-combat class. Once you're an adventurer you turn from Q into Bond, from Marcus Brody into Indiana Jones or you turn into comic relief.

"...There is no such thing as a non-combat class. Once you're an adventurer you turn from Q into Bond, from Marcus Brody into Indiana Jones or you turn into comic relief."

From this post here, I'm going to assume you don't have much gaming experience.

# ? Jan 4, 2014 02:44

ProfessorCirno: Feb 17, 2011; The strongest! The smartest!
The rightest!

quote:

f you view an increase in hit points, BAB, and saves to be "non-combat" elements (which is by no means a given) then yes, you can go out of your way to make a non-combat Wizard. And by the same warped perspective somebody could make a non-combat Fighter, by dumping physical stats and wasting all feats on skill focus and exotic weapon proficiencies. Maybe some sort of foreign antique collector with a penchant for impractical weaponry who did a bit of practice with them, but nevertheless is less mighty than a farmhand with a pitchfork. After all, the guy just gets more hit points, BAB, and saves. And apparently those are non-combat elements, so this is a non-combat Fighter.

Meanwhile, outside of the realm of absurd hypothetical corner cases used by armchair edition warriors, D&D Wizards are very much a combat class. (Because the combat-worthiness of a class is not dictated by the combat-worthiness of one individual character expressly built to suck at combat.)

I'm not sure if you've had much experience in playing D&D if this is your conclusion.

BAB is universal, therefore I can ignore it. HP is also universal but something I can't avoid because if it hit's -10 I'm dead, same with AC. I also don't have to participate in combat. I can simply buff my companions before battle and turn Invisible while the battle goes on, or fly etc... I have built Wizards that had no attack spells and carried no weapons what so ever.

Not sure where you get armchair from but I've been playing for over 27 years now and I do know what I am talking about. I have played the entire life of 3rd edition and continue to play Pathfinder to this day. The only armchair I see here is the armchair

that gets splattered around.

Not every player cares for combat.

# ? Jan 4, 2014 02:48

ProfessorCirno: Feb 17, 2011; The strongest! The smartest!
The rightest!

quote:

No. You cant.

At second level you will have +1 BAB and 2HD. Congratulations, you're now a combat character. Every level after that, you will be a BETTER combat character. You're empirically wrong with this assertion. Of course, you'll pull out the WIZ/X/x/x/x that doesnt get a BAB without fractional accounting, but even then his HD and saves are going up and he's becoming a better combatant every level...

Now, you can choose to take spells and feats and yada that dont affect combat(very hard to find spells that have NO combat application, but doable) and stand there and drool instead of taking a turn in combat, but even acting as support only in combat is being a combat character. Since you've read all the 4e books, I'm gonna assume you know what the Leader role generally does?

LOL!

Seriously?

# ? Jan 4, 2014 02:49

ProfessorCirno: Feb 17, 2011; The strongest! The smartest!
The rightest!

quote:

Why? If you can play gandaulf or Merlin orthe guy that can turn I to a bear and have a bear friend and summon more bears well calling lighting. Then why can't I be the most interesting man in the world?

None of those examples are remotely as "interesting" as you're suggesting.

And in any case, even if we take the hypothetical route and say that there was a Gandalf-like class and one player could play a quasi-deity that is way more powerful than the others, that does not entitle every other player to the same level of power even if their character is not likewise a divine being. In fact, the idea of magical "chosen ones" is quite well-represented in fantasy fiction and in D&D (think Spellfire).

In short, the answer to your question of why not is that some combinations of the rules, the DM, and common sense say so.

Instead, ask the converse. If I can play someone who devoted his life to researching the mysteries of the universe, why should someone who is basically a mercenary thug be able to have the same impact on said universe as me?

# ? Jan 4, 2014 03:19

ProfessorCirno: Feb 17, 2011; The strongest! The smartest!
The rightest!

quote:

We're talking about playing a character comparable to Zorro, Robin Hood, Han Solo, D'Artagnan, etc. If other players get to play Merlin or Dr Strange, this only makes the desire to play Zorro all the more reasonable!

Of course you can play those characters, and they can be good. But is Han Solo "balanced" with a Jedi master? No. And most of those characters are from setting that don't much resemble D&D, so it's hard to say how they would compare with a D&D spellcaster if they met one.

AFAICT, as long as one isn't overly concerned about equivalence with an unreasonable standard, D&D does those types of characters fine.

# ? Jan 4, 2014 03:29

Slimnoid: Sep 6, 2012; Does that mean I don't get the job?

This poo poo is never going to end. 20 years down the line people are still going to call it a loving MMO.

tenbones posted:

My wife works in the MMO industry. Together we've managed 100+ person guilds from EQ to WoW, down to small intimate guilds with 8 folks. We played in MUDs and MUSHs before the advent of MMO's...

Whenever I hear the outrage of 4e fans about comparing the mechanics of 4e to an MMO... I scratch my head.

I can very easily see the connections mechanically. Why is it they can't? It's like they can actually play an MMO and not realize the mechanics of an MMO exist entirely to simulate what is supposed to be going on in a table-top game?

But that translation is exactly what is off-putting about 4e. It's like getting bootleg copy of a copy.

I've never understood the outrage at the comparison. It's very much there.

I was given a full set of 4e - complete. Brand new. Everything up to Essentials. I wanted to like it. I didn't. I loathed it, in fact. It felt... wrong.

Playing RPG's like any hobby has its beginning points, and if you stick with it your tastes will refine themselves. Otherwise you'll quit the hobby. You'll eventually play other things, and come to understand not just what you like - but WHY you like it. 4e is like Talisman on steroids. Sure you can play it and have fun - but I want a *lot* more out of my RPG's than what 4e offers.

But then again you can just condense it down to a more simple criticism.

Archangel Fascist posted:

4e failed because it wasn't D&D, also because it was a big smelly turd.

Speaking of OG.

Old Geezer posted:

I'll pour a bit of energy into the undead thread, what the heck.

I downloaded the free 4E stuff, spent ten minutes looking at it, and decided it was too complicated for me.

# ? Jan 4, 2014 05:00

Guilty Spork: Feb 26, 2011; Thunder rolled. It rolled a six.

Slimnoid posted:

Speaking of OG.

On the one hand OG knows what he likes and sticks to it, which is cool, but on the other hand he likes one RPG published in 1974 and as far as I know nothing else, so his opinions on RPGs other than OD&D generally aren't terribly relevant or interesting.

Also, someone who is missing the part about how when people equate 4e with WoW, "WoW" translates not as "an extremely successful medium that typically operates with a level of design rigor that tabletop RPGs have never achieved," but as "a thing that sucks."

Grog tax:

quote:

quote:
If you throw something at the PCs that has "I automatically win" numbers at them you just kill the whole party.
so the players are not responsible for their action? everything they must do, as attempted in 4th, should be something they can win at? it is the concept of "feeling heroic" because they never retreat and are infallible? players expect to be able to beat everything since it is "level appropriate" because if a dragon cave is outside the town they start in, then they should be able to kill it at level 1?

i don't buy that. i mean it could really be how people think, and the design of 4th shows strong tendencies towards that line of thinking; but why the hell are the players acting in such an immature way? if tactics is important with all the character options and choosing the right thing, then wouldn't choosing your battles also be a good idea?

who came up with the idea that the players MUST be able to win every encounter? it really sounds like a board game where you have an end area and as you keep going things get tougher but you have all those steps along the way to build up. like paying Monopoly you can get screwed by landing on Go to Jail, but later you can have the GET OUT OF JAIL card to bypass it.

it really is an extreme railroad like most board games and video games to expect things are always there ready to be won against. was it video games or board games that set players and design methods in this direction?

it seems to be the most popular concept and style to play, but why?

# ? Jan 4, 2014 05:22

Saguaro PI: Mar 11, 2013; Totally legit tree

Slimnoid posted:

Speaking of OG.

Pffft, that ain't OG grog. That's just a statement of preference.

This is OG grog.

quote:

Nice to know it's not just me.

I've been suspecting that things were going to get to this point ever since somebody posted a quotation from somebody at WotC talking about Diplomacy and making it sound like a barroom brawl.

The notion of "competitive game" and "player skill" have now finally become anathema.

# ? Jan 4, 2014 05:28

RYang: Dec 5, 2012

quote:

After the core rules showed up, the developers noticed a change in player culture, in which "official rulings" were highly valued. Which is why the content in 3.X/PF improved later on.

The change in player culture was called "the Internet". It transformed what used to be a collection of independent homebrew gamemasters to a culture of sheep so desperate to be affirmed right, that they no longer do any home innovation unless they get a massive "yes" vote from a league of messageboard posters.

# ? Jan 4, 2014 07:35

Littlefinger: Oct 13, 2012

Mary Hamilton posted:

D&D's co-creator Gary Gygax, with his insistence on the system�s inflexibility and his beliefs about the primacy of the game master, would barely recognise some of the games his work has spawned. His game has changed too; the hugely popular third edition has birthed a rival spinoff, Pathfinder, that remains more popular than its heavily redesigned fourth edition, which brought a more videogame-y feel to its class system and combat and in the process alienated players who loved the crunchy complexity and imbalance of earlier systems.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/03/happy-40th-birthday-to-dungeons-and-dragons

Perhaps the comments have some choice bits as well.

Littlefinger fucked around with this message at 08:16 on Jan 4, 2014

# ? Jan 4, 2014 08:13

RYang: Dec 5, 2012

Racism has no connection to alignment. Period. It is a philosophy or life style yes but it is not one connected to good or evil until such time as one uses it as motivation that brings about deeds that are good or evil. Hitler used fear and racism to bring about a dark chapter of history. In the US racism brought political gains for politicians. But on the other end racism brought about civil right movements across the world that many say improved the world. Take it how u want.

# ? Jan 4, 2014 15:54

xiw: Sep 25, 2011; i wake up at night
night action madness nightmares
maybe i am scum
Cpig Haiku contest 2020 winner

From reviews of Dungeons and Dragons and Philosophy:

quote:

This would have been so much better if the authors hadn't spent most of the time extolling the virtues of the 4th edition version of the game and had instead had used more of their page count to apply the philosophical concepts discussed to previous (and more popular) editions.

quote:

(1) I found it humorous how the feminine pronoun was used as the generic pronoun throughout this collection of essays. This annoying bit of "political correctness" has been in play in books for quite some time now in American English, I am well aware of that. It's humorous because the vast majority of D&D players are MALE (81% are male, from their teens to their thirties - dud dub dub dot theescapist DOT COM slash WotCsummary1 DOT htm). Could "PC" not have been set aside, just this once, in order to make the writing flow more naturally? Will we one day soon be referring to the male erection as "something `she' does when aroused"? Ladies, and editors, PUH-LEASE!!!

James Rocha and Mona Rocha's "Elf Stereotypes" was a confusing muddle that tried to make a point about how the use of classes of characters in D&D (e.g. sun elves, moon elves, drows, etc.) is akin to reinforcing the idea of "race", and that to do so promotes racism. Oh, really? I think not. In my opinion, this essay is a scatter-brained tirade obsessed with racism. Yes, I'm sorry to read that Mr. Rocha grew up "in the ghetto of South Central Los Angeles" (p. 99). But no real philosophy here, and no, W.E.B. DuBois does not count.

# ? Jan 5, 2014 00:40

Rulebook Heavily: Sep 18, 2010; by FactsAreUseless

xiw posted:

From reviews of Dungeons and Dragons and Philosophy:

Neither of those paragraphs is even true. Some of the essays used "she" (I think at least one did), and the ones written by European authors referenced mostly the then-current 4e ruleset on the basis that it was current. Some of the essays didn't reference specific editions at all. The ones written by American authors by contrast rolled around in 3.5 like pigs in mud and debated the serious merits of nine-point Alignments. :v:

(It's not a great book.)

quote:

AD&D Gender Differences: Not Big Enough for Realism

If you defend gender limits on Strength in a game because of "the basic facts of anatomy," are you going far enough?

Most research studies put men on average at about twice the physical upper-body strength of women, whether measured by lifting or throwing (even this meta-analysis challenging the importance of psychological sex differences has to acknowledge the strong physical sex differences on this score.) To put it statistically, effect size differences on things related to the Strength stat in roleplaying games range from 1.5 to 3 standard deviation units (d). The distribution overlap for a d of 2 looks like this:

What this would mean is that 2.5% of women are physically stronger than the average man, and 2.5% of men are less strong than the average woman. If you assume that the male is the norm for the D&D character (and given the premises of this discussion, hey, why not?), this translates to a -6 penalty to female Strength, so that the top 2.5th percentile cutoff of the female distribution (3d6 roll of 17+) matches the top 50th percentile cutoff of the male one (3d6 roll of 11+).

Nothing this size exists for psychological differences, so unless you're positing some very bizarre cultural constraints, balancing out male strength by giving women characters a +6 to "wisdom" or "charisma" or what have you is just as unrealistic.

And people are arguing about AD&D capping human females at 18/50 strength? It's clear that neither realism nor equality are served by the classic rule, which can only be defended on the grounds of tradition.

My own game's rationale for not having gender modify strength: Along with the wizard, the dwarf, the elf, the barbarian - each of which rests to some extent on a suspension of disbelief - there is another fantasy archetype, the "warrior maid" or "kick-rear end woman." Whether her name is Penthesilia, Bradamante, Wonder Woman, or Xena, both men and women love to watch her, and sometimes to play in her role. Anything the system does to make this character possible, and attractive to play, is allowable.

(surprise twist ending that doesn't actually make anything better)

# ? Jan 5, 2014 01:29

Chaltab: Feb 16, 2011; So shocked someone got me an avatar!

I don't think the ending is a surprise, he clearly telegraphs where he's going in the second paragraph. The statistics are still complete garbage... but what can you do.

From his comments:

"Elriconan [b posted:

21 December 2013 20:56[/b]"]
I hate the excuse 'but lovely cliches havenwomen fighters!' First of allx Valaria (Conan) was not that strong, she was easily overpowered by fit men. She was a skilled and experienced fighter, that's all. Secondly, buff women aren't going to look like Red Sonja, they're going to be built like men. if you want to play Ursa the She-Bear I'll let you have a 14 Str, good luck finding a boyfriend though. I also hate chainmaille bikinis and breast-conforming plate armor. Oh, and how does Tits McStackin use a bow with those flotation devices? Women not only get a STR penalty, they get a SIZ penalty; and if we're playing on Earth different ethnic groups will also have SIZ modifiers. Asians are not as big as Norsemen, generally speaking, and that's a disadvantage in combat. Deal with it. Dont loving fight all the time and it won't be a big deal, I hate modern roleplayers wih their lovely movie and video game expectations. Equality is for slaves.

Someone actually typed this in December. As in, last month, the year of our Lord 2013.

# ? Jan 5, 2014 02:59

Clanpot Shake: Aug 10, 2006; shake shake!

quote:

quote:

A character who spends all his XP on things within his aptitudes is going to be far more versatile and competent than someone who buys a decent amount of advances that his aptitudes don't suit. This is pretty much an objective fact of how the system works, if we assume all advances that are of similar costs are of similar worth.

The assumption that all advances of similar costs are (or should be) of similar worth is flawed.
Nor is it even desirable, as it is only possibly by setting up extreme limits of available activities.

Have you played flat-price systems? With no classes and where everything costs the same for everyone? They still have good choices and bad choices.

Game balance is an illusion. We will never achieve a balanced system, because you and I will disagree on how that balance should work. This is why I usually refer to game balance as a White Hart.

quote:

And I think that's horrible design. There shouldn't be wrong choices for players to make in character advancement.

That's not exactly horrible design either. Is it Perfect, no. Is it good... not sure about that, but there is a pretty fat margin between this and downright horrible design.
If anything, I find the attitude that there should be no "wrong" choices for players to be horrible, because it is not only silly and impossible but also deeply insulting to players.

But reality holds the option of making bad choices and so should games. Always, otherwise you wouldn't need your brain to play, and that would remove any interest from me instantly. If there are no bad choices, there are no choices. Advancement might as well be random then.

I don't know if I simply mis-interpret what you wrote, but I really see very little merit in your statements.

Game balance can never be attained so we should write character options that are objectively worse than others. I don't even know.

# ? Jan 5, 2014 03:18

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 28, 2024 11:18

RYang: Dec 5, 2012

The Rogue tends to fight above average. +.5
The Rogue can do several things well. +1
The Rogue can can fill several important roles. +1
A given class may or may not be able to do what rogues do. +0
It almost always costs others to fill a rogues roll. +1
Rogue Value +3.5

Wizards are potent combatants. +1
Wizards can do several things well. +1
Wizards fill some rolls but fill them very well. +1.
Wizards role can be handled by others. +0
It may or may not cost others to emulate what wizards do. +0
Wizard Value +3

# ? Jan 5, 2014 03:54

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > grognards.txt - sandbox gamers are the John Galts of the RPG world

«‹›67 »