AndItsAllGone posted:

I want to kill that last guy. Literally kill him

tendrilsfor20 posted:

Personally I think it's best to let the players know which enemies are the minions. Yes, it lets the wizard know where to drop his AE spells, but why not? As far as I can tell the only benefit to hiding that information from the players, is to yell "Gotcha!" when they waste a daily or encounter power on a minion. If you are that type of DM, then go ahead and hide the minions. Personally I think it speeds up game play, and that the players have more fun when they get to make informed decisions rather than playing guessing games.

I'm all for rule transparency. Now there are always exceptions to a rule. Last game I ran I had some Lurkers dressd up as minions, I had marked the bottom of their token ahead of time and planned to flip them over when they launched their attack. The players revealed them ahead of time with some Bursts though, fuckers.

So it can be fun as an exception, to mix it up or for specific types of scenes, but in general I think even in character, the PC's should be able to figure the situation out just by the equipment the enemies wear, or their place in the encounter. The goblins in rags with lovely swords aren't going to put up much of a fight, but those big ones with shields and armor, and the sneaky ones hanging back with bows, or the one draped in bones ornaments, wiggling it's fingers, they're going to be a problem. It's pretty obvious who is filling which archetype in the scene.

I've played with DM's who have run it both ways, and either way is fine to be honest. I think it's more up to the flavor of the setting, and the mindset you want your players in than anything else. Personally I don't see the point in trying to hide all this poo poo from the players, it creates a less fun environment over all, if the players feel like you're always trying to trick them. More importantly it does speed up game play if the players can make informed decisions. My friend's already take way too long to decide what to do, if they had to try to figure out who the minions are by context clues, it would be loving ridiculous.

Etherwind posted:

I will put cold cash on the table that every single person who has posted in this thread has done or said something that would justify a place in it at some point in their lives. If you'd deny this, you're frankly lying to yourself.

FrantzX posted:

FirstCongoWar posted:

Which one of you is this:

in 4ed they ruined the vampire template powerwise and the stats in the monster manual contradicted the template as far as powers go so i personally decided that despite making it both less and more complicated at the same time from the old dnd system i would prefer not to play it since my one track mind sticks on vampire issues. Though i did always enjoy the 3.0 and 3.5. There is a good movie about roleplaying in D&D

The Gamers: Dorkness Rising

You might check it out.

Riidi WW posted:

okay, i'm sorry, but this isn't a meaningful response to my point. i am saying that you need to be aware that by using "gay" as a pejorative you are furthering the social norm that to be gay is a bad thing, undesirable, and so forth. i didn't say one word about offense.

shotgunbadger posted:

The General posted:

I'm saying that in any combat poo poo can hit the fan. It may cause you to have to run away, or it might just kill you. That's the risk of combat. Don't like it? Don't have the fight, find some other solution.

RagnarokAngel posted:

Grognards are either atheist or claim to have a buddhist philisophy your point is invalid.

Oligopsony posted:

We're veering off-topic, but Hitler's responses to Germany's real problems (hyperinflation, mass unemployment) were actually pretty good.

Depending on your reading of the international situation, you could concievably diagnose his "declare war on everyone" policy as a false solution to the real problem of a Europe to the East and West that might threaten Germany again.

Most of the gratuitously evil stuff was in response to completely imaginary problems, obviously.

Oligopsony posted:

non sequitur

Bedurndurn posted:

My favorite bit of that was that his will save was +6. Because that's certainly not a gigantic liability once your party's in the low teens for levels. Not at all.

Riidi WW posted:

Please, go on.

Fuego Fish posted:

He's certainly not made a single post worth reading on this entire forum.

The General posted:

Sorry if my games include such things as 'failure' and 'consequences for your actions.' It must be terrible knowing that a bad ingame decisian can have a bad result. Why even roll the loving dice?

The General posted:

Yup, total homophobe. Much like when I call something retarded I hate all people with mental defficiency. Heaven forbid I use slang.

quote:

And I fail to see how I misrepresented the topic at hand. I asked about NPCs escaping and I was told "Welp, if they escape once, my players will go apeshit and slaughter any opponent instead of capturing them." Seems rather extreme and childish to me. If it happened every time, I'd understand that kind of reaction.

Riidi WW posted:

"the magic will all be mine, ah ha ha"

Riidi WW posted:

and its not even like in vampire where "the blood will all be mine" helps you out. what does a technocrat gain from killing everyone else???

Etherwind posted:

Okay, to try and express how loving terrible this is, let's try an analogy.

Imagine, in nWoD, committing acts of atrocity that lowered your Morality could inflict you with a Derangement that turned you into a homosexual. It's explained as the shock and trauma of committing evil acts messing up your sexual identity.

That doesn't mean all homosexuals are evil people, of course, just that some evil people are homosexuals. You can even decide to make your character homosexual without acquiring it as a Derangement.

Would you be loving incensed if that was an actual game rule? I hope so. Associating sexual identity with low morality is loving abhorrent, even if it's not saying that certain sexual identities are entirely the result of low morality. With that in mind, I think establishing the same causal relationship - no matter how tenuous - with mental illness is frankly disgusting.

Etherwind posted:

No, I'm saying that creating an association between morality and mental illness is just as wrong and offensive as creating an association between morality and sexual identity.

Etherwind posted:

gently caress right off. My point was showing how offensive it is to associate intrinsic elements of self over which a person has no control with their moral decisions.

Etherwind posted:

What the gently caress?

Are you saying that the very idea that your sexuality could change based on your moral behaviour isn't loving offensive in and of itself?

Etherwind posted:

Again, I think it's pretty loving terrible to draw any connection between moral purity and derangement. That's my fundamental problem with it.

quote:

It's not the actions and decisions aspect, it's the fact that it's loving moral conduct it's tied to that make it awful. The idea that being really evil could change your sexuality is offensive and archaic.

Etherwind posted:

I give up. Either you can see why associating immoral behaviour with gaining mental illness is unkind and backward, or you can't.

The General posted:

I'm pretty sure he's saying that linking any sexual or mental attribute to any moral standing is bad.

Sucking dicks because your moral is just as bad as sucking dicks because your immoral.

Edit: It should be your choice if you wish your character to suck dicks, and not an ailment or divine power granted by the GM.

Edit 2: I had to edit this loving post about 50 times to fix minor spelling mistakes, and completely missing words. I'm loving tired.