|
How do you hate fun this much? Derren posted:Some people prefer the environment to be sensible instead of being a WWE arena where there is clutter everywhere which, against all common sense, is effective during combat just so that things look "cool".
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 20:40 |
|
|
quote:Not necessarily that is it fun, but the very fact you can helps feel the world is real - instead of a "can only use once" arbitrary thing. Yes spamming is simplistic, but the fact that you can makes the world feel more real to me. "Encounter powers for fighters — as opposed to only at-will abilities — enhance game play? Screw it — my preshus simulation is more important than your dirty fun!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
Yes, I am. ______________________________________ Let me lay it out in more detail for you: At present I am concerned about how to support a realistic discourse between settlers and local tribes in my on-going campaigns. Players are settlers. That is; peaceful farmers seeking their fortune in lands free from oppression. But the lands they settle is brimming with indigenous tribes; nomads that live of the land, being hunter-gatherers with stone tools, wise elders, proud youths, and a shared culture well developed both in arts and crafts. There has been some contact, and now the settlers have planned to seek up the local tribes. Their intention is to negotiate with them for the land they have already taken (negotiating to be left alone; they are too weak to defend themselves against any aggression). They have not chased anyone away by taking the land, and have not been aggressive. Still there is a resentment building amongst younger elements of the tribes, over their presence, and that have led to some unfortunate episodes (tribal youths stole a sheep, pelted a settlers cabin with stones, threatened loggers, frightened a child, etc.). The resentment is partly due to the fact that other tribes has given up land to human settlers one generation earlier, and some younger ones feel that these new settlements, outside the lands that was given up in the treaty, is in violation of that treaty (it's not a formal breach, but very much a violation of its spirit). The players/settlers have no idea such a treaty exist, and are only in this to secure their own living. I might mention that the tribes of this game is orcs. I've chosen to use orcs, to make it easier to swarth them with rumors of being "beastly, dangerous, un-trustworthy and cannibalistic". And I use the appearances of the orcs (green, fanged, smelly) to send mixed signals on how they behave; - smiling = grinning with fangs and sharpened teeth - flirting = pissing on your feet, rubbing against you, grunting - initiating friendship = licking your face with blue tongues - friendly greetings = high five (holding up the hand; failure to meet it in high five may be perceived as unfriendly, or insulting) The point is to make the orcs stand forth as strange and revolting, and possibly a bit provocative. And to lay the grounds for misunderstandings. I want the players to feel that it is hard to have close contact with the orcs, supporting any inclinations in them towards xenophobia and brutal responses. They do not share language, but some settlers have heard that one old orc, in one tribe, is able to make itself understood in human tongue. I believe that will be true for most tribes, so as not to make verbal discourse totally impossible. __________________________________ And as a philosophical basis for this, however far-fetched it may sound, I'm trying to learn more of what took lace in particular meetings between indians and whites. That will help me big time in acting up when the settlers starts to interact with the tribes in a more direct manner. So; any hints to actual happenings, actions and responses, misunderstandings and souring relations, good relationships (and how they came about), would be very helpful, and very much appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:Yes, I am. The last segment takes this from bad to horrible. Grogtax posted:Goblins have traditionally been the lowest tier of monster, the grunts that 1st level characters use to try out their new swords, the mooks that are used to show just how much more impressive the other monsters are.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
How did Pathfinder become the only table-top role-playing game ever to outsell Dungeons & Dragons, outpacing it 2:1? What were the economics of the Open Gaming License, whereby Wizards of the Coast effectively gave away the rules to its flagship D&D product? Why did the table-top market collapse? This and more on Episode 73 of the Game Design Roundtable podcast, with guest Ryan Dancey, architect of the Open Gaming License strategy at Wizards of the Coast, and former marketing exec at CCP Games (makers of EVE Online). Dancey is now the business lead on Pathfinder Online, an upcoming sandbox fantasy RPG broadly in the mold of EVE and Ultima Online. TGDRT is usually about game design, but this episode is a fascinating look into the business side of the RPG world, both online and off -- from someone who has been at the heart of the most interesting business cases in the space. The first 30 minutes are all about business history and economics. (bonus points: there are still zero sales figures)
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
If metafilter is fair game now for that stupid article:quote:I lost touch with Dungeons and Dragons around about the third edition, only playing it in the versions that made it into games like Neverwinter Nights. From what I've heard, the fourth edition makes the tabletop RPG into a pen-and-paper MMORPG, which is an abomination. quote:As a Pathfinder fan, I'm pretty committed to it-- I've spent a lot of time learning the ins and outs of 3.5-style games, and there's a big community around it at my local game store. That said, I've also tried out D&D Next (5th) a few times, and it's delightful. Not perfect, but they're working on it, and it was clearly made by skilled designers with a good eye for simplicity. Lotta good posting in there trashing it and Dancey which was nice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
This is anecdotal so I can't say how accurate it is, but a while ago Wizards made a World of Warcraft RPG. This much I know to be true because I saw the book myself at my local book store, though I never looked inside it. I heard that the World of Warcraft RPG was the first game from Wizards to use the fourth edition style of game mechanics and power cool-downs (at-will, encounter, daily) and power categorizations. I heard the World of Warcraft RPG never really went anywhere, but Wizards didn't want to just scrap the system they made for it, so they tweaked it and incorporated it into fourth edition. Again this is purely anecdotal, but if true it would make sense why fourth edition is more like an online game, because that means it's based on a system that was specifically created to appeal to players of an online game. And all of this is completely off-topic from the future of D&D fifth edition.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:This is anecdotal so I can't say how accurate it is, but a while ago Wizards made a World of Warcraft RPG. This much I know to be true because I saw the book myself at my local book store, though I never looked inside it. Grog tax Jan van Leyden posted:I'd rather call it different outsets. 3e still clings to the story-telling tradition in which words and terms have meaning and can be interpreted.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 14:21
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:This is anecdotal so I can't say how accurate it is, but a while ago Wizards made a World of Warcraft RPG. This much I know to be true because I saw the book myself at my local book store, though I never looked inside it. Ahahahahahah, what a load of crap. The WoW RPG was a White Wolf product under their Sword & Sorcery Line, which was an entirely 3e campaign setting in its first edition and then tweaked to have more of its own classes and PrCs and the like in its revised edition. This is also hilarious because WoW drew much of its hero system from some of the basic concepts presented in the hero system of Warcraft III, which was drew heavily on concepts presented in... D&D, specifically 3e. Grogtax: What would you like to see in Pathfinder 2.0? posted:I would like to see "Copyright 2025, Paizo Publishing". Change is bad!
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 14:30
|
|
|
quote:In designing the fighter abilities maybe the question to ask is this: "Is this an ability that some one in a medieval documentary would be talking about when explaining medieval warfare?" Terms like "hamstring" and "shield bash" make sense but "commander's strike?" How could you explain what commander's strike is in terms of actual combat manouvers, and not just something made up for a board game?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
Ok, so if you would prefer a more tactful way of saying the same thing, the willful suspension of disbelief required of your average 'summer blockbuster' or action movie is much higher than in your average RPG session. Movie makers know that most viewers will willfully turn off their brain, particularly when their senses are being stimulated in a visceral way. Most audience members understand that their own enjoyment would suffer if they thought about it, so they don't. They actually prefer to not think about what they are viewing. None of that is however true of an RPG. In truth, I have a reputation of being someone who you don't watch a movie with, because afterwards I'll ruin it for you by pointing out all the inconsistencies because my brain just won't relax and shut off. Quite often my own wife will say, "Don't talk. If you open your mouth, you'll point out how stupid something was and then I'll start hating what I just enjoyed." So if you don't think about your movies, it's you that are engaging the movie 'right', not me. Just because I'm correctly assessing that people are consuming their deliberately mindless entertainment passively, doesn't mean that they are having 'badwrongfun' in doing so.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
I'm glad one grog is openly stating that most people would not enjoy their company. I'm laughing that they're taking it as a point of pride. "See, my players and I, UNLIKE YOU, don't enjoy movies! So hah!" ~*~ UPDATE: And one more thing before I depart from this topic. People can watch mindless entertainment like 'Batman Begins' and completely ignore all the freaking plot holes and come out saying how awesome it is, because people who are watching things like 'Batman Begins' are people not used to thinking while they receive their entertainment, a quality they generally don't share with my players.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 06:22
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:I'm glad one grog is openly stating that most people would not enjoy their company. I'm laughing that they're taking it as a point of pride. "See, my players and I, UNLIKE YOU, don't enjoy movies! So hah!" Grog tax: After two and a half years of broken promises, GM Skarka finally throws in the towel on ever shipping the print edition of his Icons Team Up RPG supplement. People who pre-ordered will received the PDF and credit good for...other GMS self-published products (most of which seem doomed to never see the light of day themselves). Fortunately, GMS knows who is the real unreasonable party in this situation: @gmskarka posted:Gareth M. Skarka @gmskarka Apr 4 I also like how he thanks the people who have "demonstrated understanding" but doesn't feel the need to offer anyone an apology
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 10:14
|
|
|
Know what we need to get rid of to make D&D complete? CLasses. Remove all classes. Whoh there, not the SPELLCASTERS, what are you thinking?! ~*~ A fighter should be able to sneak attack. As should an untrained commoner. Perhaps not as well as a rogue trained in skullduggery, but the lack of advantage for attacking targets who are unaware of you is bizarre. As should anyone be able to do anything. The one possible exception would be magic, if we take it that magic is not an exertion of skill. This seems to be an assumption that underlies all of D&D's magic. If casting a spell were simply a matter of saying the right words and waving one's hands the right way, anyone should be able to do it. Because this is not the case we can conclude that the spell really comes from some external source beyond the character's control (divinity, bloodline, pact, etc.), and that even an infinitely intelligent/wise/charismatic person with infinite knowledge of magic who perfectly renders a spell's components does not receive the effects unless he has the appropriate support (which is apparently represented by class levels). The same is not true, however, of anything else. An infinitely dextrous person should be able to hide regardless of whether or not he is a rogue, an infinitely strong person should be able to deal damage regardless of whether or not he is a fighter, and an infinitely skilled person should be able to accomplish anything that can be accomplished through skill. I'd much rather see a D&D that breaks further into the assumption above and gives us ways of adjudicating magic usage by the uninitiated than one that reverts back to the old school mentality of a class as a list of things you can't do because they're the property of some other class.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
quote:I think that MM actually brought it up in a recent article, but Fighters have always the baseline that every other class differentiates itself against. Rogues sacrifice armor and hit points in exchange for their special skills, wizards sacrifice all that and their weapons in exchange for a handful of spells, clerics sacrifice smaller amounts of weapons and attack bonus in exchange for less-useful divine magic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 08:37
|
|
|
Two separate posts, same poster. It's weird to be so wrong about elfgames.quote:Indeed. [The 3.x Fighter] represents the best piece of class design D&D has ever seen. It represents archetypes, orients beginners to mechanical elements that need to go together in order to be effective in combat, and allows advanced players to indulge in flexible character creation. Spice up those odd-numbered levels and D&D class design is done (save for all those other pesky classes that need to be fixed of course) quote:I happen to think the 4e fighter is an awful class. It's little more than a reskinned spellcaster, but done poorly, with flavorless powers that occasionally violate common sense, little access to anything worthwhile, abilities dwarfed by most of the other editions versions, no meaningful choices, and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. dwarf74 fucked around with this message at 00:35 on Apr 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:Two separate posts, same poster. It's weird to be so wrong about elfgames. ---- "The 3.5E fighter is one of the worst performing classes in the game." quote:I assume you're referring to its stereotypically low Charisma and lack of Perform as a class skill? In terms of building an effective melee combatant, it's quite effective (the first few levels before you multiclass and hit prestige classes are, anyway). Fighters are significantly better at fighting than the other martial classes (and they smoke most of the summoned creatures/pets/buffed casters, contrary to the occasional naysayer). Yeah... the problem with third edition fighters is that they lack Charisma and can't take Perform as a class skill. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
quote:I get old school. People who don't want to change anything because they like the D&D game they grew up with. It's not me, but it makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
Chaltab posted:You missed the quote that made me laugh the most. ... Rare candor from a different grog quote:I suppose you and I are at an impasse, then, because I want exactly the opposite thing out of my Fighter - better at the generic stuff, with absolutely nothing unique.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 13:19
|
|
|
quote:Sigh...the more I read about DnD 5e or Next, the more I don't like it. Let's see how things evolve further. Either WoTC will get more of my business or they will not, I guess this is the same mentality for many millions of old-school gamers like me which I believe is one of the reasons they are trying with this version, move the old-timers away from 1e or 2e or 3e or PF(WoTC cannot make money from these gamers) into their camp. MILLIONS of "old-school" gamers. The thought of a million grigs, all like this guy made me involuntarily shiver. quote:Who writes your stuff, Mearls? "The humble fighter??" No fighter player's character I've ever known was modest.  quote:Help me out guys, I haven't been around much....... Not sure if this is an honest quote, or just another attempt at "people who play fighters are dumb, stop giving them things to do other than hit stuff with stick"
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:Yep, this guy is not so much a 3e fan as a 3e fanatic. GitP? Those guys love 3.x so much they acknowledge and try to fix its issues. He's convinced there's basically nothing wrong with the 3.x fighter and either there's no balance issue or who cares about balance, depending on the argument. It's none of the above really. He's a guy who sincerely dislikes D&D, but identifies himself as "A D&D player" because of 3.x. So he complains constantly that D&D needs to be a class-less generic fantasy game with no emphasis on fighting dragons or exploring dungeons. He is also not alone in this. There are a TON of 3.x fans who do not like anything about D&D but were brought in during 3.x's bizarre "sorta point buy" class system and now want something that in no way resembles and other game of D&D to be "D&D." ~*~ Basically, D&D has come full circle almost and created a hilarious problem. Wizards were always complex. They are the nerds, the brainiacs, the masters of the arcane. Someone who just wants to roll some dice, drink beer, and have fun with his friends isn't going to play a complicated class like magic-user.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 06:53
|
|
|
You can handle it the same way murder is handled in most video games, and in some RPG like D&D. In video game, the only way to interact with the world is by killing dudes and destroying stuff. And the immense majority of male characters are mooks whose only purpose is being killed by the protagonist. And nobody cares. So, nobody should care if in your game, the only purpose of female is to be raped, as long as it isn't a demonstration of Evil and doesn't lead to any character development. It's better if the vast majority of raped females are faceless. In order to fight sexism, your game should also include a lot of female-killing and a lot of male-raping. And it shall be called "FATAL".
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 07:20
|
|
|
The only reason that rape has become such a hot-button taboo in recent years is because the silencing hammer of Militant Feminism. Every time you have a group that feels offended/marginalized/whatever, there pops up activists that demand that nobody can even discuss the issue unless such a discussion indulges the attitudes of said activists.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 08:11
|
|
|
But that gets me back to one of my firsts questions: What does "right" look like? I need an example to clarify it for me. For instance: - You have a piece of prepared text that says something like: "An army of [your viking-like culture] is rampaging the countryside, raping and pillaging as they go". -- That is clearly establishing mood and/or characteristics of the culture. Which is invoking "rape as setting" and/or "shorthand for evil". But I don't see a problem with the above text. What am I missing? - In the new 300 movie, both the "rape makes for strong woman" and "vagina trauma" tropes are a pretty big deal for Artemisia. Is this bad? According to the "Big 4", it is. But I don't see a problem with it. - The whole "demonic sacrifice" motif hinges on metaphoric and literal rape. Does that entire genre/motif need to be expunged? Do I at least need to erase the succubus from my MM? Or is that just "lazy shorthand"? Or is there something else that I'm missing? And I could go on and on. These questions are not rhetorical; and they are very specific, and I'm merely trying to establish a coherent baseline.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 08:13
|
|
|
Yes, it is weird that people react more strongly to rape than, say, skewering civilians Vlad-style, because those are both pretty awful things. Yes, a certain social movement is ultimately responsible for this even though their zealots will not break up their game, because the all-pervasive nature of this movement means that it has already infected the people at your table with its ideas, which is the reason why they are irrationally uncomfortable with rape as opposed to torture, slavery, genocide, and other horrifying things real people really do to each other. That social movement is not actually feminism, though. Obviously not, because the idea of rape as the ultimate villainy was at its height before feminism was even a thing. It's the entrenched puritanism of the western world in general and America in particular that's caused this weird double-standard, because a crime that involves sex must is automatically double-bad as compared to crimes which merely involve violence. Feminism is not the source of the infection, it's just another victim of it. And even if the belief is ultimately irrational, that does not for one second change the fact that odds are excellent that your players are going to be squicked out by it, and even if they agree that squicking at rape but not mass murder is kind of odd, the squick is still there and they are still no longer having fun while playing your game, so mission failed. Everything else is just trying to place blame, and while that's not automatically a bad thing to do (we can't heal the wound until the bleeding stops, after all), the source of the problem is entirely different from a discussion of how to treat the topic in a world where 100% of your players grew up surrounded by the idea that rape is the ultimate evil.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 08:18
|
|
|
There's a double standard where if you use murder or genocide in a D&D it's just normal. If you ever mention rape, then some people just get super sensitive about it like you just crossed some line. There's an underlying tone that rape is something so bad you just don't include it in D&D. It's fine for D&D villains to murder and kill, but mention rape and there's a problem with some people. And you can see it especially in the retcons with half-orcs especially where it's fine to have orcs as pillaging murderers, but having the products of rape exist in your game is taboo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 08:27
|
|
|
ZAK S BREAK! ~*~ Since you admitted to trolling--openly--nothing you say matters ever. Not just while trolling, but forever. And not just on the internet, but in real life. Further: once you have decided that you will spend any part of your life trolling on the internet, you forfeit all rights as a human. If you should get hit by a car--no-one should help you. If you vote on anything--your vote should be thrown away. If you wanted to participate in a conversation, you've lost that right. You are a non-human now. You are over and cancelled. No concern of yours can ever matter to any member of the human race ever again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 08:27
|
|
|
Just 1-2 generations past, rape really was something that the culture expected you to STFU about and get on with yourself. But the culture, by and large, has changed from that paradigm -- and that's a good thing. The governmental apparatus has come a long way as well; hence why we now have rape shield laws -- and that's a good thing. From what I can see, the only people trying to hate on rape victims are a handful of universally-marginalized retards and some completely irrational woman-on-woman hate (and I don't even pretend to understand the warped minds of either of those 2 groups). (and again: from what I can tell) If there is doubt expressed in a given incident by someone other than the aforementioned 2 groups, it generally because the facts of the case don't add up -- but, objectively speaking, it's only natural, rational, and healthy to be suspicious of anything that doesn't add up. Point being -- I'm not buying this business of "victim is assaulted everywhere from all sides" business .... that particular paradigm just doesn't exist anymore -- anyone saying different either haven't been paying attention to the progress of the last few generations, or they're trying to sell you something. ~*~ Enjoy
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 08:40
|
|
|
gently caress's sakes, Cirno. I don't normally want to drink until lunchtime... ~*~ quote:If someone could build a game as balanced and as mechanically well designed as 4E without the need for miniatures and somewhat faster combat resolution then I would be very near to my dream game. I think you mean as constricted and with training wheels for everybody..... Give me a 2e Fighter and watch me run your 4e Fighter(wizard) into the ground. Don't tell me what I can do tell me what I can't do just like 1/2e. Hopefully they actually do an endgame supplement like ACKS/1e/Birthright etc. to really mess with your mind.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 10:17
|
|
|
Professor Cirno's Grogposts posted:RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE  Grog Tax (CTech-related threads make finding grog a snap  ):--- You're ignoring statements like, "Of course, not all Muslims were keen on the idea of genocide. Peaceful sects tried to split off from the whole in an attempt to bring sanity to the situation." ...and... "Many former Muslims became the strongest voices for peace and unity in the new world. While the religion of Islam failed, many did not lose their faith in Allah and came to know a kinder, more loving version of their god." It's still a pretty obnoxious sidebar, but it's not QUITE as bad as y'all are making it out to be. --- No you see it's okay because it's just saying that the religion itself is bad, rather than every last one of its followers 
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 10:28
|
|
|
Jesus Christ, Cirno. ~~~~~ I think you mean as constricted and with training wheels for everybody..... Give me a 2e Fighter and watch me run your 4e Fighter(wizard) into the ground. Don't tell me what I can do tell me what I can't do just like 1/2e. Hopefully they actually do an endgame supplement like ACKS/1e/Birthright etc. to really mess with your mind.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 10:51
|
|
|
If you're finding lately that people are giving you a hard time for your interest in role-playing games, or if you worry about how socially leprous they are, or whether or not you feel free to comment about them in the public space where you work or play, then you should have a close look at this: This is a screenshot from a pro-anorexia website, in which people with eating disorders join together to share tips, give support and discuss their day-to-day activities in order to jointly pursue the practice of remaining true to their disorder. Please take note, this is not for people who want to stop being anorexic. This is for people who love it, who don't want to stop doing it, and who want to talk to others about that. The general discussions forum on the website that I took the above image from lists 821,176 replies at the time of this writing. 3 replies came in over the time it took to write this paragraph. What must be recognized is how this differs powerfully from the liberal sensibilities message that permeates the society, which rails that people must not take part in any sort of destructive activity, including self-destructive. These people do not care. They do not care about your opinion nor mine regarding activities they embrace. I wish I could find an online group of role-players who were that dedicated about their passion. Because I'm not a journalist, but a blogger, and I have no institution to which I must genuflect in order to write this post, I don't have to now provide a packaged sort of phrase about the morality of the above. I have been a journalist. I may again be a journalist, if a job ever materialized again for me in this paper-dead culture. But I don't consider myself a journalist right now, and thank you, I don't want to be one. That is because, partly for reasons I gave last Wednesday, journalism is a corrupt, institutionalized information-delivery system whose cracks have begun to show. I do not know about the reader, but recently I have begun to notice how mythological the depiction of journalism is of late. Here I am thinking of journalists as they appear in shows like Kevin Spacey's House of Cards or Antoine Fuqua's collapsed vehicle Boss ... in which journalists are still depicted as though this were the 1970s All the President's Men and not the modern ridiculousness of the New York Times, the lately corrupt and dead News of the World, or television's Fox News or CNN, where speculation and idiocy have replaced investigative journalism. No one, anywhere, has the budget or the time or even the inclination for investigative journalism, which is more than evident in the total lack of useful foreign news that can be gotten from a North American vendor (I am including the Canadian press and media in this). It is terribly convenient for drama to still imagine an editor who can throw on a coat and rush out to talk to a source, but it is silly in the extreme. No one does this any more, and anyone who tried would quickly be fired. I include Aaron Sorkin here with his completely out-of-date The Newsroom, which is a sometimes painful so-called political drama show where everyone ACTS like the world still works like it did in 1965, while simultaneously LAMENTING that the world does not work like it did in 1965. It is a bizarre mix of cognitive dissonance, both of the writer and anyone who is apparently funding the show, to an audience clearly out of touch with the internet - but then, I said yesterday that television hates the internet. Because I am not a journalist, I don't have to justify any of the above except to say, 'my opinion.' The only value my opinion has is that it strikes a chord with people, who presumably are nodding their heads as they read along. I am, therefore, preaching to the choir ... but there are worse places to preach. One thing that the media really, really hates is the 'bubble.' That is, the one you live in, where you only read the things that interest you, or that you agree with. This is bad for you, very bad. Mostly because it means you won't be listening to the advertising that funds the media, because the very WORST thing about the bubble is that you're not interested in buying things you don't like, either. Basically, the media can't reach you, they can't preach to you, they can't program you and they can't put a bug in your ear to waste your money on their products. This is bad for them, very bad. It does mean, however, that you'll spend your morning, or your evening, floating around a lot of free content on the net that has been written today about D&D and other things that fascinate you, instead of watching a lot of bad programming and reading a lot of bad journalism that doesn't fascinate you. Oh, the bad, bad bubble. When someone tells you that something is bad for you, the first thing you should wonder is what are they selling?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 14:28
|
|
|
Some people might denigrate options like the penile implant, but some of the (shall we say "saucier"?) options allow for some interesting character concepts. My current PC/NPC is a looks human Ork former working girl turned assassin/street sammy with both breast implants and my own personal add-on cyber, a vaginal implant. A completely sealed system and controllable wetness would enhance not only the working girl's health and reproductive safety but also the fantasy that the girls offer their clients. Strictly necessary? Not really. Adding bits of flavor that drive some potentially interesting roleplaying opportunities later? You betcha.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
Hey guys, I wanna run a HONG KONG style Shadowrun game, any advice? The subtitle for this post is "simulationism is a loving mental disease" ~*~ quote:Check out some of the Hong Kong police movies like A Better Tomorrow, The Killer, Infernal Affairs 1 & 2 and Hard Boiled. While A Better Tomorrow, The Killer and Hard Boiled are very good Heroic Bloodshed movies, they don't aim to be realistic and they don't show much of Hong-Kong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:
quote:Among video games, my particular favorites over the years have been those which involved “gathering” as part of the program, particular war games: VGA planets, Age of Empires, Civilization. You must first gather your poo poo, build an army, and then fight. In all of those games, at the beginning it costs a substantial amount of food and materials to make a single unit. One is always scrambling for more, or even just enough to sustain what one already has.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
Good lord. From earlier in that same post. quote:As an aside—recent systems have tried to provide parties with something to buy by selling magic items. This baffles the poo poo out of me. I’ve had many players ask, when first beginning to play, if they can “buy” a +1 sword; my answer has been a perfunctory NO. Who the hell would go through the trouble of making one only to sell it at the local market? (I did go through a period where I sold really adamant players “magic” swords for immense amounts of money, only to have them turn out to be just an ordinary weapon—I’m nicer now). What mage making swords wouldn’t have a guardsman to give it to? Or a relative? Or a KING? Sell it to some piker who just blew into town? Are you kidding me? An argument with Greyhawk Grognard, whose posts have been deleted. quote:There are two things that make this unnecessary: Chaltab fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Apr 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
Apparently the Witch's Slumber Hex being supernatural instead of spell-like is of catastrophic world-changing consequences because it can potentially work on high CR things at level 1 where it will last for 1 round. Also Gandalf was really a white witch, not a wizard. quote:I put up a post earlier suggesting Golarion's PC class demographics on the basis of a town they published, which suggested to me that villages would be quite likely to have witches. I do take your other points, though. Slumber Hex is great (and probably the main reason to take Witch over Wizard from a min-max perspective), but the situations people are coming up with here where a Witch MIGHT be able to put a Slumber hex on something to prove how overpowered and world-changing Slumber is are something else. Kylra fucked around with this message at 05:17 on Apr 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
Kylra posted:Apparently the Witch's Slumber Hex being supernatural instead of spell-like is of catastrophic world-changing consequences because it can potentially work on high CR things at level 1 where it will last for 1 round. Countergrog! quote:That sounds much like real life. Richard the Lionheart was killed by a kid with a crossbow. A friend's grandfather used to tell a story about D-Day where his command car got accidentally swapped in the loading order with 'the best artillery unit in the US Army.' They broke all the records for accuracy, firing rate, set-up time, ect. They died without firing a shot due to a random shell. quote:First of all, you have it backwards. Balors don't know what level things are. If something has a weapon or a spell, they probably kill it, just to be prudent. A "real life" Balor would have to worry about Farmer Joe getting lucky and landing a blow just as good as Sarah the Magnificent, whereas in a game, that's not going to happen. Second, let's assume the balors are metagaming bastards. Even then, why are they going to lay asleep at night over a 5% possibility of falling asleep? The balor is probably going to win initiative, can Power Word Stun anything that looks like a witch before they get close, and, if it came down to it, could likely survive a CDG attempt. Also, they have Quickened telekinesis. Oh, and they don't usually travel alone. Third, if Farmer Joe wins, he still loses, because of death throes. There's one tactic not likely to be widely copied. Fourth, if two 1st level characters actually managed to pull that off, that wouldn't suck. It would be awesome.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 20:40 |
|
|
GURPS Super Freaky is an alternate history Supers Setting for use with my document GURPS Sex and Pregnancy (GSAP) and GURPS Supers. This is a Genre Conventions for GURPS Super Freaky: Bad Back/Monster Boobs- Supers don’t have monster boobs as much as I’d like them to but even if they do in GURPS Super Freaky, they’ll NEVER HAVE BAD BACK! Regardless of ST, supers almost always seem to have decently shaped (because their ST prevents them from sagging) and moderate to large sized breasts. For characters with super strength, use their mundane strength when determining Band Size (and also lateral and vertical axes). For example Chloe Mason has ST 32/220, so her band size is 52 (more on the subject later) which means her maximum lateral and vertical axes are 9”. Since her BT does not exceed lateral axis, she has no sag. Characters with Super Strength and Breast Strikers can expend Extra Effort to deal their heightened damage with their breasts. Damsel Dependents- Heroines or other female sidekicks are often used to exploit their male counterparts’ heartstrings with huge personal embarrassment in an attempt to draw out the bigger prize of the male hero. Such damsels rarely have violent enemies. Sidekicks- These are ok for vigilante groups but WSL membership requires the age of 18, or other legal acceptance of adulthood (such as the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the new Flashbang). In games where the players are all minors (which presumably do not feature much sex), it is assumed that the party is all trainees. That is to say that they are not official members of WSL but are being groomed for positions. Deviant Sexuality- not even homosexuality has been a significant theme of any Super comic, film, or story I’m personally aware of as of this writing though it has been alluded to. In any case, homosexuality is the least of anyone’s worries with Orgone Inhibitor lasers and so forth. Since Superheroines sometimes have Exhibitionism. The more extreme fetishes are not really valid here (except possibly the addiction to sex and lecherousness). Masked- Most Superheroes easily have their identities hidden by way of a domino mask. Since the world of GURPS Super Freaky is more sexual after Reich’s research, some Supervillains use sexual public humiliation as part of their plots against the rest of humanity, though they never seem to get around to taking off those masks. Local Law Enforcement doesn’t seem to try too hard to find out who’s doing all the topsharking¹ up rescuing the females. In any case, the Masked perk is required for anyone whose actual identity is hidden by a domino mask, but not for those that share their real life identity with the public. Supersuits- Commonly, at least in modern times, female Supersuits are Skintight (see the perk of the same name), but might not be compatible with their powers (the Supersuit perk). Characters with flimsy Supersuits should buy Constant Wardrobe Malfunctions (Quirk without Sexy Feints, Perk if in conjunction with it) or its Precarious Supersuit variant. Costumes for Supers were virtually unknown in the 1940s (Though in some cases a domino mask might be appropriate). Practically the only Superhuman in costume at this time were female Supers (who weren’t actually serving as anything more than entertainment unless they were vigilante). It was not unheard of for a Superheroine to fall out of her costume in an emergency that required "real" use of her powers. With some of the more violent Super Powers, a Super may be literally blown out of her costume with little or no harm to her own body. (Double sided tape at least prevents this from happening by accident now. Not much can be done about deliberate topsharking). In any case, unlike Comics Code games (which require heroes to avoid any conduct that parents might consider unsuitable for their children); Superhumans have Diplomatic Immunity so laws governing dress code don’t apply to them. Supers affiliated with WSL can freely offer a Basic Supersuit (often qualifies for the Precarious Supersuit quirk/perk) worth $1100 (considered “formal wear” since the character performs a formal duty). An improvised Supersuit which carries no such distinction is $600 and is begging to be Precarious. A TL 9 Supersuit designed to withstand the user’s powers costs $15,000 Protective Supersuits provide DR at a cost of $(100/CP). Some suits protect less effectively against certain types of damage and thus have cheaper CP/DR. see Armor. If you combine this option with Chainmail Bikini, the perk adds $100 to the armor and does not allow the armor to have any limitations based on hit locations it covers. Alternate Armor Destruction (Optional Rule)- After damage divisors and so forth, any Supersuit that takes 10 or more damage loses 1 DR (instead of any HP damage that would normally take place) per 10 points taken. Armors and Supersuits no longer have HP. Armor purchased purely with points suffers no such DR loss if they didn’t purchase the Semi-Ablative limitation on their DR. Secret Identities- Super names and secret identities also date to the ‘40s. Military Supers were almost universally codenamed by the Army, and the so-called "Supergirls" had their stage names. Though Super Identities aren’t strictly required, nor universally followed, WSL permits its members who register their real identities to have them placed in sealed files, only available to WSL top brass, the United Nations, the home governments of their respective embassies, and—of course— Villains that manage to hack the servers. Hacking the servers requires the use of user IDs and passwords of characters of rank or status 6+ (or Security Clearance 2+) or a contest of skills against Programming-16. Upon obtaining and using this information, the user is directed to a user specific greeting (suggesting that the user has 1d new mail items) with the time stamp. The user must enter his 6 digit alphanumeric code along with the last 1d numbers of the timestamp. Though a hacker can’t pull these numbers out of the blue, he might be able to Scrounge them from the underside of a desk or a dumpster behind his or her facility. I confess this system was shamelessly stolen from the SINNER entry process of GURPS Warehouse 23 but modified to taste (Lower Password contest, random timestamp entry length). Supervillain Conduct- Supervillains commonly have a penchant for topsharking and ravishing. This involves a lot of indecent exposure on the part of superheroines or female civilians. As a result, the victims may have Immodest or Exhibitionism (this is often in the form of a Secret (double point value)). Optional Rule: Armor Divisor/Damage Reduction cancels out- for characters such as bricks that have Injury Tolerance: Damage Reduction, they may suffer attacks that have an Armor Divisor stat. Divide Damage reduction by the armor divisor stat and round up to get final IT:DR. For example if a super has Damage Reduction 10 and the attack Armor Divisor 3, the super has IT:DR 4. In numbers where the math would be too complicated, round to the nearest 10 (a super with 100 IT:DR gets 30 vs. Armor Divisor 3). If the two cancel out exactly, the super’s Damage Resistance still counts. Magic- The standard spell system doesn’t play a part in Supers games but spells as powers does, or Modular Abilities do. GURPS Super Freaky will differ slightly due to the veracity of the Presidency Curse being a fact within its lore. Due to lore, Path Magic is included. In any case, GURPs Super Freaky is too far gone to be “Secret Magic”, and they’re definitely not “Low Magic”. Most people just recognize Spell Powers as another type of confirmed power. TL- Base TL is 9 (with very little if any Superscience), but Broadcast Power is TL 10. Nanobots are rare in the setting, typically only being available by advantage (see Improviser). Nanotech is not unheard of. --- ¹ The act of yanking a woman’s top off to expose her breasts to the public.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 09:57
|
|
