|
quote:And if you take the Crossbow Expert feat, you can ignore the loading property on crossbows. Don't get the key word "loading" confused with the general term like I've seen people around here do before: The crossbow still needs to be reloaded and requires ammo (I can't believe I've gotten in debates about this before lol)! That means you can fire a crossbow as many times as class features, etc. allow just like a bow as EdgeOfDreams explained, but you still need to provide ammo and have a hand free to reload (although there is nothing written in the rules that specifically states you need a hand free to reload, I think it's so obvious that it doesn't need to be stated, just as it doesn't state that you need a hand free to nock an arrow when firing a bow). quote:Ignoring the fact that Mearls and the dev team's off the cuff rulings have frequently been inconsistent and straight up wrong before, I would only allow it if they had a magical or mechanical device that allowed it as you say. I wouldn't just "imagine" it though since such a thing would be quite costly. Same guy: quote:The flexibility lies in the fact that multiple types of characters can take advantage of [Dueling Fighting Style], a sword and shield fighter or a one handed fencer. By denying one of those options you are removing the flexibility. But like you say, that's your choice. Personally I don't like to remove basic options from the game and I don't see that as a way of taking advantage of the type of flexibility you are talking about (bending rules, creating rules, etc.)
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2014 06:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 05:18 |
|
|
quote:Yes, 4e is not a very good RPG. It's more like a board game with RPG elements. Combat is slow, complex, and allows for no creativity. Powers are only described in rules terms, they don't actually have a diegetic explanation in game, which means that you can't find creative uses for your spells and abilities. quote:PHB 1, page 145: quote:Right, there's flavor text, but there's no mechanism of action that can be explained in diegetic terms. Perhaps not for every single power without exception, but it's certainly the norm. And the whole daily/encounter power system is massively dissociated, as well.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2014 07:06
|
|
|
What I usually hear is that miniatures "distract" from the ROLEplaying by "making players focus too much on the map" and not on coming up with creative descriptions for their actions. While some of that can undoubtedly be chalked up to a DM that doesn't try and make an interesting battlefield (if it's just going to be a wide open plain then yeah just TOTM that poo poo), it always strikes me as an astounding failure of imagination.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
quote:obscene misery-tourism storygames that simulate things like necrophilia and pederasty will be kept on because they're written by the 'right people' for these assholes, while D&D OSR sandboxes will get banned because they have drawings of fully-armored female clerics they judge to be looking just a little too sultry. Yeah because Desborough wrote a D&D OSR sandbox with drawings of fully-armored female clerics, right?  Wait, wasn't it Tarnowski that got his panties all up in a bunch too over the fully-armored female cleric in the CYOA tutorial portion of the original Red Box in the first place?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
quote:it lead to Dungeon World, which as you know is part of a conspiracy to destroy the OSR. Is/was Dungeon World ever directly marketed as being an OSR-type game? I mean, I've used that description myself: "it recreates the ~~feeling~~ of playing D&D when you were 8 years old", but I don't think that it ever makes that claim itself, and I don't know how you'd ever mistake it for being a literal OSR game and then claim false advertising when it doesn't actually have descending AC or random encounter tables or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
JcDent posted:What's the deal with retrocloning/OSRs anyway? I read the the retroclone thread OP, but I still don't get it. Retrocloning, as I understand it, is one part rewriting the older D&D games so they're more comprehensible, another part rewriting the older D&D games so you can actually play them (because they weren't always as available as they are today) and another part rewriting the older D&D games to include that really good houserule you thought up that you think people will really benefit from (and sometimes this is actually true) OSR is playing the older D&D games and their retroclones coupled with a certain mindset (?) to playing RPGs in the context of the older D&D not literally spelling everything out for you and so giving the players a more open-ended experience. quote:What is “Old School” Play? On reflection, most of these points seem to be a reaction to 3rd Edition D&D trying to be its own physics engine (and being pretty bad at it). There's some elements of reactions to 4th Edition there as well, but I'm not sure of the timing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
JcDent posted:By the way, how noob friendly are retroclones in comparison to, say, DnD5? "Retroclones exist" is a huge reason for me why DnD5 as "a simpler 3rd Edition" is really redundant
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 07:17
|
|
|
quote:I'm a relatively new DM and the only woman in our player group. The players constantly want to have sex with/ say creepy things to/ sexually assault my NPCs. This has been making me increasingly uncomfortable. I try to gloss over any sexual encounter by "fading to black", but routinely it is the area of play that my players are most interested in. I can't tell you how focused you can make a party when a child is killed, tortured or mutilated in a campaign. I've DMed games where these things happened and I have played games in which this happened. I actually had one game where I, a player, tortured a Mage that was experimenting on children. It can make campaigns very mature and adult if handled correctly. But ONLY if handled correctly. Talk to them about that it's weird and makes you uncomfortable. If that doesn't work, you're the DM- every PC gets a horrible eldritch STD that rots their dick off, and every time a player makes a rapey joke at the table, their character has to make a DC 30 Will check not to drop unconscious from psychological trauma. Two things, Succubi and STDs. Have the things that they try to rape turn the tables on them! You're the DM? Cursed poisonous chastity belts. Problem solved. If characters are having too much sex, feel free to say that they where so loud that no one got a good night's sleep so no one gets their spells/abilities back. Honestly, you're the DM. If it bothers you, don't. Next time someone makes a move that even remotely bothers you (in character, or out), guards burst in and it was a sting operation of some kind. They're ALL either taken to jail to be tried in the morning (if you're feeling generous) or they're taken to the gallows immediately for attempted rape. Then, they are swiftly hanged, and have to roll new characters. Sounds like you're playing with 14 year old boys. I had 1 guy in my group really try to focus on that aspect, he was playing a Barbarian raider who spent his days raising small villages and enslaving the people. So I let him capture a woman here and there to take back to his raiding party as a "reward", but we didn't go into details (more important things happening elsewhere anyway). Next time one of them tries to rape a woman or even do is consensually, have them make a perception check, maybe a reflex too, and if they fail, bam their penis is sliced off because they failed to see the hidden blade. In general I let my players go at it, as long as they arnt overdoing it, not in explicet details but rather I have them roll a D20 for how good the sex was. Roll a 20 and godamn that women or man thinks your a/the god of sex. Roll a 1 and you just couldnt get it up. Your situation id leave that group but not after having one of the women npcs actually be assasin who kills the party or juat gives them all STDS. So running, excuse me, walking away from the situation isn't the cowardly route. Funny, I didn't know it was opposite day. Just slice their characters' dingus off or some equivalent. They can't rape when their genitalia has been mutilated into an unusable state. Turn the tables on them. Then maybe they'll think twice in the next game that they try to pull this juvenile bullshit in. Maybe they'll be less of a problem for OP or the next GM to take them in. Then again, there is that high road of walking away and passing off that social responsibility to the next GM. Maybe the next GM will do the humane thing and neuter their overly sexually aggressive PC's. Attempts to rape just about anyone end up with a ring/pendant/belt/corset releasing issuing a Word of Recall and leaving behind a cloud of putrid decaying zombie wombats. What's the time requirement to don armor? Just make sure there's a priest/priestess who was assaulted/had a child assaulted/had a loved one assaulted etc etc and they made it their mission to prevent the problem from occurring in the future so they've equipped all ladies of the realm with equivalent items. === To be fair, about 3/4ths of the thread was "Holy poo poo run away from that group ASAP". It's just that the rest are "punish the players in-game through some convoluted means"
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
quote:The most you can say about DTRPG is that they were easily-manipulated cowards. You'd think that Pundowski would be a little more cagey about directly insulting the people whose platform he's using to sell his game. Like, come on DTRPG folks, quote that poo poo and use it as a justification to remove Arrows of Indra the same way that one dude got his game removed from Steam from making death threats about GabeN
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
quote:Currently Smoking: Masonic Meerschaum + Image Perique I know I shouldn't care so much, but what the hell is this guy's day job that he has a panoply of pipes and esoteric tobaccos to pick from?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
I fail as a GM because I like GMPCs. I tried to write an argument for them. Validate it, or give me a logical, relevant reason to prove that the mechanics are a sin According to this subreddit, I am a lovely GM and everyone should avoid me like the plague. How could I know this, and how could any group of people make this assumption? Well, I use GMPCs. It’s very, very clear that doing so is taboo, and so I should feel remorseful for my actions. But I don’t. I don’t feel remorse for my actions; in fact, I enjoy using GMPCs, making this an unforgiveable sin. Do I think that I’m a lovely GM? Honestly, no. Perhaps inexperienced, but I don’t consider that to be a in any way related to my enjoyment of GMPCs. However, for that reason, I don’t GM anymore. Why would I hand ammunition to the majority of the roleplaying population, knowing that many of them would not hesitate to either dismiss my presence or bash my preferences? Oh wait… That’s what I’m doing right now. I’m posting this because I have low self-esteem. It doesn’t feel good to know that I’m frowned upon as a GM. It makes me question my actions when I understand what I’m doing wrong but not why it’s wrong. It’s wrong to let other people’s opinions control one’s actions, but it’s different when this inhibits what should be friendly interaction. I’ve run several sessions where I used a GMPC. As far as I was told, and as far as I could tell, everyone was having fun. The players praised me for my work as a GM, but those are only a couple of opinions versus the vastly popular opinion of a large community. Thus, I am looking for either validation, or a logical, relevant reason for why the singular act of using a GMPC is automatically, unquestionably, without exception, a sin. inb4 this is downvoted to hell Given the gravity of such a controversial topic, I’m going to present my argument in a somewhat organized manner. First, I will explain my definition of a GMPC, just so that we’re all on the same page. Next, I will state what I do with a GMPC and why I enjoy using them. After that, I will present some common community arguments against GMPCs, which I will try to paint as illogical and/or irrelevant (i.e. off-topic). Finally, I’ll state my own opinions on the topic. Hopefully, people will respond by either agreeing with my argument, countering my argument, or disputing that the arguments I refuted are both logical and relevant. Part 1: Definition A GMPC is a character that I design to accompany the player characters as either recurring support or continuous support. Mechanically, I create the character by using the mechanics for PCs, as opposed to the mechanics for NPCs. Furthermore, when they take an action, I use the mechanics for player actions rather than those for NPC actions. The character has a more thorough backstory than minor NPCs, and the character is often relevant to a single quest that the players resolve. Narratively, the GMPC is a friend and an ally. The character is usually just as effective in combat and adventuring as any PC, and thus uses these skills to assist the players on their adventure(s). Naturally, the skills the character possesses reflect the character’s personality and background, and the character can only fill multiple roles as well as a PC can. Depending on the system and the group’s size, skills and abilities may overlap between the GMPC and the PCs, just like how there can be overlap amongst the PCs. The GMPC does not automatically take on a role that rounds out the party’s combat efficiency (e.g. become the tank, the healer, or the DPS). Part 2: Practical Usage These are some of the things I do with a GMPC: 1. Fulfilling mechanical and narrative roles for the PC: e.g. The party needs to explore a bunker before rival forces arrive, so the GMPC watches the entrance. The party needs all the help they can get when invading an enemy stronghold, so they invite the GMPC to help fight. The players want to take a stealthy action during their quest but don’t have a stealthy character, so I roll for the GMPC. 2. Encouraging roleplay amongst the PCs: I can do this more subtly by controlling a member of the party than by outright telling the players to roleplay more. The players may sometimes shift all their attention to the mechanics and quest objectives, but a gentle nudge reminds them that there’s more to the game. 3. Providing suggestions for what to do next: If the players can’t think of something creative to do next, they can ask me to provide multiple different ideas. I communicate this through the GMPC. Of course, I wouldn’t do this unless I’m asked, but I may take the initiative if game is really going too slowly. GMPCs aren’t needed to create the three effects above; a GM doesn’t need a character to speak with the players, and an additional party member isn’t needed if encounters are simpler, smaller, and easier. I use them because I enjoy them. I enjoy using GMPCs because I’m selfish. As the GM, I have to do more prep work than anyone else in my group, and chances are a lot of it won’t even show up in the game. I have to monitor both the mechanics of the game and my group’s personal enjoyment. I have much more responsibility in our activities, so when the players get a personal character, I give myself one as well. This is a sin. The common “solution” is to rotate the GMing role, which gives everyone a chance to play. However, this would mean that GMing is a chore. It’s like being the designated driver; it’s a necessary role, and you’re willing to take on the work and responsibility for the end result, but the act itself does not compare to what everyone else gets to do. This also ends up being a very long chore if the game is long-term and low-death. By accepting the selfishness of my decision, there are two things GMPCs can do that are harder to accomplish without them. First, they reinforce that I am on the players’ side. I am their cheerleader; I am not their enemy, and I will not try to antagonize or trick them. My role is to be a referee, and my job is to ensure the group’s fun. Second, by treating my GMPCs as personal, intimate characters, I can creatively/personally disconnect myself from what I create as a GM. That way, there are no hard feelings when the players literally destroy everything I’ve created. No attachment, no hard feelings. I’m sure that many of you believe that players aren’t supposed to become attached to their characters, since death is inevitable, but understand that’s one type of game. There are games where there is combat and players can die, there are games where there is combat and players don’t die, there are games where there is no combat and people don’t die, and there are games where there is no combat and people still die. If we’re doing a long-term non/low-death game and my players are not attached to their characters, I should be concerned, not vice versa. Part 3: Community Arguments There are some arguments taken from GMPC posts, through only the ones that focus on general discussion rather than an OP’s specific situation. I will not provide the authors of the source comments because I will mostly be paraphrasing, some opinions are shared in multiple comments, and I have no desire to call specific people out. The GMPC has advance knowledge of the quest’s details, e.g. expected enemies, where to go, etc. Illogical: A character is not entitled to knowledge that the actual character would not know. Irrelevant: If we assume that the GMPC knows everything I know as a GM, it’s still irrelevant. As a GM, I don’t know how my players will confront their obstacles, and, for systems with randomization, I can’t predict the dice rolls. Thus, it’s an issue of railroading. The GMPC is used to put the story on railroads. Irrelevant: Obviously a railroading issue. Illogical: GMPCs do not appear to logically cause railroading. The GMPC steals the players’ EXP and loot. With a system where characters earn EXP at their own rate, this is irrelevant because it’s the GM’s responsibility to monitor everyone’s EXP/level. If gaps aren’t corrected, this is a conscious decision of the GM. Also applies for loot. With a system where characters all receive an equal amount of EXP for each a quest, this is illogical because everyone gets the same amount anyways. Also applies for loot. Since the GM both “writes the story” and controls the GMPC, the GM can give the GMPC an edge by creating situations designed for their skillset. Illogical: The GM does not “write a story.” The GM can’t know exactly what the players will face without railroading. Irrelevant: It is the GM’s responsibility to generate obstacles for the players; if this isn’t done in an engaging and balanced manner, this is an issue of encounter balance, planning, loopholes in mechanics, GM skill, etc. “If you really want a DMPC in your game, write a short story instead. That way, all the characters are either NPCs or DMPCs and you don't have those pesky players ruining your plot.” Illogical: A lesson from Tabletop RPGs 101 - story writing is NOT synonymous with playing tabletop RPGs. A GMPC makes the GM fall into a trap where they start focusing the story on themselves and reducing the fun for the other players. Irrelevant: This is an issue of GM bias and/or a lack of skill. Popular arguments that I cannot refute: GMPCs are special because they are more personal for the GM. This is probably true in a lot of cases. True for me, as I stated earlier. I don’t really care, because I can play a game where we take turns being a designated GM who isn’t allowed to put a personal touch on the world they create, or I can play a game where everyone is having fun a world that’s personal to everyone. However, although I’m fine with my preference, players are not. “The group either looks at the character as a Mary Sue if you do anything successfully or as utterly worthless dead weight if they don't.” This argument is probably accurate and I can’t refute it. However, it suggests that the primary reason against GMPCs is the community’s unrelenting bias against them. Essentially, GMPCs are prohibited not because the concept is flawed, but rather because the community is too bigoted to accept them. Part 4: Conclusion Right now, unless I’m missing something super obvious in this community’s sentiments, I feel like the whole “GMPCs are a sin” has literally nothing to do with the concept of GMPCs. Instead, it’s an issue of railroading, GM bias, and poor GM skill; GMPCs are just scapegoats for far more prevalent problems. Since the GMPC topic is actually a conglomerate of random negative GM habits, the topic is actually a stigmatized preference issue that never stays on topic (i.e. as a preference issue). There’s one argument that I am not keen on accepting here: That’s not a GMPC. A somewhat common response to examples where a GMPC does not cause apparent problems for the group is to state that it’s not a GMPC. This is typically used for “NPCs” who follow the party as a background character who may perform minor supporting roles, but never anything more. The “NPC” also can’t be self-gratifying for the GM. (Of course, this argument doesn’t apply to me because my GMPC helps the party as a passive but effective character, not a background character. Its existence is also due to selfish reasons.) If I accept this argument, that would mean that a “GMPC” is simply a NPC that was poorly designed and/or poorly used, which is not a reflection of the core concept but rather the GM’s lack of skill. If that’s the case, then the word “GMPC” is just a loaded derogatory term that serves no constructive purpose in fair discussion. It would be just like the rest of our sexist, racist, and bigoted slurs. However, while I am not comfortable listing so many such words in this post, it’s completely acceptable to use GMPC as “technical terminology. tl;dr This is intended to be a debate regarding the usage of GMPCs. I presented my argument for them and attempted to refute the arguments against them. Feel free to read, but if you try to counter me by repeating the arguments I initially refuted, it’ll be pretty obvious. Focus on reading Parts 1 through 4.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
quote:the 4X game Fallen Enchantress Fallen Enchantress suuuuuuucked and Stardock's CEO could be grognards.txt superstar all his own, so good.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2014 08:57
|
|
|
quote:Recently I downloaded the pathfinder masterwork tools app to look for content to adapt into 5e. I noticed that several systems are very similar. The level number, the archetype system, the skill system, these are all very similar. Did wotc rip paizo off? Are these systems done better in 5e?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/2p351o/similar_to_pathfinder/ There you go. In fairness he's not really a grog, probably just a new player that isn't familiar with the history.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
quote:Not suggesting anything. If your "normal expected play" is a full analysis of the anatomy of the games roll odds/factors, it's most likely you are in a group of "roll" players, and this is toxic to a game about role playing a character in a dynamic world in a system designed for role playing. quote:Your normal expected play is not a full analysis of the anatomy of rolls. Your normal expected play is to have x bonus at y level. This is a statistical analysis of what having a reasonable bonus at a certain level would result in. Nothing here is being min/maxed. The bonuses given are reasonable bonuses for certain levels, not the maximum bonuses someone could have, but bonuses that are typical of a normal player. The statistical analysis of play is not the play itself. quote:I'm pointing at the guys running the numbers and saying this, not the numbers. It's not at all like the little league. This game system was already created with balance in mind and the numbers have already been run by the creators themselves. To run them, analyse what is best, and agree with it, is "roll" play, and sucks all the fun out of D&D if PLAYED that way.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
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"? I'm rather more astounded that someone cares about goddamn edition warring enough to try to destroy someone else's property.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
quote:I'd like to take a moment to discuss my opinions on what I see are the fundamental shifts in the dungeons & dragons and D&D style games over the last 40 years.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
thelazyblank posted:Some classic grog from 1992. No, wait, December 11th, 2014. I tried, but it's just people wanking over each other on who roleplays harder. Doesn't anyone play elfgames just to have an excuse to shoot the poo poo with friends with a couple of hours and quip wisecracks at each other? === quote:Know the rules. The first expectation a player has of a DM (like any follower of a monotheistic faith has of God) is that he has created a consistent world where the next moment in time will follow logically from the previous. The rules are the framework for that to happen in DnD like physics is the framework for that to happen in the real world. Certainly a DM can use variants, but he needs to explain to the players how he is using a variant. So, for example, since the DMG hit, I've began modifying hps of creatures to be different than what is in the MM, but in accordance with the guidelines for altering within the DMG. So when a player asked how the giant wolf spiders had so many hit points, I can explain it to him and he realizes that I wasn't just loving him over; I was using the rules to make a better encounter.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2014 09:57
|
|
|
paradoxGentleman posted:I mostly play elfgames because I like roleplaying, actually. I can understand how people that feel this way would be irritated by a minmaxer, but hey, as long as everyone's having fun, who gives a poo poo? I'm sorry, I don't mean to say that "playing RPGs to actually roleplay" is a bad thing or that people shouldn't do it, I just meant that some people get so invested in the hobby that they look down on people who'd rather play it "casually" (and also people who want to play it "technically")
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
That's ridiculous! The original / Basic DnD had lots of design going for it. The encumbrance rules, the treasure generation, the time management aspect, the movement rules, the combat abstraction assumptions, the Magic-User restrictions, all of those fit together into a laser-focused game that delivered a very specific experience. poo poo, it's people that don't understand why the game was designed the way it was that we ended up with caster supremacy and the 15 minute workday. Gygax knew that removing (or adding) these rules without regard for their larger context was going to break the system.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2014 12:11
|
|
|
Pulsedragon posted:I know that and you know that, but I was trying to explain the grog view of things. Oh yeah, I know that was you just explaining how the grogs thought - it's just really sad how pervasive this sort of mindset is. "It's okay to have lovely rules because the GM can just paper over them!" "I don't want to think about the mechanics, I'm supposed to be immersed! This is a ROLEPLAYING game!" Never mind the fact that having lovely rules means it's so much harder for me to try and paper over them and it's just going to drive me to other games where the mechanical aspects of content creation comes "for free" and I can focus more on how Bob NewOrc fits into the narrative.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Well you seeee traditional oldschool D&D as enshrined in the d20 SRD... Every other day I see a thread ask "you really can crit Undead now in Next?!"
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2014 07:12
|
|
|
It's just a list - the details are still in the gamebooks. For example, to create an Atruaghin from GAZ14: 1. Roll 4d6-drop-lowest for their STR and CON 2. Roll 4d6-drop-highest for their INT and WIS 3. Roll 3d6 as normal for DEX and CHA 4. Roll a percentile dice to determine your Totem Type and your Totem Diet - roleplaying in accordance with your Totem Spirit will earn you 10-20% more experience 5. Roll 1d4+12 to determine your starting age 6. Roll a percentile dice to determine if your dad is alive/dead, in good/bad health. Repeat for mom and your paternal and maternal grandparents 7. Roll d6-with-exploding-6s to determine how many siblings you have 8. Roll to determine the age of each sibling 9. Roll a percentile dice for each of your siblings to determine if they are alive/dead, in good/bad health There's a lot of additional material in there too such as themed skills and backgrounds and equipment and special roleplaying restrictions per class (Fighters that cannot be skilled in any ranged weapons), it's just buried under a lot of prose.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2014 12:43
|
|
|
quote:Shining platinum-and-chrome New Age engine design principles concealed within a beautiful chassis of polished wood and warm gold accents. Does that count as grog? Backup grog: quote:3.5e Grapple rules. They just need a complete rewrite.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
Jedi425 posted:It's worth noting that he also wrote some of the only tolerable Star Wars EU books, which is quite the accomplishment. Aaron Allston who wrote the RC and Aaron Allston who wrote Wraith Squadron are one and the same?!  Yub yub, Commander 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2014 05:41
|
|
|
Rulebook Heavily posted:AD&D was published with the express intent of standardizing play across groups for tournaments, and modules like Tomb of Horrors were tournament modules. That kind of sounds like an analog version of an MMO raid and being able to swap stories about "oh man, remember how hard Vaelastrasz was?" with anyone who's ever played WoW at that stage.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
quote:No surprise here, there simply weren’t too many games willing to go up against the 500 pound gorilla of tabletop gaming, the venerable Dungeons & Dragons. Besmirched in the minds of many gamers by a divisive Fourth Edition, the Fifth Edition has won back hearts and minds by sticking to the well-trod basics of what D&D is while innovating just enough to please the new generation of gamers. The new D&D focuses on cutting away the cruft of extra rules that the game had accumulated in favor of playing as fast as older editions of the game. With a focus on readable, clear rules and easily understood character options, this might be the fastest playing edition of D&D since 1981, and certainly has as much depth as anything published in between.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
STR values are almost always objective measurements of physical capability anyway: a STR score of x corresponds to a weightlifting capacity of y. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to penalize a woman's statistics so much as implement an upper cap. That is, roll 3d6, but an 18 goes down to a 17, instead of roll 3d6 and -1 to whatever you got. That is of course, if you're already buying into the idea that biotruths is a thing that needs to exist in a fantasy game in the first place. gently caress, somewhere out there there's a grog defending their position with "it's a fantasy game, and in MY fantasy, women are weaker", right?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
I am a new DM and my group is also all new. Ever since game one all they want to do is sodomize or have sex with NPCs. I try and advise them against it because their actions have consequences. They don't care and just want to rape NPCs. What can I do to stop this?quote:Create serious consequences for their actions e.g. the town/city that they are based in soon becomes befouled by crippling STD's and the ones closest to them end up terribly sick/dead. Maybe eventually one of them contracts the disease and the group must go on a quest to find the cure and hopefully along the way realise the gravity of their actions. quote:You know who doesn't usually take kindly to that? Paladins and local law enforcement. quote:Break out FATAL, have one of them lose their roll to bed a tavern girl and find out that she actually has a penis with the circumference of a dinner plate and the length of your average bastard sword. quote:Smurphsyphilis quote:Succubi.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2015 07:57
|
|
|
quote:The fad lasted for a time  The only reason spell points is so out of place in D&D in the first place is because it's a grab bag of tools. If spell casters really were just "magical gatling guns" that just blew up monsters in progressively more interesting ways you wouldn't need to have the trade-offs inherent in making a Wizard choose between Knock and Fireball.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Error 404 posted:So, Ettin wrote a thing, and one of our favorite people wrote an even longer thing. What was the actual thing that Ettin (or moths?) wrote that set her off?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2015 05:30
|
|
|
I think the rate of incidence of the question of "how do I stop the players from being such murderhobos?" and indeed the term "murderhobo" itself means that at least some part of the playing population is able to recognize that they're doing what they're doing purely because they're in a game. Although that does still leave the rest of the hobby's enormous dickbags, but then I don't know how much of an impact that article is going to make to them. EDIT: More Gygaxian (anti?) grog: quote:Thus, besides the systems, I have made every effort to give the reasoning and justification for the game. Of course the ultimate reason and justification is a playable and interesting game, and how much rationalization can actually go into a fantasy game? There is some, at least, as you will see, for if the game is fantasy, there is a basis for much of what is contained herein, even though it be firmly grounded on worlds of make-believe. And while there are no optionals for the major systems of ADVANCED D&D (for uniformity of rules and procedures from game to game, campaign to campaign, is stressed), there are plenty of areas where your own creativity and imagination are not bounded by the parameters of the game system. These are sections where only a few hints and suggestions are given, and the rest left to the DM. What I choose to take away from is that the only reason AD&D has so many rules is because Gygax wanted it to be played in tournaments: you need rules so that two players that both want to swing from the chandelier are going to have the same arbitration across two different tables with two different DMs. Otherwise you're not really supposed to follow any rules that don't fit and come up with new ones yourself. gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Jan 5, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2015 13:49
|
|
|
theironjef posted:I need a primer on Zak S and why everyone hates him and he is crazy. Generally the grog about him is so trenched in lingo that I can't figure out what the issue is. Something something elfgames transtrash desborough tradgames badwrong. This should cover it. Link to a tumblr post
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
I would expect in this day and age that someone would have written an app that could solve for all the dice notations that could produce any given number range.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2015 07:06
|
|
|
I remember the very first time I encountered the xdy notation was playing Might and Magic 6 and I didn't know what the hell it meant. I ended up having to ask Computer Gaming World in an email to their RPG reviewer
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
gently caress, Axethief and Monkhammer sound awesome. I would also submit Kukriranger and Guisarmadin as character concepts.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2015 05:06
|
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:What the everloving gently caress? Leaving aside the questionable decision to use Naruto as a source/reference for D&D, why the hell would anyone think Sasuke casts magic spells? He's got supernatural ninja-powers, sure, but not everything supernatural is a magic spell. Yoda doesn't cast spells. Spider-Man doesn't cast spells. Sasuke doesn't cast spells. Yes, it is. Everything that is beyond purely mortal/physical means is automatically magic of either the arcane or divine kind. This is despite the fact that Gygax himself wrote a bunch of paragraphs on saving throws about how the player-characters can pull off all sorts of superhuman feats just because they're heroes, without having to tie it back to some magical justification. And 3E even has the "Ex" tag for Extraordinary Abilities, which are, and I quote "do not qualify as magical, though they may break the laws of physics"
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2015 14:27
|
|
|
Otisburg posted:Hence the prevalent grogthink of "fighters get SPELLS now" regarding 4e because they couldn't conceive of a paradigm where limited use ability resource management went to anyone not in a pointy hat. I wonder if you could make any headway out of comparing Next's Fighter Battle Master to a Sorceror as a dumbing down/babyfication of the game.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2015 14:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 05:18 |
|
|
quote:You worry too much. And too much about things that don't matter, at all. Emphasis verbatim
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2015 19:15
|
|