|
Azran posted:And promotions depend on sex. Your promotion chart is broken, as I have examined it closely and I haven't seen where female characters get stat penalties compared to males. In fact, they seem to be better off, and for physical units, actually get MORE strength 
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 07:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 03:47 |
|
|
That's...interesting, that's the first gender stat differential thing I've ever seen where ladies are the superior ones.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 07:20
|
|
|
Azran posted:I mean yes, some FE games work like this. I'm not criticizing the video games, I really like them. I'm just quote:It can be hard to remember the big fat guy is playing a small sexy woman and vice versa Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:Of course, you could go weird with the bases, and frankly having lopsided stats is probably for the best since you can't really play with growths. The average 320% total these rolls produce could be a lot more interesting to use if you could distribute them more freely, but really, why are the random growths randomly determined?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 07:30
|
|
about going into this detail with loving d20. Why not use d100?
|
Mendrian posted:Man I have got to hear more about this. How does one try to throw away something in the garbage? How do you even sheepishly respond when a person discovers you trying to destroy their property? "Oops, I figured you didn't want these 80 dollars worth of books, sorry"? There isn't much to tell, honestly. I put the books out on the table because I agreed to bring in my roleplaying books for newbies to look at. I turn my back for a bit then turn back to see their gone. So, I look around real quick to see what happened and I see the local Pathfinder GM going towards the garbage with them. So I just go "Mate, what are you doing?" "Oh, uh, nothing." I walk up to him and go, "Why were you opening the garbage can and hovering my books over them?" "Well, uh, just uh, no reason." "Whatever, just put them back on the table." Then he did and that was that. gradenko_2000 posted:I'm rather more astounded that someone cares about goddamn edition warring enough to try to destroy someone else's property. Lookie Here
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 07:34
|
|
|
There's a difference between destroying your own property and destroying someone else's property.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 08:04
|
|
|
One time a local group I'd never played with was going to start running a 3.5 game, and the DM had a rule that if the stuff was official supplements and either A. he owned them or B. someone at the table owned them and was willing to bring them, you could use it. It was a semi highish level campaign, starting at level 9. I convinced a friend to let me take his copy of Tome of Battle, and statted up a Crusader. I made a huge beefy half-orc crusader (we were allowed to roll stats, and she ended up with 22 str, 17 con, 17 dex, 14 wisdom 12 int, 11 charisma after level ups) and had the maneuver that let me ignore hardness. So the DM, who already grumbled about the idea of me making a Swordsage because it's 'too anime' (so i made a big beefy crusader), sent us to fight an entrenched wizard's tower where a suspected demon summoner resided a hundred years ago. It was supposed to be abandoned but apparently there was some kind of mystical portal still open, letting demons pour in, thus all the demon problems the region had had.. He specifies that the walls appear to be made of incredibly hard rock, but there's a small door with a gargoyle that looks like it leads down into a cellar. So as a party we go 'hey, this character can ignore all hardness and just smash poo poo, lets let them do that'. First the DM got really mad at the idea and said it didn't work that way and I had to be in mortal peril to access my maneuvers (you don't). Then he said that I had to stand around and wait for my stuff to 'refresh' and while it happened had wyverns attack us from nowhere with no foreshadowing. We (barely) beat them up (they were, rating wise, a fight for a party at least two levels over ours) and I specifically didn't use the move during the fight, so I walk over and say I use it on the wall. So he makes the wall explode as I crush it, forces a reflex save that all but the rogue fails, and then asks me how much HP I have and goes 'yeahhh you're dead, so is anyone with less'. Didn't even roll anything, just flat out went 'yep you are dead'. I had the highest HP total. So the Rogue survived only. Then when the other players and me got upset, he said that we shouldn't have tried to just break in, and that we would have been fine if we'd done his dungeon and gotten through it 'correctly'. He then told us to stat up new characters and banned anything from Tome of Battle, but me and two others just left. Edit: I have basically never had a good experience with playing tabletop with anyone besides close friends. I have plenty of stories like above. KittyEmpress fucked around with this message at 08:48 on Dec 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 08:20
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:That's...interesting, that's the first gender stat differential thing I've ever seen where ladies are the superior ones. Going off memory, Final Fantasy Tactics gave men higher physical strength and women higher magical strength, except basically nothing but auto-attacks used physical strength and there were a bunch of extremely powerful women-only equipment, so ladies were typically better. Likewise Wizardry 6-8, female characters started with a penalty to strength but a bonus to one of the spellcasting stats...and, again, a ton of vastly superior female-only gear, and one full female-only class that was probably the strongest one in all three games, which greatly outnumbered any downsides to the small strength penalty that only exists in chargen, so you'd have teams of all ladies (and one dude for the sake of a quest). So sometimes there's stat differences that are sorta even out, but then other stuff ends up tipping the balance right into female superiority.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 08:26
|
|
|
Moinkmaster posted:Your promotion chart is broken, as I have examined it closely and I haven't seen where female characters get stat penalties compared to males. In fact, they seem to be better off, and for physical units, actually get MORE strength *waves man-hating feminist flag* The XP and progression rates is where things get really weird. The combat resolution mechanic is actually just some easily summed modifiers vs. some other easily summed modifiers, and a fuckton of modifiers more. It's presented object-oriented which makes it hard to read for everyone who aren't computer geeks. But overall, not very complicated. Then it turns out that every time you hit someone in combat you need to do division. Whoops... LatwPIAT fucked around with this message at 08:32 on Dec 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 08:26
|
|
|
Talking of video game adaptations, back in the 1990s we talked about games on Usenet. In around 1993, White Wolf, which had just hit two consecutive home runs in two consecutive years (Vampire 1ed and Werewolf 1ed), announces they have obtained the license for creating a RPG based on Street Fighter. As nerds do, we start discussing and speculating about what systems it will contain. There was a big division in those days on Usenet among people who liked D&D and those who liked White Wolf. (A small number, including myself, liked both, and some of us took too much happiness from angering everyone.) I can remember a fellow White Wolf fan absolutely hammering over and over that if the Street Fighter RPG had hit points, he wouldn't buy it. "White Wolf people" really hated hit points. The guy wanted a health track system like in White Wolf where injuries would slow you down and make it harder to fight. (Of course, the source material had hit points and a character with the tiniest sliver of a health bar is not in any way impeded, and the health bar in Street Fighter 2 acted a lot more like hit points in D&D than a death spiral of any kind.) The game came out eventually and, naturally, it contained a health track like other White Wolf games - I never went back to ask if that guy was really pumped about that outcome. Maybe I'm the grog for remembering this. Actually now that I think about it, it wouldn't be until Burning Wheel's Fight! (at around the same time as Fireborn) that a tabletop RPG system would put into place the sort of move-selection/execution strategy that Street Fighter 2 had back in 1991... Oh well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 08:40
|
|
|
moths posted:(*Female "friends" whose careers involve being paid to have sex with him on film.) I see people already slapped this post around but who cares if someone is a sex worker, don't bring it up. ALSO: If some weenie approaches any of you guys elsewhere and  s about forums posts, and they're actually lovely posts, please report them instead of playing weenie telephone. Thanks.
Ettin fucked around with this message at 13:39 on Dec 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 12:00
|
|
|
I didn't mean for that to read like an attack on anyone, and I'm sorry that it did. I was stupid to even question the objectivity of MY ____ FRIEND since the ____ FRIEND thing is never legitimate, even when referring to people who aren't your business associates.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 12:27
|
|
|
Short, sweet, stupid. Shadowrun!Considering making my next handle a racial slur or curse word. posted:Think about it. Going by something like "Shitstain", "Fuckboy", or "Limpdick" makes it less likely your name will get remembered by any witnesses.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 13:53
|
|
|
Are we talking about gender stat differences now? quote:I'm finishing some basic RPG mechanics. Got the skills and attributes done to my taste. Its skill heavy (atts are secondary, but they DO count) quote:Truth is truth. You should never compromise that in order to be PC for your PCs. That said, if we put aside pandering to stupid feminists (note; feminists are not generally stupid, but some stupid people are feminists) I still find it vexing that if I want to play a female character in your system I get penalties. quote:Some old-school games did have gender modifiers, and I don't think that was ever a big issue, as the games tried to balance the strength disadvantage with advantages in other areas. And if you avoid gender differences in the name of equality, why is it O.K. to discriminate between humans and dwarves? Compared to differences in abilities between genders and races, I find it much more problematic that in many games some sentient races are deemed inherently evil. Fuckin'  in elfgames. drat it, Tolkien was better than this and he wrote in more named swords than women.Laws and Customs of the Eldar posted:In all such things, not concerned with the bringing forth of children, the neri and nissi (that is, the men and women) of the Eldar are equal--unless it be in this (as they themselves say) that for the nissi the making of things new is for the most part shown in the forming of their children so that invention and change is otherwise brought about by the neri. There are, however, no matters which among the Eldar only a ner can think or do, or others with which only a nis is concerned.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
Double-post, I know, but this bears mentioning:Gary Gygax posted:As I have often said, I am a biological determinist, and there is no question that male and female brains are different. It is apparent to me that by and large females do not derive the same inner satisfaction from playing games as a hobby that males do. It isn't that females can't play games well, it is just that it isn't a compelling activity to them as is the case for males.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
Huh. Am I reading that wrong, or are woman just plain better fighters in the FE rules? I see two stats better for woman than men as melee, and one better for magey woman, with no corresponding downside. So that would make it sort of bizzaro-grog?ProfessorCirno posted:Going off memory, Final Fantasy Tactics gave men higher physical strength and women higher magical strength, except basically nothing but auto-attacks used physical strength and there were a bunch of extremely powerful women-only equipment, so ladies were typically better. Strength is actually really important for most physical attacks, including sword skills. What stats factor in to an attack depends on weapon; some use speed, magic, brave, etc, alone or in combination with each other and strength. The real advantage to having better magic growth is that there are no generic classes with better than average growth, whereas a female unit can narrow the gap by levelling in jobs that grow physical attack. Female-only equipment is crazy good though. Also your main character has good growth in both magic and physical attack, rather than being better at one than the other.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
Yes, races that can live up to 600 years with humans and are still compatible enough to generate offsprings is all fine and dandy, but strong women are just too unrealistic for their tastes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
Bendigeidfran posted:Are we talking about gender stat differences now? My favorite part is when the first one flirts with trying to give males some sort of disadvantage to go with it, and the response another gives is "whoh WHOH whoh, it needs to be realistic. Which means only women get a penalty." Actually my favorite part is that most of the thread calls them out on it. But god drat if it still doesn't happen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:Huh. Am I reading that wrong, or are woman just plain better fighters in the FE rules? I see two stats better for woman than men as melee, and one better for magey woman, with no corresponding downside. So that would make it sort of bizzaro-grog? FFT also played around with its own gender mechanics a little. For instance the male only Bard class used Magic based skills, while the female only Dancer used physical based skills. However the really good songs/dances didn't give a crap about your stats and just had a static chance to trigger, which is actually sort of a theme when you look at the gender differences. The game also gave you two female knights who had the Male Physical Attack and one random guy who had female Magical Attack bonus, and as mentioned the protagonist had a bonus to both stats. Moreover PA and MA weren't really god-stats by any means, that honor belongs to speed. Good Astrology and Faith ratings often made more of an impact on magic than raw magic power, especially for Oracles and Time Mages who both have excellent magic sets get barely anything from your MA rating. It's also plenty easy to stack either rating (PA a little more), and the game has Poles that are excellent weapons that do damage based on MA rather than PA, and even besides that Ninjas still kill everything ever no matter their gender. Basically FFT doesn't care who you use to do what, and unless you're dead-set on min-maxing gender is a minor consideration.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
I remember cheesing the fields right outside the starting town to max Brave/min Faith on poo poo that would never need magic damage. Dropping brave, conversely, was never really worth it, because while a low faith had a positive effect on physical characters (a low faith reduced the effects of magic), a low brave netted no positive beyond the niche instance of finding rare items on specific tiles on a mission board.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
io9 can always be counted on for grog! http://io9.com/the-new-dungeon-masters-guide-is-like-a-hackers-manual-1670551012 quote:Kudos on taking your first step into tabletop roleplaying, and what a huge step it was starting as a DM. Is your whole group new to roleplaying? It'll get better as everyone gets more experience (no pun intended). Metagaming is something everyone does, and something every group has to deal with. It can either be a problem (as in, people using outside game knowledge to directly influence in-game play), or it can be fun (people making in-game jokes using outside of game information). There are many ways to deal with it, but my personal preference is to call it out when I see it. You're the DM, the end-all-be-all. Your say is final. Don't let the players bully you into a course of action. Say things like "How does your character know there's a dragon in this cave?" I know it's tough, and you aren't likely to get them to change their decisions to something else simply because you're calling out their metagaming, but I've noticed that the simple act of letting them know you're watching them (and you may change the outcome because of it) is enough to gradually get them to change their play style to more roleplay and less metagame. quote:I think your just a little bit too jaded with this edition. Yes 3.5 was good, but utterly broken when it came to casters vs. melee, especially with how overpowered psions were. 4E streamlined combat, but took out most of the roleplaying and forced most of the community to pathfinder because of how gimmicky and MMO like it was (not to mention how much they tried to cash in with all the different spell cards and other bullshit). But it looks like 5E is going to be around for awhile, and with how balanced and how well written the rules are it looks like this edition is going to last a lot longer because it isnt so rigid and set in its ways, and they arent trying to cash in on every little thing. you should give it a chance, this is probably the best edition since 2E. quote:In all honesty: Why would anyone buy these new books when the last expansion was arguably the poorest of editions? The track record for the people involved seems lacking. quote:
quote:Strangely, I was unimpressed. I was looking for a book filled with meat; instead, what I got was little more than a glossary, where everything was casually touched upon. Like the previous two books in the 5e range, there was very little style OR substance. Very disappointed, which is the first time for me. Well, since 4th Edition!
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
Thread title: DMs: How do you handle purely combat-focused groups? Can you guess how many answers are a variant of "PUNISH THEM UNTIL THEY QUIT, HOW DARE THEY?"
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
I have found that players like most people respond to carrots and sticks, if you want to change the behavior change the rewards. Right now your players don't see any reward for all the social and exploration aspects of the game, they know if they kill things they get XP and gold, so thats what they want to do. Tell them flat out you will reward them full value for encounters they avoid through diplomacy and subterfuge, and only half as much for defeating them in combat. Explain that whatever gold or items that might be on the monsters will pale in comparison to the rewards that the npc's will give them if handled without bloodshed. Traps that are defeated with thought and creative thinking equal full XP, traps defeated with just a brief description and a toss of the die, only half XP. If they still don't change, break out the stick. Make the combat scenes even more deadly than they are, slowly at first then ever so greatly till they understand that violence will lead to death. In Warhammer Fantasy 2nd edition this was the standard, all combat was super deadly so you wanted to avoid it at all costs. The other issue is have a talk with your players, they seem to want a kick down the door kill the monster style beer and pretzel game, and you want an in depth long lasting deep role playing experience.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
quote:Ok, let me pop in here to add some details. Actually I don't think all the players in my table are absolutely enjoying this kind of hack and slash. In fact, one player is completely unhappy with it. When I personally talk to him, he says he is in the same camp with me about more role playing less fighting. The other players, however, behave like they are eager to have combat the whole session, but when they encounter an enemy and it comes to actually resolving the combat rounds, they quickly start to feel bored if their characters fail to hit or deal some damage for a couple of turns, (mostly they don't try much interesting things in combat to gain advantage, upper hand etc. althogh I constantly remind them of such clever tactics) then it becomes like "well, it took us too long, when will we finish this stupid fight?" Hearing that I feel really at a loss but don't reflect my mood around in order to avoid a negative athmosphere around the table. So most of your players only want combat, and when they get combat, they want to hurry up and get it over with. To get to what exactly? Yet another fight that they hope ends immediately? Sounds like most of your players would be happier playing an MMO than tabletop. Find better players.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
I'm running my older kids (2 boys, 2 girls) thru the Phandelver adventure. The oldest boy is having a real problem understanding that it is a living world he is interacting with and like your group has a tendency to want to shoot first. I believe this is because he is used to playing video games where the goal is usually to kill everything in sight. He easily sways the younger boy to follow him in this method of play. My two girls are just the opposite...eagerly looking at interaction as the first move in any situation. The boys and girls went separate ways in the Cragmaw hideout...and almost had a TPK before figuring out their mistake. Once they arrived in Phandalin they split up again. The girls did some real role playing while the boys suffered from gold fever and went around selling off everything they had brought back with no intention of sharing with the girls. At the end of the session I awarded the girls with slightly more EP's which had the boys crying foul! I clearly informed them that the girls were being rewarded for good role play and actually advancing the groups knowledge in the right direction. The boys whined but I think they got the message. ~*~ First of all, the basic answer is probably "give them what they want"- let them play a lot of combat-heavy stuff. But if that's not satisfying to you, you can just think about the reactions of the various npcs and how they play off each other. Enforce the logical consequences of the pcs' actions. This means, among other things, that they're going to get a reputation for plowing through things without subtlety. They will miss a lot- that's okay. There's no way to get the information they need to find the dungeon/magic item/special powder/whatever? Then they don't find it. Oh, they can't finish the adventure? Oh well, time to chalk up another mark in the "Fail" column and move on to the next one. This approach means that, eventually, they will stop getting hired for jobs that aren't "Kill kill kill". That's okay; it may suit them. But it also means that they will probably eventually get hired to do something that they really ought to avoid (slaying an important person, kidnapping the heir, threatening a powerful official, etc). It also means that it's likely that the pcs will eventually do something- kill a guy in a bar fight, get a reputation for casting fireballs in the city, etc.- that makes them either persona non grata or actually wanted by the authorities. This means that they can't easily buy supplies, find an inn, get a meal, hire a cobbler, go to the weaponsmith, etc. And if they try to go get a disease cured or a curse removed- well, the local clergy isn't likely to help if the consequence is the loss of their clerical rights in the city for aiding fugitives. When they're in town, they may be confronted by a large group of watchmen offering to escort them out or trying to arrest them outright. If they resist, suddenly there's a huge price on their head for killing guards (because, let's face it, this type of party is often the type that slays anyone without thought of the consequences). It's also possible that someone will choose to frame them for something that they didn't actually do. With this kind of reputation, it's eminently believable, and a war could start or something equally dire could happen, all because they don't have the connections and reputation to clear their names and point out the real guilty party. ~*~ This is not a combat focused group, this is a powergaming focused group. I had this problem with a few players, and yes <i>it's bad gaming</i>. Even in MMORPG is bad playing, because they cut off any other possibility and ruin the game for anyone (or anything) else. And yes, I think that it can be solved with relative ease. First of all, it's a matter of system. Probably, you are playing 4ed, which heavily focuses not in combat but in powergaming, with superheroic characters nearly unkillable and with exponential power growth. It takes a EXCEPTIONALLY good DM to make a more narrative game, and it's nearly impossible with that group. And by that I don't mean a creative person or a good narrator: I mean DM that can handle conflictive groups, that can surmont impossible situations like that one, and that usually think outside the box. Anyone can be that... once he had spent 12 years mastering very different groups and systems. Most of us are only good DM, creative, ingenious or good narrators. Once you had surpass the System problem (or assuming that you can't or you won't because you really like it, but I warn you, some systems are better suited for those excesses), don't abandon the combat. Make it lethal and unexpected. For what you say, they aren't used to think, only to exploit mechanics. Bring creative NPCs, unusual combat situations (don't think stupid rule things like "aerial combat" or "submarine combat" as creative, they are just weird and expected) like a group of really nasty goblins, that use enviromental advantages and guerrilla tactics (preventing, for example, long rests) good but non magical nor lootable equipment, poisons and curses in ways that the players don't expect: halved HP or stats, impossibility to attack directly, dire "real life" or long time consequences (limbs losed, permanent poisons and deseases), inability to heal fast (I think that if they are using clerics or sacred magic it's a possible way to take away their powers, mages could lose concentration because they can't sleep for days by a poison or curse); you can make a lot of combat-oriented booby traps (like hidden traps, stake barricades, incendiary floors, unreachable heights, great coverture, mounted archery, use darkness creatively -make the torches or spells the only light available, that make of them a perfect pointblank for spears or arrows). Don't make every fight a dying fight. Make an obvious necesity to maintain alive a foe (again, poisons and curses). Resign solos and elites and build armies leaded by powerful, character based NPCs, and make them retire if they are losing. Make every fight fast and furious, and very lethal. If they don't apply creative thougt aside from the random use of powers, make them bleed. Don't use every time the combat grid, and take a narrative approach to the combat. This, although being very combat focused, teach them how to think twice. In resume: Give them combat, but if they don't think outside powergame, make them lose. Then, once you had make a point about the possible outcome of a battle, make more explorational or survivalist gaming. If they don't paid atention to the surroundings, use snakes, ants, bugs, food, wheater, rivers, heat and cold count. They can't rest until they have solutioned the survival issues, reducing combat effectivity. Use magic against them: again, non combat curses, alarms that create impossible barriers to their pass, pixies casting "confusion" spells and making them get lost in the wilderness. Give them not other option for his survival than think. Make combat-focused abilities useless in many situations. Don't give them shelter, nor rest, nor anything. They have to track their foes, not the otherwise. Make the lesser enemies run before them, using torched land tactics. Don't reward with experience random or dull combats. Don't give them loot nor magical items. Give them time. Don't expend all your resources in one session. Some players would complain a lot. Some players would quit the game. Get rid of them if you see no other options, but more than one will face the challenge of survival. Then you can use hints, diplomacy and interpretation later. Don't put mechanics above interpretation (for example, a mage cannot use a spell if he does not actually says the magic words). Make them justify their combat decisions. Make their weapons rot and break. They can take it if you do this gradually and exponentialy. I'm a Highschool Spanish teacher, and a DM, and I know that the players, like the students, must be educated prior to play well. That don't guarantee nothing, but is a necessary step to improve. They are people, after all. ~*~ I can't imagine constant combat with no role-playing or other elements. Wouldn't even feel like an RPG at that point. The verisimilitude would be absent. Might as well play a video game for repetitious combat. Hope you can find a better group or help the group your with learn to enjoy role-playing. Sometimes I have to force a few of my players to role-play. I literally force the issue by talking to them with an NPC. I make it natural like they have met someone in real life they must talk to. I make them talk and make the NPC react to their replies. Once you get them engaged in conversation, they usually loosen up, especially if the conversation is entertaining. I love forcing conversation around the table. Sometimes the PCs get aggressive. If that happens, I literally have the NPC ask if they intend to murder him or her. If so, his relatives or associations will most assuredly take the matter up with the authorities. If your players aren't role-playing, give them no choice. Don't do so by telling them. Just make an NPC talk with them, so that they have to reply to progress. I do that all time. If someone is hiring them, then have the hiring NPC interview them. Get an idea of his personality and have him ask shrewd or antagonistic questions such as "Are you an honorable man?" If the PC answers "Yes," then have him ask "What makes you so honorable? What quests you have you undertaken and who might I inquire with concerning your honor? If I'm going to a pay a man well, I want to know he's worth the coin." If they try to pull the typical "I don't need you. Find someone else." Have the NPC say "Sure enough I will. I'm paying quality coin. If you feel you can find better, then be about it. Good day." Just like a real interview. If they choose to end in combat, I guess you'll have your next adventure: your PCs on the run from the law or vengeful relatives. ~*~ Hiya. Hmmm...."How to train new players in 6 easy steps!" ... Step 1: "Let the chips fall where they may" (re: start rolling ALL dice rolls in front of them and resist the urge to try and 'modify' the encounter to be balanced). If you get 4 natural 20's during a combat and it kills one PC and gets two of the others into single digits...tough noogies. Step 2: Explain to them that simply "finding a cleric to raise their BFF's" isn't a matter of "We go to town, spend 1,000gp, and get Bill raised". If they want someone raised, they have to do it themselves, or earn it from an NPC. Step 3: Get them to invest in their characters. Mentally and emotionally. (see Step 5, below) Get them to the point where they really, truly do not want their PC to die. If death is an easy fix (see #2), they don't need to worry about it. Step 4: MAKE NEW PC's START AT LEVEL 1 REGARDLESS OF EVERYONE ELSE! (or, at the very least, not higher than level 3...imho). Step 5: Try and find attributes that the players value (re: loyalty, bravery, bloodlust, vengence, etc), and start introducing NPC's that embody that. For example, my group tends to value bravery (but not plain-ol'-stupidity; innocent stupidity...yes...but regular day-in day-out stupidity...no way). In the Starter Set, in Phandalin, there is a halfling woman who has a son named "Carp". I made Carp young and brave...but almost totally oblivious to the actual danger of "adventuring". I played him as very gung-ho for "heroic adventuring"...I also had him follow the PC's into the "hideout of the bad guys". The PC's found him in one of their backpacks on more than one occasion...in the middle of the dungeon while they were resting. My players (and their PC's) grew very fond of Carp to the point of being, well, parental. I have a feeling they would have probably done just about anything to keep that little guy safe...including sacrificing themselves. The only way to really get your Players to invest into NPC's like that is to play up to the PLAYER's morals and values. The odd (good!) side-effect of this step is that the player will become "attached" to his characters attachment to the NPC...thus, making the player more invested in his PC (see Step 3, above). Step 6: Now that your players know that death is but a few natural 20's away, that getting raised isn't simply a matter of having the coin, that their "really cool character" may die and then they have to start all over again from level one, and that some NPC's really are "kinda cool" and worth saving/risking...well, uh, I guess off you go then! Problem solved. You're welcome. PS: Well, this is my approach whenever I get a new player that has "CRPGMMO'itis"...it's never failed me yet! (er, wait, yes it has; twice... still, twice in 34+ years of DM'ing is pretty good, no?) ^_^ Paul L. Ming
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure this qualifies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CfyU1mOZ1E
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
ZeeToo posted:I'm pretty sure this qualifies: Is there another video where he has the solutions he intended for that problem that the players could put into practice, instead of him just wanking about weapon choice in their faces?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
ZeeToo posted:I'm pretty sure this qualifies: There's grog, and then there's "I walk around all day with a chainmail vest underneath my sweater."
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
ZeeToo posted:I'm pretty sure this qualifies: "Perhaps they should have thought a little about that" Why? The solution was 'be an organized military force'. This is what I hate about this kind of GM. You don't 'win' here, you just do a dick move in a world you control.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
Lindybeige has some seriously cool videos on popular milhist misconceptions, such as hoplites not actually fighting (which is sadly a pretty popular mistake). But his rpg poo poo is groggy as all hell.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 06:29
|
|
|
Azran posted:Lindybeige has some seriously cool videos on popular milhist misconceptions, such as hoplites not actually fighting (which is sadly a pretty popular mistake). But his rpg poo poo is groggy as all hell. Yeah. He's got some interesting informational/critical videos on his channel, but "I punished my players for thinking we were here to have X fun when I wanted to have Y fun" is pretty  His whole premise for this very video was even pretty good: Who the gently caress farts from their mouth about ~realism~ when you're fighting a dragon with a boar spear? Tricking your players into making GBS threads themselves is not the answer to that question.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 06:42
|
|
|
quote:The truth is-- the "honor" thing is all a matter of translation. You REALLY don't think that concept exists just as strongly in the West? And that's the thing. Fantasy excels in stereotype. One might even make the argument that Fantasy requires stereotypes and once the stereotypes are removed then it no longer remains Fantasy. This is because stereotypes are actually symbols that speak to deeper truths that we cannot adequately relate in words. This, truly, is the almost unspeakable, hard-to-explainable draw that so many experience to Fantasy. In fact, the thing that troubles me most about the modern take on Fantasy is that in almost every facet it aims at removing stereotypes, to trash the symbols. Look at all of the popular interpretations (or more likely, re-interpretations) of the Fantasy genre in pop culture. Almost every example you will see the deconstruction of stereotypes. Moderns and 'postmoderns' drool over it. Off the top of my head, take the movie "Maleficent" for example (spoilery). The once purely evil Maleficent now has a soft side. She is made into the hero and the king becomes the villain. The show "Once Upon a Time" essentially exists (seemingly) solely for this purpose, to deconstruct stereotypes in Fantasy. They give us a Rambo Snow-white and an angsty Capt. Hook, an evil Peter Pan. A Beast is no longer an actual Beast but a metaphorical beast within. Even Peter Jackson with the many stereotypes found within "Lord of the Rings" couldn't help it in some places. Faramir simply couldn't be as noble as Tolkien wrote him so they made him weak and conflicted, Aragorn, too, to a degree. They even took an extra step (in my opinion) with breaking down stereotypes in the "Hobbit". You'll notice Azog and the goblins of the Misty Mountains are not dark skinned. Another thing (quite small) is that there are residents in Lake-town who are black. I know many who would say I'm being racist just for pointing that out. Say what you will, but the real issue is that those decisions are intentionally made to kick against fairy-tale logic/stereotypes. Maybe the most relevant is that when the art for 5e was released the main thing discussed (before and after) was how stereotypes would/should be/have been broken. I say all of the above, only to point out that Fantasy (or at least how we perceive Fantasy) has shifted in our day. I'm not necessarily saying that it is a bad thing that it has shifted, but I do think we've lost something. It's become less and not more. And (back to the point) one of the things that we've lost is the ability to realize (or speak plainly about) that there is such thing as a good stereotype and that stereotypes help produce good Fantasy. In this case, a culture perceived as "Honorable" is a good stereotype. It might be false to a degree, but every stereotype, when boiled down is false to a degree. The point isn't to dwell on the falseness of the stereotype (unless the stereotype is actually a false one), but to understand the intention of the stereotype within the Fantasy structure. A knight rescuing a damsel in distress is about as stereotypical as you can get, and because of that, many deem it to be sexist. Why can't the damsel rescue the knight? Why should she be a damsel at all? Why shouldn't she be the knight? Why does she have to rescue anyone at all? By the time we're done deconstructing the stereotype we've lost Fantasy. The other problem we now have is that whenever anyone stands up to defend the stereotype, they are instantly lambasted as racist, sexist, or whatever-ist, rather than someone who simply enjoys Fantasy for being Fantasy. So when you get to RPGs and folks participating within Fantasy, and you throw in a dash of that modern deconstructionism in the mix, you get a lot of people talking past each other. All of that to say...imagining Asian cultures as "Honorable" is certainly a stereotype, but it is a good stereotype, especially as a vehicle for Fantasy games. And as such, it is certainly not racist. That's just a flag being waved that gets us off topic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
There is much here. I will charitably assume that you weren't calling me a racist, but rather were making a point clear (I think there was a mixed signal somewhere, but I'm okay to let it go). I also accept your respectful disagreeance that Fantasy excels and even thrives on stereotypes, as long as I can respectfully assume you don't understand Fantasy. A word about inclusiveness. I'll still stand by my statement that I think our modern perception of Fantasy has shifted and that it has become less and not more. I am speaking about stereotypes. When we lose a stereotype of Evil (for instance) then Fantasy takes a hit. In Fantasy, when the Evil Queen/Wizard/Monster becomes simply misunderstood, and perhaps might even be the good guy wearing a black cape, then we've relinquished Fantasy and have moved on to something else. We've taken a step closer to real life. Those steps lead us away from Fantasy. In real life, villains might actually be misunderstood, and even might be the good guys. In Fantasy, good is good and evil is evil. That's the point I was making. I wasn't saying that inclusiveness is a bad thing. In fact you can find inclusiveness all over Fantasy. The Fellowship of the Ring jumps out at me. Many races working together for good. But if you want the inclusiveness to trump certain stereotypes then you start to leave Fantasy behind. If you want Sauron to be the secret good guy you've missed the point. That's what I'm talking about. If you want to have a Political Correctness campaign, have at it. It just might not work for Fantasy. Now to address the "bombshell". Sexist is the word that comes to mind because you equate stereotype with "-isms". The knight rescuing the damsel in distress is a Fantasy stereotype worthy of defense not only because it has been passed down for ages, but that in Fantasy it communicates things unspoken. The reason you are uncomfortable with it is because the things it communicates to you (or a particular society) is unsettling. Unsettling may be a good thing or may be a bad thing, but since neither you nor I, were the ones who invented the stereotype, the only thing we can do is accept it or reject it. I accept it, maintain the tradition, and am labeled a sexist. You reject it (and let me be perfectly clear: it is your right, I'm okay with it, reject away, no one is saying you cannot reject it), but you must accept the fact that it is indeed a rejection, that you are shifting/rewriting/retelling and therefore moving away from Fantasy as it has been handed down. Let me flip it real quick. I love the movie Brave. It is a brand new legend and creates/maintains good stereotypes in its own way. I think it succeeds as Fantasy. But if I were to retell the tale of Merida as a male character I would be moving away from Fantasy as handed down. Especially if I were to use the excuse that She should be a He because it's not inclusive or tolerant otherwise. I've a right to do so, but what I've done is rejected it. I reject what it communicates to me as handed down and rewrite it so that I might be the one who communicates to myself because it makes me comfortable or it makes me feel empowered or whatever reason. The point is that I've moved away from Fantasy. And that's my argument here, which is why I think you've misunderstood me. I'm not saying "Woe is me! Look what we've lost!" I haven't lost it. As you've said, I still have my knight and damsel. But in taking the stereotypes as they are handed down to me, understanding them for what they are within Fantasy, I am just one in a long line of stewards and, hopefully (as all who play Fantasy type RPGs desire) participators/creators of Fantasy. Those who deconstruct Fantasy should at least own up to it. I would assume that they'd wear such an accomplishment as a badge of honor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 07:21
|
|
|
I couldn't even read that whole screed -- at some point I started tasting pennies and bile, although I suppose that could just be the head cold -- but I can't get over "I'm not RACIST, but if you depict a race of underground-dwellers as pale-skinned and the inhabitants of a bustling, cosmopolitan trading community as being of a variety of skin colors, you are obviously postmodern swine sullying the pure truth of the stereotypes that make up fantasy, like the totally truthful stereotype that skin melanin concentrations are directly correlated with evil hearts!" I can respect Tolkien groggery to some degree, but if skin color is the hill you've decided to die on, just have the dignity and self-awareness to admit you're racist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 08:21
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:words. Could you put the stuff you find in quote tags? I'm a moron and keep thinking you're rambling incessantly even when I know what thread this is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 09:07
|
|
|
Antivehicular posted:I couldn't even read that whole screed -- at some point I started tasting pennies and bile, although I suppose that could just be the head cold -- but I can't get over "I'm not RACIST, but if you depict a race of underground-dwellers as pale-skinned and the inhabitants of a bustling, cosmopolitan trading community as being of a variety of skin colors, you are obviously postmodern swine sullying the pure truth of the stereotypes that make up fantasy, like the totally truthful stereotype that skin melanin concentrations are directly correlated with evil hearts!" I can respect Tolkien groggery to some degree, but if skin color is the hill you've decided to die on, just have the dignity and self-awareness to admit you're racist. It's probably bad that I'm so used to nerds being racist that, well, the racism didn't really phase me. What got me was decrying things that don't possess moral absolutism. "NO IF YOU WANT NUANCED CHARACTERS THAT ISN'T REAL FANTASY YOU GUYS, IT'S NOT, AND I WOULD KNOW, I AM THE GATEKEEPER OF REAL FANTASY."
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 09:32
|
|
|
Biomute posted:Could you put the stuff you find in quote tags? I'm a moron and keep thinking you're rambling incessantly even when I know what thread this is. I typically don't simply because I often have them quoting others and I don't think you can nest quotes. And oh, don't worry Pulse, Anti - they captured both of your posts! ~*~ quote:It's still perfectly valid to enjoy Lovecraft and Leiber for what they are. But I sure as heck wouldn't want anyone writing in the genres they shaped to feel they had to be equally as racist/sexist today. In fact, I'd be offended if they were. If they aren't writing equally as sexist and/or racist and/or stereotype driven, in many cases, they've left the genre, or at least, become a separate subgenre, from the older works.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 10:45
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:
Nah, you can nest quotes on SA as I demonstrated above.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 10:56
|
|
|
From a thread titled: [5e] Anyone else think the Warlock class is kinda broken?quote:Here's the thing. the classes aren't supposed to be balanced with one another. 4e did that and nearly destroyed the franchise by sending everyone to Pathfinder. Unbalanced is good. Keeps the DM on their toes. quote:ohhhhhhhhhhh... quote:4E = chess with dice quote:tactical combat. tight rules. very situational with the rule set with things like feats and varying "powers" for every class that could be used at-will, per encounter, and daily. wasn't my cup of tea. too complicated for my old brain. there are a fair few posts on the sub for 4e.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 11:05
|
|
|
It just doesn't nest quotes by default so that threads don't bloat out of control.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 11:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 03:47 |
|
|
Well, now I know!
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 13:47
|
|