View Profile: Ovinomancer - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Friday, 17th May, 2019, 05:38 PM
    Well. This happened.
    47 replies | 1055 view(s)
    3 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Monday, 13th May, 2019, 03:44 PM
    When did "control over PC thoughts" turn into "on the character sheet?"
    575 replies | 19993 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Friday, 10th May, 2019, 05:40 PM
    Well, the "case" presented rests on a devil signatory putting forth a technicality because it serves its interests. That would be the lynchpin. You could go to court to argue it, but would need a good argument and support, so that's the adventure. Or, you could offer to get the claimant to withdraw by either intimidation or by giving it another way towards its goals. Or, you break into the...
    22 replies | 809 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Friday, 10th May, 2019, 04:41 PM
    As a twist, the Marut have mobilized to stop the mucking around with the planned order by the multi-wishing wizard, but cannot enter Ioun's demense. So long as the wizard friend is imprisoned, the forces of order cannot "correct" them. Freeing the wizard without dealing with the Marut probem would be... challenging. Possible reason the Marut are engaged could be an ancient contract between...
    22 replies | 809 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Thursday, 9th May, 2019, 11:10 PM
    A timely cartoon.
    60 replies | 1942 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    2 replies | 152 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Tuesday, 7th May, 2019, 10:45 PM
    Hmm. Thanks, no thanks.
    575 replies | 19993 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Tuesday, 7th May, 2019, 12:40 PM
    Again, you example of iii) isn't the "rekaxation" you suppose. Further, just because you find it difficult to concueve doesn't mean much, as per your contemporary example of biases in thinking about social sciences. Another example of this is your claim that the 5e rules require ii) to be false. Come on, man, look past your personal biases. I know these games (like 5e) absolutely frustrate...
    575 replies | 19993 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Tuesday, 7th May, 2019, 12:29 PM
    Thus seems like you're trying to smear one thing into another. On one hand, there's the limited authority of the player to use ingame resources to acquire equipment that is persistent until expended. On the other, there's a suggestion that a player can freely add to the environment new fictional elements that modify the GM's narration of scene. Your argument seems to be a smearing of the...
    575 replies | 19993 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Tuesday, 7th May, 2019, 12:15 PM
    Do me a favor and leave me out of your gotcha posts against other posters. Thanks.
    575 replies | 19993 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Tuesday, 7th May, 2019, 12:03 PM
    But, we've been repeatedly told that even a crude or bad model increases realism! How can more realism also be nonesense? As I noted, it's been clear for some time that there are additional unstated requirements and that this is where the subjectiveness is hiding.
    2689 replies | 84909 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Monday, 6th May, 2019, 08:03 PM
    It sounds pretty much like what's been presented as telegraphing. If the players can guess that this is area is likely trapped, then... what do you think is the difference?
    1672 replies | 59229 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Monday, 6th May, 2019, 08:00 PM
    Why am I getting quote notifications ftom 5ekyu when he's on my block list?
    1672 replies | 59229 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Monday, 6th May, 2019, 07:39 PM
    So... you telegraph the traps?
    1672 replies | 59229 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Monday, 6th May, 2019, 07:15 PM
    I don't think defining realism by opportunity for possible future improvement is at all useful. Especially as this state exists for non-modeled things as well as crudely modeled things. You could have a model for "wind" that refuels the airplane, frex, which is a very bad model of "wind" such that it's actually worse than no wind for anything traceable to wind. This means there's either some...
    2689 replies | 84909 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Sunday, 5th May, 2019, 04:05 PM
    You recognize that "improve" is entirely subjective, yeah?
    2689 replies | 84909 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Saturday, 4th May, 2019, 01:40 AM
    Heh, could happen to me. At least two of my players have accounts and occasionally (rarely?) visit, but I've no clue what their usernanes are. They may know mine, though. I'd say I'd welcome the input, but at least one of them would really enjoy trolling the heck outta me and recounting it at the next game.
    1672 replies | 59229 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Saturday, 4th May, 2019, 01:34 AM
    Alternatively, if you add disease to a mosel but it's completely wrong, like, say, the modelled disease is a 53% hourly chance you turn into an elephant if you live at an even-numbered address, then it's addition reduces realism by a greater degree than adding the concept of disease could increase it. So, all your points plus bad models are just bad. A bad model can be very much worse than no...
    2689 replies | 84909 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Saturday, 4th May, 2019, 01:30 AM
    Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot. Lemme unpack this. "Realism" is added. This is objectively true, realism has increased. Someone sees this addition as not realism, but they are wrong and have made an error of perception because the realism increase is objectively true. But, because perception is greater than reality or objective realism, there is now a decrease in realism.
    2689 replies | 84909 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Friday, 3rd May, 2019, 07:59 PM
    I disagree strongly with this assessment of the usual roll needed. The CR system means that parties are often facing solo or duo threats that are significantly more likely to land attacks or threats that have smaller bonuses but are nunerically superior. It also ignores that many parties have a large disparity in ACs, usually larger than the sweet spot is wide. I find this to be a flawed...
    79 replies | 35750 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Friday, 3rd May, 2019, 12:40 AM
    Well, as I said, it's technically incorrect. For starters, you can't map a triangular distribution to a flat bonus without losing lots of information (which you are). Secondly, the impact is not the same. If the disad target needed an 16 to hit you, shield makes you unhittable except on a crit, but disadvantage does not (it reduces your chance of being hit from 4/20 to 16/400, or from 20% to...
    79 replies | 35750 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Friday, 3rd May, 2019, 12:02 AM
    Former.
    79 replies | 35750 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Thursday, 2nd May, 2019, 11:31 PM
    It does not do this. I do wish I could completely stomp this out. It's not just technically wrong, it's also just misleading.
    79 replies | 35750 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Thursday, 2nd May, 2019, 06:15 PM
    Oh, I see the game now. You aren't naming people so you can technically claim you aren't talking about someone-specific's play. One wonders, then, what playstyle are you contrasting here when you say, "I don't have a problem with "? Clearly no playstyle, but that then renders your post unintelligible as your contrasting make believe against your preferred play. In shorter words: don't buy...
    1672 replies | 59229 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Thursday, 2nd May, 2019, 05:01 PM
    This post is a good example of you not inderstanding what's being presented. Minor obstacles are quickly dealt with in my games because they don't require a check at all -- you almost always succeed outright. And play isn't: DM: what's your goal?@ Player: um, get to the top of the wall. DM: what's your approach?! Player: I climb it? DM: okay, you can pass. Next up is Bob the Fighter. ...
    1672 replies | 59229 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Thursday, 2nd May, 2019, 04:45 PM
    I addressed this issue in the parts if the post you snipped. ;) Fundamentally, there's a scope difference between introducing off-screen fiction (Uncle Bob told me about trolls) and establishing fiction present in the current scene. As I said in the various MMI threads, 5e is a GM-authority-centered game. As such, introduction of fiction into a scene is the GM's authority, not the player's. ...
    575 replies | 19993 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Thursday, 2nd May, 2019, 12:14 PM
    Sorry, fat fingered the laugh button. Please consider that xp.
    176 replies | 4707 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Thursday, 2nd May, 2019, 12:11 PM
    I get what you're aiming at here, I just question why you're doing so, or maybe why you're coming at the issue so obliquely. 5e is not a system that can provide your preferred experience, although some pieces of it do well. Now that I see what you were aiming at with your example I think there's some daylight between being able to "control what the PC thinks and does" and your example. ...
    575 replies | 19993 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Thursday, 2nd May, 2019, 10:51 AM
    The context doesn't do this, though. Yes... that's what I said it said. Are you doing okay, Max?
    2689 replies | 84909 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Thursday, 2nd May, 2019, 04:51 AM
    As I read it, that was the big takeaway -- the rest of the 'context' was explaining this sentence. You've clearly said that you do not care what subjective experience on if an addition adds realism or not, because you can categorically say that there's an objective realism added outside of subjective opinion. Nothing immature happened here except maybe your reaction to having your thesis...
    2689 replies | 84909 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Thursday, 2nd May, 2019, 04:46 AM
    There are a number of mechanics whereby they can, in greater or lesser degrees. Not in the sense that they're suddenly up against a higher tier, but as a consequence to a string of failed actions this is absolutely possible. I haven't considered it, but it's also possible for the GM to set a clock on a mission that might increase the Tier of the opposition, if it makes sense to do so in...
    575 replies | 19993 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Thursday, 2nd May, 2019, 04:10 AM
    Yep, I'm totally uninterested in engaging in a discussion where your basis for argument is that players are largely incapable of grasping the game and need to be coddled within your preferred style. Enjoy!
    575 replies | 19993 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Thursday, 2nd May, 2019, 04:07 AM
    Huh, you're describing a very different game that the one I've heard about. I've not had the pleasure of reading up on Mouseguard, but I've heard very good things. I did read Burning Wheel, many years ago, and failed to understand it at the time. I should give it another look now that I've got a better grasp of the play it's meant to create.
    575 replies | 19993 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Thursday, 2nd May, 2019, 04:05 AM
    No, you're a bit off, here. The GM has to be open about how and why he's picking position and effect, and the Tier level is selected by the players as part of their choice of who to run their Score against, so it's not a freely set kind of thing. Also, I'm not sure that "difficulty" is the right term, because we were discussing probability of success -- which is fixed in Blades. The other...
    575 replies | 19993 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Thursday, 2nd May, 2019, 03:05 AM
    I think you may be unaware of a number of games where what occurs is solely generated in play, at the table. The GM has no "plan" and is playing to find out what happens alongside the players. This kind of game puts a lot more burden on the players to bring the game, but often generates exciting content. It does this by making the characters have strong traits and goals that the GM can then...
    575 replies | 19993 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Thursday, 2nd May, 2019, 02:58 AM
    And, as I have a moment more to go back to this post and discuss your conjecture that such a game would devolve. This is actually well discussed as the Czerge Principle, and comes in when a player can both set the problem and propose the solution. It's most often avoided in games that allow the players the latitude to make such declarations by the reason you cite for Mouseguard -- the DM sets...
    575 replies | 19993 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Thursday, 2nd May, 2019, 02:47 AM
    I believe Burning Wheel has these mechanics. And, generally, no, the difficulty is usually fixed with the weighting I described above. The PbtA games are adjacent to this, although somewhat more codified. In Blades in the Dark, for instance, players can actually establish similar things as attempted actions. The "difficulty" of the roll is fixed -- you roll your d6 pool (usually 2 or 3) and...
    575 replies | 19993 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Thursday, 2nd May, 2019, 02:17 AM
    Actually, there are a number of RPGs that this kind of declaration is possible in, without the use of plot point tokens. The GM can either say yes, or challenge the assertion by asking for a roll. Usually, these games have tiered results, with success, success with complication, and failure as usual outcomes. On a success, the GM is obligated to acknowledge the success and adhere to it. On a...
    575 replies | 19993 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Wednesday, 1st May, 2019, 05:07 PM
    I think this is malformed: you're asking if this action declaration violates a principle of the DM not controlling characters thoughts before establishing that the action declaration violates established norms on who has this authorial control. In other words, we can even reach your last question before resolving the authorial control one. And, simply, in 5e the GM has this authority, the...
    575 replies | 19993 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Wednesday, 1st May, 2019, 02:19 PM
    This is a bit rich, given the number of material misrepresentations and erroneous assumptions you've made on this. I mean, becoming irate because you recently may have some understanding kinda ignores the slightly less recent past. A past where you declared you understood as well while still making the gross misrepresentations. I find your protest to be unmoving, especially in the face of...
    1672 replies | 59229 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Wednesday, 1st May, 2019, 11:43 AM
    Hmm. In 5e I suppose it would have to depend on what already established fictions are. Assuming it fits that fiction, I'd probably go with a 4; if it doesn't fit, it's a 2. In Blades, 3 would be my choice, possibly leveraging the flashback mechanic depending on significance.
    575 replies | 19993 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Wednesday, 1st May, 2019, 11:29 AM
    Sorry, agreeing. There's more out there than the remaining posters in this thread.
    1672 replies | 59229 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Wednesday, 1st May, 2019, 11:01 AM
    This last bit. The conjecture that only those that agree understand is wild confirmation bias. Only those that agree will bother to defend the style, generally. It should be noted that there's really only a double-handful of posters active in this thread, which has largely separated into two loose camps. Drawing any broader conclusion from this is ridiculous.
    1672 replies | 59229 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Wednesday, 1st May, 2019, 12:44 AM
    I'm not sure what you mean by a flattening effect, but the way ad/disad works is that if you already have a decent chance of success, it makes that chance much better (advantage) or if you already had a small chance, it makes that chance even less likely (disadvantage). The converse might tend to "flatten" as a good chance of success is moved to a moderate chance with disadvantage and vice...
    43 replies | 1940 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Wednesday, 1st May, 2019, 12:39 AM
    I'm sure he will, but it seems obvious that the inclusion of the quote was to establish that separating task from conflict resolution leads to issues. You make this same point in your post, so surely you also had this reason? That's another misapprehension. The setting up of new possibilities in the fiction, in this case losing a hand of poker, may lead to future contests that leverage...
    43 replies | 1940 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Tuesday, 30th April, 2019, 11:30 PM
    Oho, so now even your way of posting is better than ours! Poe's Law Disclaimer: the above is intended as humorous satire. Any resemblance to honestly held views is intentional.
    1672 replies | 59229 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Tuesday, 30th April, 2019, 07:37 PM
    You're attacking the example of how things can go wrong, not what pemerton is advocating. Well, this is like saying that dealing successfully with the trap on the door to the bbeg lair isn't resolving the bbeg. It's asking for too much horse for the cart. Knowing the liquid is important is plenty sufficient to knowing you don't want to spill it. In the style of play pemerton is...
    43 replies | 1940 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Tuesday, 30th April, 2019, 03:56 PM
    Snipped all but this last as I only have comment here. 5e actually fights back as a system if you try to fully embrace this. The resolution mechanics in 5e differ from both AD&D (which had none asude from 'roll under stat') and 4e (which used the system such that expected chance for success/failure remained pretty static). 5e's bounded accuracy and largely defined DC structure...
    43 replies | 1940 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Tuesday, 30th April, 2019, 12:22 PM
    When was the last time, in your game, someone said "shucks! I was going to bring but didn't have room for it?" Every time in my games it wasn't because it couldn't be sqeezed into someone's inventory but because it was not thought of. So, no, I don't see your corollary to be very telling at all. D&D has always been loose with emcumberance because it's a gane that has a "bring the kitchen...
    2689 replies | 84909 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Tuesday, 30th April, 2019, 03:53 AM
    As an add, when people respond to the goal and approach by claiming that you can pass off a low CHA-no-social-skill character because you, as a player, can talk well, you've completely missed the point. I'm not judging how you acted out your goal and approach, I'm judging your goal and approach. If you talk in flowery words, that's your approach -- "I use flowery words at the king to get him to...
    575 replies | 19993 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Tuesday, 30th April, 2019, 03:39 AM
    Sorry, but are you actually saying that a professional at exploring unknown places and fighting monsters cannot have relevant experience to make good plans on possible gear? Because I related an anecdote that, as a professional, I know my job pretty well and have done extensive planning such that I'm very, very rarely caught offguard by surprises at jobsites, which often happen to be very far...
    2689 replies | 84909 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Monday, 29th April, 2019, 08:54 PM
    As a professional who must engage in travel to do my job, I very rarely find I lack a tool to overcome an issue onsite. We take drills, hardware, test equipment, etc. Long experience informs our packout. Assuming my character has long similar experience with their job and can reasonably plan ahead, I don't know why I as a player should akso have such experience. As such, I do not at all agree...
    2689 replies | 84909 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Monday, 29th April, 2019, 08:14 PM
    Well, it appears this is incorrect, as a zero stone Thanos appears to be capable of the same feats a multi-stone Thanos could do without the visual tells of stones activating. I mean, we could argue this, but I'd have to wonder if you're looking for consistency in the movie or just defending your prior assumptions. Hulk and Tony both also had moments where they looked to be infused with...
    176 replies | 4707 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Monday, 29th April, 2019, 07:29 PM
    There's a visual tell whenever a power stone is used. Thanos doesn't use it against Hulk, and is prevented from doing so against the ambush (until he isn't). Everything without a glow-y stone effect is just Thanos.
    176 replies | 4707 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Monday, 29th April, 2019, 01:23 PM
    Thanos pretty effortlessly beats the Hulk in IW, then goes on to almost beat the Stark/Strange/Spidey/GotG team ambush without the stones. Using the stones has a visible tell fir each stone -- everything else is straight up Thanos.
    176 replies | 4707 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Monday, 29th April, 2019, 11:40 AM
    But there is planning beforehand in both. It's a matter of play focus if that planning is something the player does at the table or the character does before the score, not "authenticity" or "realism". It's a play preference, not one of "realism." Switching to "authenticity" is just more hiding the pea. As many of these things your talking about are narrativist tools, I feel that,...
    2689 replies | 84909 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Saturday, 27th April, 2019, 03:13 PM
    Yes to all.
    68 replies | 2216 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Saturday, 27th April, 2019, 03:09 PM
    Yup. Prefering this kind of sim play is cool, but it doesn't make the fiction any more "realistic". You can do this and still have unrealistic outcomes (the fighter that survives the fireball but none of his gear does, frex). "Realism" doesn't depend on a specific mode of play. This has been the point since the OP.
    2689 replies | 84909 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Saturday, 27th April, 2019, 04:18 AM
    Yep. I've repeatedly found that my players really drive hard to finding/buying/crafting a bag of holding in D&D so that they can skip over the inventory mini-game. I find it very odd that the game devotes so much page space to items weights and sizes and to encumbrance rules (5e has two separate encumbrance options!) only to add an item that makes such things largely pointless. I mean, you...
    2689 replies | 84909 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Saturday, 27th April, 2019, 03:00 AM
    Whereas I feel the same way about you and LowKey13. You refuse to pick up what's being put down. I get both of your arguments because I used to make them myself. There are quite a few threads from around 3 or more years ago where I'm arguing your current position. I came to realize I had a very, very narrow view of gaming. Max, you've said that you engage in dishonest posting when...
    2689 replies | 84909 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Saturday, 27th April, 2019, 02:54 AM
    Have you forgotten how to just play pretend? Kids pretend "attacks" all the time with no mechanics. You're only saying that attacks cannot exist without mechanics because you're mired in a rigid way of thinking about games. Again, it's more than fine to prefer such ways of thinking, but you should have enough of an open mind to recognize that your preference is not the only way possible. ...
    2689 replies | 84909 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Friday, 26th April, 2019, 05:31 PM
    Oh, good grief. This childish sniping across multiple threads is, well, childish.
    1672 replies | 59229 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Friday, 26th April, 2019, 04:15 PM
    But, it's kinda not. The gear mechanic is very tightly tied into all the other mechanics such that, while it may appear super loose, it generates many hard choices as well and isn't nearly as loose in play as it looks in isolation. But, that aside, your objection isn't one of "realism" but rather play focus. You may prefer the detailed planning and gearing and detailed encumberance, but...
    2689 replies | 84909 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Friday, 26th April, 2019, 02:35 PM
    Well, no, it won't provide useful results because it's pretty flawed. It may, however, provide you with some biased support for your hidden objective, and it does seem intentionally crafted to do this using leading language and options not suited to the question asked. It appears likely you will be able to get the answers you desire, especially since all but one of the options is in the 95%...
    106 replies | 3769 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Friday, 26th April, 2019, 02:30 PM
    I think you could go either way on that -- depends on a ruling. You, however, went for ties for the skilled on expertise but for the unskilled on just proficiency. Easy mistake, I missed it, too. ;)
    106 replies | 3769 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Friday, 26th April, 2019, 02:22 PM
    It's a tad stronger than that. I'm saying you can only evaluate it in the fiction. The process cannot be realistic. This leads into... This is a good example. If we consider how the BitD example works vs "traditional" play, then, in the fiction, both have detailed planning, both have encumberance factors for gear brought, and both have these two things pay off when the right equipment...
    2689 replies | 84909 view(s)
    4 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Friday, 26th April, 2019, 11:35 AM
    Um... you are missing something. You missed the point that the math for the question you asked is a probability density function and doesn't map onto what you asked. The math says all but one of your options is within the 2 standard deviation marks of the pdf. As for the error you cite, you are correct. I noted that Unger's +12 ignored ties abd assumed he'd done the same for +6. It was...
    106 replies | 3769 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Friday, 26th April, 2019, 04:13 AM
    Again, nope. I disagree with his fundamental premise, in that I do not think he successfully defined "realism" except to hide the existing ambiguity behind another layer. His definition does nothing to improve the discussion because the same problems with it exists as before his definition. That I didn't go on to address the points he rests on this premise doesn't mean I ignored his post -- I...
    2689 replies | 84909 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Friday, 26th April, 2019, 04:05 AM
    But, have you done the right math? I have to ask because your poll doesn't make sense at all given the actual math involved in the question. Not that your options are off, but that they don't even make any sense. If you had asked, "on average, how many times..." that would make sense with your options, but you asked "out of 20 rolls" which does not. This is because "on average" has certain...
    106 replies | 3769 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Friday, 26th April, 2019, 03:15 AM
    I find if of little surprise that a fervently argued position that happens to support your preferences was warmly welcomed by you. And, he's not at all right, although that would conflict with your assumed worldview, so I have as little hope that this opinion would ever change, either. You should realize that no one in this thread is attacking your play, nor are they even close to saying your...
    2689 replies | 84909 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Friday, 26th April, 2019, 01:41 AM
    Heh. Ironic was intended. Pee jokes are still funny, though. :)
    2689 replies | 84909 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Friday, 26th April, 2019, 01:40 AM
    This is weird. I didn't mention anything at all about your little tussle with Sep, so I'm not really clear why you feel the need to be defensive about it (or mention it more). Since you do seem to be keen to bring it up, I can only say that it took two to tango, there, and you didn't cover yourself in laurels, either. Again, weird, as I did engage with what you wrote, twice now. Did I...
    2689 replies | 84909 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Thursday, 25th April, 2019, 04:24 PM
    Being charitable about both your eliding my full sentence and the urinic complaint of snark... You didn't actually offer a definition, though, you just moved the pea. The complaint was that "realism" was too vague to be useful; it was ambiguous. You're responded by defining realism in ambiguous terms and then declaring the problem solved because "realism" was now defined. You just moved the...
    2689 replies | 84909 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Thursday, 25th April, 2019, 01:09 PM
    You think that was a measurable definition? It fails in your immediate example, as items being destroyed by random chance is a subjective opinion as to more closely resembling real life vice items not being destroyed by random chance. Or, more bluntly, your proposed definition is not an improvement over defining "realism" as "matches my arbitrary preferences." No one has a problem with...
    2689 replies | 84909 view(s)
    3 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Thursday, 25th April, 2019, 12:04 PM
    Sorry, but why do you believe early playtest material is at all relevant to 5e rules? This would be like claiming THAC0 is relevant to 5e because it's part of an "earlier playtest". If you want to discuss 5e, you should do that. If you want to discuss the playtest, you should do that.
    1672 replies | 59229 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Thursday, 25th April, 2019, 03:09 AM
    That's a lot of words without an actual definition of realism, or how to measure it, what with it being so easily and commonly understood.
    2689 replies | 84909 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Wednesday, 24th April, 2019, 08:16 PM
    I believe I have deduced the underlying problem to our disagreements...
    1672 replies | 59229 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Wednesday, 24th April, 2019, 03:36 PM
    Apparently, Max's term for an argument he doesn't understand is "Red Herring." Max, my BitD example showcases that there are things you've defined as more "realistic" that can occur with no mechanical system added to do so. The point is that these "realistic" things come to be in the game fiction, not that there's more or less realism than in other systems. I mean, my argument all along is...
    2689 replies | 84909 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Wednesday, 24th April, 2019, 12:13 PM
    Agree BitD is more realistic? Nope. It doesn't have to do any of the above -- it's just possible to do without adding any new mechanics. There's a dufference between process and resultant fictions. "Realism," to me, can only be judged at the fiction, not the process. However, all of your arguments so far about adding "realism" have been about adding additional processes. I'm pointing...
    2689 replies | 84909 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Wednesday, 24th April, 2019, 11:42 AM
    I do not. Blades in the Dark, fir example, has no AC mechanic at all, much less any specific mechanics for combat that are in any way different from sneaking past a guard. Yet, you can have broken or damaged weapons, sucking chest wounds, minor scratches, and many other interesting and "realistic" outcomes of a fight with deadly weapons. 5e, for example, has detailed, combat specific rules,...
    2689 replies | 84909 view(s)
    4 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Wednesday, 24th April, 2019, 12:16 AM
    https://youtu.be/9C4uTEEOJlM I think this will probably end the same way, though....
    1672 replies | 59229 view(s)
    0 XP
No More Results
About Ovinomancer

Basic Information

Date of Birth
October 28
About Ovinomancer
Location:
Charleston, SC

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
4,353
Posts Per Day
0.78
Last Post
If there's one game where stat differences are justified, what game would that be? Friday, 17th May, 2019 05:38 PM

Currency

Gold Pieces
2
General Information
Last Activity
Today 12:12 PM
Join Date
Monday, 16th February, 2004
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0
Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast

Monday, 20th May, 2019


Sunday, 19th May, 2019


Friday, 17th May, 2019


Wednesday, 15th May, 2019


Friday, 10th May, 2019


Thursday, 9th May, 2019


Wednesday, 8th May, 2019


Tuesday, 7th May, 2019



Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast
Page 1 of 11 12345678910 ... LastLast

Friday, 10th May, 2019

  • 05:20 PM - robus mentioned Ovinomancer in post Blowing up my campaign
    @Ovinomancer - I do love the idea that as soon as they liberate the wizard for this one infraction, he's immediately arrested by the Marut for meddling with the timeline. It has taken all this time for them to track down who caused the schism. :) A nice twist to lead into a level 20 adventure. Edit: Though I've no idea what that entails... a court case as you say is the most logical outcome, but that would go down like a ton of bricks. So I think it would have to be a prison break/heist thing (and perhaps the wizard wishes himself a duplicate that can do the time... :) ) Or perhaps the group would just wash their hands of him and say he deserves it!

Wednesday, 1st May, 2019

  • 11:45 AM - pemerton mentioned Ovinomancer in post Stakes and consequences in action resolution
    ...hat if my chance of success is 1 in 20, then advantage nearly doubles that (39/400 is near enough to 1 in 10); while if my chance is already good, then advantage doesn't increase it as much (eg if its 50/50 it goes to 3 in 4, which is only 50% more likely; if its 4 in 5 then it goes to 24/25, which is only 20% more likely). But if I'm following properly, the general experience is that doubling a small chance doesn't, in practice, make much difference (eg because those checks don't come up often enough for the doubling to show through) while the more modest increase in to big chances does make a difference (eg because those checks come up a fair bit and already weren't too likely to fail and now are even less likely). You mean 'Bounded Accuracy?' Or the nominal easy/hard/etc guidelines?The two in combination, I think, because its the relationship between bonuses and DCs that determines the prospects of success, which matter to the viability of conflict resolution for the reasons Ovinomancer has given. Thinking through some more maths: Suppose a DC of 15 and a bonus of +1. Then the chance of success is 7 in 20, but with advantage is 231/400, or about 11.5 in 20. The latter sort of odds is enough to support conflict resolution in Burning Wheel, but the result is that the players (and their PCs) do fail a lot and hence the play experience can be pretty demanding on them. And demanding on the GM too, because it puts a lot of pressure on the GM to effectively narrate failures. I think D&D (and I include 4e here) has never provided a lot of support to the GM in narrating failure effectively. I don't have a good sense of how much better 5e might be in this respect, but if the general tendency in play is to incline towards making checks with significantly better than 50/50 odds then maybe it doesn't come up too much? I think this also touches on another corollary to your posts, that task -> conflict resolution, when well coupled, doesn't imply that a successful task ...
  • 03:53 AM - AbdulAlhazred mentioned Ovinomancer in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    ...in effect limit the GM as to how many different-gear-requiring types of obstacles she can put in the way, or is a truly nasty GM allowed to put in 8 or more and thus guarantee failure? EDIT TO ADD: Another aspect is information. The BitD version seems to assume that if the character happens to have some meat on hand then the character knew there was (or could be) a dog involved. The D&D version allows for this information to either have been a) kept intentionally hidden or b) be available to discover but outright missed during the research-and-casing phase. To me this makes the D&D version more authentic in that the character can make a mistake or be caught by an oversight. I'm far from an expert on BitD, but I would think there are 2 relevant comments here. One is that it may well have many other subsystems which provide ways to produce the things you're asking about. I know it has 'stress' and some other types of currency, as well as an SC-like (in some ways) mechanic. I'm sure Ovinomancer will tell you about how these work. The other thing though, is that maybe this is the type of story the game is aimed at. No game is good for everything. It is very difficult to do some types of fairly obvious stories in D&D, at least without them seeming very contrived, unless you subscribe to some unusual interpretations of hit points and other things. Finally, this is not by any means the last word in possible mechanics of this ilk. Looking at my own game, HoML, I don't find any trouble in having things happen in various ways, even though most of the things that do happen have some kind of dynamic associated with them where the players can 'change the situation', much in the way that BitD allows you to choose a piece of gear when you need it. These actions all have consequences. For instance a player could expend their Inspiration to have their PC come up with a piece of gear, but then it is spent, and getting it back will require leveraging a character attribute in an unfavorabl...

Sunday, 28th April, 2019

  • 03:26 AM - AbdulAlhazred mentioned Ovinomancer in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    ...can't really be quantified for the reasons I've given, but they can tell if something is becoming more or less realistic. But, if you read the posts earlier discussing the way BitD introduces an element into the game via its architecture and mechanics which could be seen as more realistic, but where that realism is in terms of 'authenticity of the narrated outcome' vs 'authenticity of the process' (which Lanefan argued for) then you must know that at least these two deeply differing sorts of realism exist, and yet not everyone seems to recognize them, or consider them to be effective at increasing authenticity. It is really just not as simple as 'subsystem X which arbitrates injection of element Y into the game, where element Y exists in the real world is the definition of realism and everyone recognizes that'. Where that true, then your criticisms, or those of lowkey13 etc. would all be super accurate, but they're not because there really truly is no one single agreement about this. Ovinomancer cares about reality of outcomes, but Lanefan cares about process (and I assume he would say that outcomes take care of themselves to some degree).

Saturday, 27th April, 2019

  • 02:40 AM - Maxperson mentioned Ovinomancer in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    ...g my head permanent this time. I appreciate that you recognize that. :) Sure thing! They do the same thing to me, so I know what you're talking about. I'm just a bit more stubborn than you are about this sort of thing. :) Anyway, I apologize if you thought I was indicating that people were bullying you; I really was using that as an analogy in that prior post, and you have shown you are more than capable of standing up for yourself (as shown in this thread!). I do think that there is something distasteful with a group of people that have an insular and (not necessarily) widely-shared opinion taking turns being, at times, rude and dismissive* to a fellow forum member and then bolstering each other with XP; that's what I meant when I wrote that "the majority of people looking at this thread will just see a circular firing squad of people high-fiving each other without cause." I didn't think you were saying that they were bullying me, so no worries. I was My response was to Ovinomancer who was equating the analogy with the accusation of bullying. It was to let him know that I wasn't taking it the same way he was. Anyway, whether it's called "more realistic" or "more authentic" or "more asdwfnksaedjk," I have always preferred a level of abstraction in my games and favored fast gameplay over simulation/realism; that's why I played a stripped-down 1e and pretty much checked out when they published the DSG and WSG. I personally think it would be helpful to, instead of concentrating on this sole issue, to discuss how different goals in TTRPGs have to balanced against each other, and different goals have different costs; something which is familiar in almost every endeavor. I agree, which is why I have repeatedly said here that while I enjoy more realism than 5e has at it's core, I won't engage realism to the point where the players' enjoyment of the game starts to suffer. It might be interesting to even ask whether the weighting of realism/simulation has cha...

Friday, 26th April, 2019

  • 11:43 AM - Sadras mentioned Ovinomancer in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    ...ure up differing mechanics which are attempting to do the same thing (AC versus Absorption for instance). it does come down to subjectivity. Would you agree though, for the sake of the argument, if we look at D&D solely and said the next edition of D&D will either have an AC mechanic (as it does now) or every attack will be considered successful, no die roll required. If you have to compare those two scenarios - is one more realistic/authentic than the other or do you feel that still comes down to preferences: those that wish to role dice and those that don't. Personally I feel at this point it cannot be just preferences and that there is a case for insert preferred buzzword, either wearing armour protects your character in some way, however abstract, or it is just cosmetic. SYNOPSIS My conversation starter was AC vs No AC which is more real. @Aldarc suggested its preferences as you cannot measure what is more real between AC vs Absorption mechanic. Mostly dealt with above. @Ovinomancer said he would measure more realism at the fiction level not via processes and described a 'GM decides' game which inputs realistic results via GM narration. Have to give this more thought. @hawkeyefan is ok with the terminology more realism except when measuring system vs system, a little similar to Aldarc as he follows the line of preferences which I understand, but probably no surprise to him, I disagree with the BitD example he used - it is TOTALLY gamist and we probably won't agree. In this specific instance I would probably side with Max. @AbdulAlhazred returns to the semantic debate and prefers the term more authentic giving his reasons for the use of either term as he views it. I may not agree entirely, but my interest does not lie in the semantic debate. I'm ok with the term more authentic as I've said many times, I was using the more realism term as a shorthand for a great many things. @pemerton reiterates everyone else's point in his first two replies (which is whe...

Thursday, 25th April, 2019

  • 04:27 AM - pemerton mentioned Ovinomancer in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    Blades in the Dark, fir example, has no AC mechanic at all, much less any specific mechanics for combat that are in any way different from sneaking past a guard. Yet, you can have broken or damaged weapons, sucking chest wounds, minor scratches, and many other interesting and "realistic" outcomes of a fight with deadly weapons. 5e, for example, has detailed, combat specific rules, yet generates none of these things. Which is the more "realistic"? You seem to be focused on game processes being the way to introduce "realism". I disagree this is appropriate. There's a dufference between process and resultant fictions. "Realism," to me, can only be judged at the fiction, not the process. However, all of your arguments so far about adding "realism" have been about adding additional processes. I'm pointing out that process is not required for "realism." Sadras, Ovinomancer here is saying to you much the same things as I said to Maxperson upthread. I didn't mention BitD, as I don't play that game - I mentioned Prince Valiant, Cortex+ Heroic and BW as games that permit these various things through a mixture of processes (especially important in BW) and GM narration of consequences - which is my guess as to how it is handled in BitD. (If that guess is wrong then hawkeyefan or Ovinomancer can correct me.) Isn't the shorthand for this realism. Will you be happy with more authentic? more immersive? more RL illusionary? more dramatic? I mean looking for a better description/buzz-word is just playing silly buggers...It's not just playing silly buggers - the fact that you think it is means that maybe you've missed AbdulAlhazred's point. That point was the following: one effect of the AD&D DMG disease system may be that a PC, on some occasion of play, suffers a disease which debilitates him/her for a little while. And that may increase the player...

Wednesday, 24th April, 2019

  • 01:33 PM - Maxperson mentioned Ovinomancer in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    ...games perform a similar function with different mechanics. Some games use counter combat rolls. The DM rolls (defense/combat) and the player rolls (defense/combat), and the success of the attack is in the difference. Is that more or less realistic than AC? Other games have the player roll defense, whether using dice polls or defeating a static difficulty number. Is that more realistic than AC? Many systems use armor as damage absorption/reduction. Is that more or less realistic than AC? I can't say for certain, because this does not fundamentally strike me as a debate on realism, but, rather, a debate on gaming preferences and aesthetics rather than some silly, vacuous notion of realism being on a scale, which unsurprisingly seems to having moving goalposts and arbitrary standards. The "realism scale" has as much "meat" as talking about the invisible hand of the market, the leviathan of the state, the state of nature, or the social contract of governance. This and the response from Ovinomancer are Red Herrings. It's irrelevant which one is more realistic. You can't point to a different system that adds realism to combat and ask "Which is more realistic?" as a reason to answer that 5e's system is not realistic. It's just a deflection. Even though Blades in the Dark has a different system that adds realism to its game, 5e's combat system still adds realism to the game. Which system is more realistic is irrelevant. IMHO, "Realism" has more to do with the game fiction than the mechanics, though the mechanics may attempt to support and reinforce that fiction. Realism has to do with both the game fiction AND the mechanics. Where there are mechanics and those mechanics interact with the game fiction, those mechanics must match the game fiction or you get nonsense. If you have a bow in the game fiction and use it, the mechanics must allow for ranged attacks and shooting. I think that cultural tradition has largely given the AC mechanic a post hoc justification...

Friday, 19th April, 2019

  • 07:29 AM - pemerton mentioned Ovinomancer in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    ...d the wizard has to start declaring melee attacks. At some point in this rambling conversation it was brought up that players who would worry about failing a roll and making a situation worse would simply choose not to roll. They would remain neutral as a counter to the consequences of failure. So, it was proposed, that there should not only be consequences for failure, but consequences for doing nothing. So, exactly what I said. Consequence for failing and consequence for doing nothing.That was me, not Charlaquin. As per a post I made not too long ago days-wise but maybe 100+ posts upthread, there are different approaches possible and this thread is bringing out some of those differences. Just to mention some of the posters I've interacted with: The approach I'm describing (which I use in 4e and which I think could be ported to 5e) has some similiarities to 5ekyu's, but is not identical (as can be seen in the discussion of the Audience With the Troll King scenario). Ovinomancer also does some things similar to me - eg in some recent posts mentions the idea of keeping up the pressure on the players via their PCs - but not identically I don't think. I also have some similiarites to Elfcrusher and Charlaquin - eg regarding the fictional specification of the declared action as very important - but some differences - eg I call for more checks than they do (see my quote upthread from Luke Crane for the reasons why). I have had far too many players who are so scared of failing and making things worse for the party that instead they opt to do nothing. So, when I see people saying that by adding more consequences for failing a roll than simply defaulting to the status quo, and that makes their players more eager to act, that goes against everything I have seen with new players. The more consequences there are, the more likely they are to withdraw. <snip> Failing forward is great, I love that style. But that was not the style I was addressing. This...

Monday, 15th April, 2019

  • 10:15 AM - pemerton mentioned Ovinomancer in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    ...nce. I might say “ok, you could break the leg off the table with a DC 10 Strength check, and you could apply Athletics proficiency if you have it. But the noise might attract the guard’s attention if you fail. What do you do?” Now you have enough information to make an informed decision, whether you want to accept the risk or try a different approach. You’re not blindly making checks, the results of which you can’t predict. You’re thinking about your character as an entity existing in a world, making decisions as you imagine that entity might. You succeed and fail based on your decisions and the risks you accept or don’t accept.Here we can see the outlines of different approaches to RPGing. I want to draw out one contrast: between (1) consequences for failure as a prior, necessary condition to call for a check (Charlaquin's approach) and (2) consequences for failure as a subsequent condition mandated by a prior decision to call for a check (my preferred approach, perhaps sometimes Ovinomancer's approach). In approach (1), part of deciding whether or not to call for a check is inspecting the "causal" state of the fiction to determine whether or not it contains implicit consequences (eg guards who might be attracted by noise in a cell). This is one aspect of what I was trying to get at upthread in talking about an approach that focuses on "engineering" aspects of the fiction, like who is where when, and what causal processes are they participating in. This is not an aspect of approach (2). Approach (2) determines whether or not to call for a check on a different basis (I'll say what in a moment). If a check is called for, and fails, then consequences will be narrated, which may require establishing new fictional elements (like guards, or a cursed sarcophagus) to be constituent elements of those consequences. To put it another way, if a consequence is needed then the GM establishes the requisite in-fiction "causal" conditions that will be part of that. On approach (2)...
  • 05:06 AM - pemerton mentioned Ovinomancer in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    ...ter's ability in deciding that there is no reasonable chance of failure and hence no check required, well, I think the "goal and approach" advocates would see that as an instance of working as intended. I can see some possible problems here - eg there are two PC barbarians, one with STR 18 and one with STR 20, and the GM at stage (i) doesn't distinguish between them and thus does not give the 20 STR PC the benefit of that extra bit of STR. But I think that that is likely to be a marginal issue at most tables. If my warlock got tossed in a cell, with his +0 strength and no proficiency in athletics, I'd never try and break the door to get out. Maybe by magical means, but I'd want to know what bonus I got before trying to roll. Because, if I fail to break down the door, my situation gets worse. <snip> However, at a game where failure does not automatically mean things get worse, I might try athletics.Speaking from my own perspective, but also trying to make sympathetic sense of Ovinomancer's, I think there is a bigger issue here which you're missing - or to put it another way, you're missing the dynamic of play wood because of the ability check adjudication trees. I play a game (be that 4e, Prince Valiant, Burning Wheel, or The Dying Earth) in which there are adverse consequences for failed checks. But that's only a special case of the bigger picture: there are adverse consequences for the PCs unless they act. The situation is framed so as to yield pressure on the PCs (and, thereby, their players) which will drive the game forward. So while your trapped warlock may choose not to try to bend the bars, because you recognise the prospect is hopeless and you don't like the consequences implicit in the GM's framing of the situation, you can be sure that something is going to happen that will force you to make some sort of choice. And if you don't try to escape now, then you give the GM licence to make that something a bigger deal, if only because the passage of time in ...
  • 01:29 AM - pemerton mentioned Ovinomancer in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    To add to this, let us say there is a massive bloodstain in front of a trapped door. A door that is still trapped. That means no one has gotten through this door, because it is still trapped and the person who tried is dead. So then, why would there be a bloodstain in front of the next trapped door in that dungeon? No one got through the first, the only indication you had was the previous adventurers failure, no hints from the trap itself, so how would you narrate the next door that was trapped in the same dungeon? I wanted to second Satyrn's remark that it is possible to "telegraph" traps, to establish fiction that trap-interested players can pick up on, without introducing contradictions. What those might actually look like - bloodstains, mismatched tiles, holes in the wall, etc (I'm just parroting Ovinomancer here) - would depend on mood, context, past narration, etc. I'm also not sure how many of the "goal and approach" advocates are playing dungeons in the sense that you describe here. I think more than one poster has already suggested that traps are a distinctive rather than generic occurence in the adventures they are running. So it mayu be that this particular problem, of finding meaningful framing for multile geographically and temporally proximate traps, doesn't come up much for them. What if you want to flag down the waitress? It could be seen as a DC 5 charisma check. But, considering how minor in importance that moment is, and the high likelihood of success, we choose not to roll the dice. There is little to no uncertainty and no stakes. But does that mean there is not an ability check that could be rolled?I could be wrong, but you seem here to suggest that "an ability check" is an abstractly existing thing, or a latent element of the fiction. Whereas an ability check is cl...

Sunday, 14th April, 2019

  • 02:59 AM - pemerton mentioned Ovinomancer in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    ...was unfair "gotcha" GMing, but which was fun at the time, and was done in a system (4e) which is very robust for acommodating this sort of thing: I drew up my map similiarly, including with the side tunnel (behind the tiefling) which on my version ran down into the chasm, and the columns, stalactites, etc. I didn't use four beholders, only 2 - an eye tyrant (MV version) and an eye of flame advanced to 17th level and MM3-ed for damage. And also a 15th level roper from MV, introduced on a whim when the player of the wizard asked, before taking cover behind a column, if it looked suspicious. (Response to result of 28 on the Perception check before adding the +2 bonus for knowing what he is looking for - "Yes, yes it does!") On the other hand, if relevant fiction is already established, then I will have it express or implicit in the framing, so that the players can incorporate it into their goals. So no completely acontextual ambushes. (I think this would be an instance of what Ovinomancer means by "telegraphing", although the mode of telegraphing may be different - see further below on this difference.) As far as noticing a party in lieu of an ambush, that would either be narration of a failure (because the player wanted to get the drop on the waiting assassins on the other side of the door, but instead there's a crowd of revellers who are now an obstacle to finding the assassins and getting the drop on them) or in some contexts just a bit of colour. I think in many ways this comes back to a recurring theme in this thread: one side keeps assuming a model of "listen randomly at every door and check it for traps" or "check every NPC to see if they are lying" of play. And if that's the case, then yeah it gets a little unwieldy to describe approach in detail every time, and it also would feel like mere embellishment...a charge Oofta, for example, keep leveling. But if the players know they don't have to listen at every door, then when they get to the door they do ...

Wednesday, 10th April, 2019

  • 10:02 PM - pemerton mentioned Ovinomancer in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    I'm sure you're trying to help, but bringing up approaches that are appropriate to other games and might not be a good fit for the one under discussion is in my view needlessly confusing.There's a fair bit going on in this thread. I've had some interesting exchanges with various posters which they also seem to have found interesting/rewarding (no one forced them to give XP). And I replied to a thread that quoted me. I'm confident that Chaosmancer can work out that I'm speaking from one particular perspective. Perhaps I’m wrong and the curse was triggered by them touching it in an attempt to decipher… but then success or failure of the roll would have led to the mummies, because touching it activated the curse.I could be wrong - but my reading of Ovinomancer's example was that the fiction of the curse is established as a narration of the consequence of a failed check. A similar example is found in this actual play report (that's me posting as thurgon on rpg.net) - failure on an Aura Reading check led me to narrate a curse on the angel feather the PC was examining. And this can work, but sometimes there is an answer in the fiction, because I have put it there. <snip> there is a truth, and I need to know that truth before even calling for a check, and a success or failure does not change that truth, only how things react and occur.In these sorts of cases, I think it is harder to establish meaningful stakes and consequences for a knowledge check. I'm not 100% sure knowledge checks are a good fit at all for that sort of game - I'm no sort of expert, but I look at (say) GUMSHOE and it tends to eschew checks as the way to acquire game-driving knowledge.

Monday, 8th April, 2019

  • 02:52 AM - pemerton mentioned Ovinomancer in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    Yes, I know. I play Dungeon World. Honestly I find this conversation a bit surreal. I'm not even sure how to respond. One of us totally doesn't understand what the other is talking about. Or possibly both of us.Well, I think there are (at least) two alternatives to Oofta's approach. iserith is describing one. I think Ovinomancer may be describing something a bit different, but he can clarify that if he wants to. I'm not sure what your overall position is. Both alternatives equate action declaration with describing something that happens in the fiction. This is a contrast with Oofta, Hussar, etc. In iserith's approach to 5e, following such an action declaration the GM then adjudicates this to determine whether or not a check is required, and if so how hard it is. As he puts it, the ultimate player goal is to avoid the risks of the dice. I see this as a type of puzzle-solving play, though (obviously) not like solving riddles or chess puzzles. By way of contrast, in DW, DitV, Burning Wheel, Prince Valiant, HeroWars/Quest, Maelstrom Storytelling, The Dying Earth, etc (just to name some of the games I'm familiar with that adopt this alternative approach), there is no avoiding the risks of the dice, assuming that something is actually at stake. (If nothing is at stake, then the GM should just "say 'yes'" and t...
  • 01:15 AM - pemerton mentioned Ovinomancer in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    ... still things I don't think I will ever understand: Why is "I use " forbidden if the intent and action is clear? Because 80% of the time when people say it in my game it is. That other 20%? I ask for clarification. I encourage more descriptive play, but that may be as simple as "I use [INSERT SKILL] by doing [INSERT DETAIL]". How are you [I]not diminishing the values of investment in skills if a person can just describe what they're doing to get an automatic success*? Why is finding/disabling the once in a blue moon trap/secret door with a couple of dice rolls a deal breaker for you if you aren't the person doing it and it takes a minute or so to resolve? It's a minor speed bump I put in for flavor, not the focus of the game for me. Why is it a big deal if the DM wants to keep the players guessing about whether or not the PC is using deception by having people roll an insight check? The 2nd I've addressed above. To the 3rd I would offer an answer that is similar to Ovinomancer's - why are we including stuff in the fiction that doesn't matter to play? On the 4th: in my GMing, the point of checks is to determine how the fiction develops, not to establish uncertainty on the part of the players as to how the fiction is developing. On the 1st: I want to know what the PC is doing. I can't know how the ficiton will develop if I don't know what's happening in it.

Sunday, 7th April, 2019

  • 03:51 PM - Oofta mentioned Ovinomancer in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    Ovinomancer, I can't think of anything new to add. I've stated how I run my game and that I don't forbid phrases as long as what the PC is doing is clear. Some people do allow players to bypass skills with a good description, you've been unclear at times but if you say skills are important I believe you. I don't treat insight as a truth detector. That's all, and I still don't understand why this particular topic is so controversial. Have a good one.

Sunday, 31st March, 2019

  • 02:13 AM - iserith mentioned Ovinomancer in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    All the people who insist that Insight cannot tell the motivations of an NPC with a successful check. It IS right there in the text of the skill. But, apparently, we're allowed to pick and choose what "rules" apply. It's perfectly acceptable, apparently, to claim that your play style is an "excellent fit" for 5e, while at the same time, not following what the text actually states. Just pointing out the inconsistency. After all, @iserith, you spent considerable bandwidth arguing with me about this, but, are completely silent when people claim that Insight cannot detect falsehoods. Unless I've missed something, I don't recall that @Elfcrusher has made any significant "rules-based" arguments that inform his or her approach in this thread. He or she often makes ones based on his or her take on realism instead plus just general preference. And @Ovinomancer suggests that Insight can be used for more tasks than determining truthfulness. Unless you're talking about someone else? Just because some of us agree on the approach doesn't mean we all think of it the exact same way or arrived at the same conclusion by the same path. Please feel free to respond to or refute someone's assertions. But please do not lump us all together as if we perfectly agree or assert that any one of us has an obligation to say anything about our respective positions. We are individuals, not identity groups.

Friday, 29th March, 2019

  • 12:43 PM - DM Dave1 mentioned Ovinomancer in post Unsatisfied with the D&D 5e skill system
    Maybe it works at your table, due to your own social contract, but it is very clearly against the process of play, which states that players declare their actions rather than their goals. With all due respect, you are misunderstanding the plastyle. The statement of goals is a perfectly natural extension of declaring actions and simply allows the players to have greater agency over their PCs - with the added benefit of lessening the workload of the DM and perhaps even allowing a scene to go in a direction the DM never imagined. It's that last one which is very enjoyable to me. How does that work, can you please provide an example? I'm sure @Ovinomancer can provide more, but here are a couple just off the cuff: Example 1 - climbing the tower with a stated goal DM: "You reach the top of the hill leaving the forest below you. Before you is a 40' grey tower made of large, rough blocks of stone. The tower appears to have no door or windows. What do you do?" Player 1: "I'd like to climb the tower using the blocks as hand/foot holds. But before getting to the top, I'd like to stop and get a good look around to let the others what I see." DM: "Roll a Strength (Athletics) check, DC 15 - the blocks are old and a bit crumbly" The player clearly states an action (climb the tower) and a goal (to get a better view of the surroundings before reaching the top). Without the goal statement, the DM has to make a big assumption that since the PC wanted to climb the tower that they will get to the top with a successful roll and step into a group of quietly waiting orcs.... which is in no way what the player intended. And then you have an awkw...
  • 12:39 PM - pemerton mentioned Ovinomancer in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    it is my belief, that sometimes (and again this is due to human nature), players at Maxperson's table might subconsciously engage in some author stance. That does not mean that the table suddenly and forever switches away from actor stance due to these author instances. No, his table's primary method of roleplaying engagement is actor stance, at least this is what they strive for, this is their ideal.The thing is, as I've already posted, as a player I enjoy actor stance and associated "inhabitation" of the character. That is my ideal. But that has next-to-no bearing on how one decides what the PC knows. I think analysis by reference to stance is not all that illuminating, precisely for the reason that (as Ron Edward says) it is so labile in play. Metagaming is about not thinking in character as your decisions in game are being influenced by external factors (game mechanics for instance, or RL-time constraints/pacing...etc)No doubt Ovinomancer will correct me if I'm wrong - but I took the point to be that if a player decides that his/her PC doesn't know about trolls because of compliance with a table rule forbidding "metagaming", then the action has been taken to give effect to a player priority, and hence is author stance. Actor stance would be based on what one's character knows and wants. If the established fiction doesn't tell me whether or not my character knows about trolls, then actor stance in a troll encounter won't be possible.


Page 1 of 11 12345678910 ... LastLast
No results to display...

Friday, 17th May, 2019


Monday, 13th May, 2019

  • 04:06 PM - Hriston quoted Ovinomancer in post What does it mean to "Challenge the Character"?
    When did "control over PC thoughts" turn into "on the character sheet?" I don't know what you're talking about. This exchange isn't about whether players have control over the thoughts of their PCs. It's about whether certain background features turn certain NPCs into "extensions of the character" in the way a spell like dominate person does, unless you're making a connection that I've missed.

Friday, 10th May, 2019

  • 07:10 PM - robus quoted Ovinomancer in post Blowing up my campaign
    Well, the "case" presented rests on a devil signatory putting forth a technicality because it serves its interests. That would be the lynchpin. You could go to court to argue it, but would need a good argument and support, so that's the adventure. Or, you could offer to get the claimant to withdraw by either intimidation or by giving it another way towards its goals. Or, you break into the secure vault in Mechanus and destroy/alter/steal the contract (which could then have really "interesting" consequences). Or, maybe the party thriws you for a loop and figures they have a better chance in the chaos if they free Tharizdun to start the unmaking of the cosmos. I'll bear that in mind if/when I kick off a new campaign :) - at the moment, I'm just wanting to swap my dull predictable ending with something with a bit flash and bang. Something that'll last 6-8 sessions in total.
  • 04:47 PM - Mort quoted Ovinomancer in post Blowing up my campaign
    Or, there's a cool planar courtroom argument (what does that look like?) That's easy, I mean how many times do you get to use Kafka's The Trial as inspiration for a gaming session!

Wednesday, 8th May, 2019

  • 08:45 AM - pemerton quoted Ovinomancer in post What does it mean to "Challenge the Character"?
    Thus seems like you're trying to smear one thing into another. On one hand, there's the limited authority of the player to use ingame resources to acquire equipment that is persistent until expended. On the other, there's a suggestion that a player can freely add to the environment new fictional elements that modify the GM's narration of scene. Your argument seems to be a smearing of the limited authority allowed to the accumlation of equipment to wholesale ability to propose new fiction into the scene. You do this be claiming that a character pulling rope from a backpack is also a proposal of new fiction into the scene, but this fails because the rope, as equipment, was established a priori and is a persistent piece of fiction. No contemporary authoring has occurred. This categorically seperates it ftom the proposal that the guard is an old friend.I'm not "smearing" anything - I'm enquiring about a particular aspect of the environment (namely, equipment) and who has principal authority ov...

Tuesday, 7th May, 2019

  • 09:27 PM - Chaosmancer quoted Ovinomancer in post What does it mean to "Challenge the Character"?
    I'm not telling the player how his or her character thinks. As I've said several times, the player is welcome to have the character think and say the guard is his or her old friend. But the DM is under no obligation to make that true nor does the DM need to say that the character is delusional. A DM might narrate the result of the adventurer's action with "The guard doesn't respond to being called Frances and doesn't recognize you as a friend - what do you do?" Likewise if the DM describes a pile of copper pieces and the player has his or her character think and say it's gold, only to find out that the local merchants do not agree, is that the DM telling the player what his or her character thinks? No. No it is not. My position hasn't changed. I hope I clarified it for you though. So, you chose to cut it off exactly where I thought you would. But you haven't answered the underlying question. Does Francis the Guard exist? Can the player track them down in that town, now that they hav...
  • 01:20 PM - Maxperson quoted Ovinomancer in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    But, we've been repeatedly told that even a crude or bad model increases realism! How can more realism also be nonesense? I never once said it couldn't be nonsense. I said it increases it more than nothing does. I've also said that not all realism increases enjoyment. And I've said that there are certain levels of realism that I like, and certain levels that aren't enough for me. Nonsense levels of realism aren't enough for me. It's really easy if you pull your head out of the sand and actually try to understand the conversation instead of winning the internet.
  • 03:41 AM - Chaosmancer quoted Ovinomancer in post What does it mean to "Challenge the Character"?
    I would say that D&D 4e prior to Essentials with its embrace of "Yes, and..." and encouragement of the DM to accept ideas outside the character's control that the player proffers could be such a game. There's a sidebar in the D&D 4e DMG that uses an example from one of the designers wherein the player suggests there is a trap on a statue that is protecting a treasure. The DM rolls with it, they play out the trap challenge, and the player's character gets the treasure. But even that requires the DM's assent and the limits (the designer above remarks that HE would be the one to decide what treasure it was!) are likely understood formally or informally in the form of a table rule. I wasn't planning on jumping into this thread, and this post is far back in this thread, but were you iserith, not the one who told me repeatedly in the insight thread that the DM cannot and should not tell a player what they think? This was your justification for players having knowledge of monsters that they oth...

Monday, 6th May, 2019


Saturday, 4th May, 2019

  • 01:51 AM - Maxperson quoted Ovinomancer in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot. Lemme unpack this. "Realism" is added. This is objectively true, realism has increased. Someone sees this addition as not realism, but they are wrong and have made an error of perception because the realism increase is objectively true. So far so good. But, because perception is greater than reality or objective realism, there is now a decrease in realism. And now you've lost it. Nope. There is not a decrease in realism. However, the misperceived decrease in realism seems real to the person.

Friday, 3rd May, 2019

  • 11:35 AM - pemerton quoted Ovinomancer in post What does it mean to "Challenge the Character"?
    In fact I encourage that sort of thing. The player has participated in world-building without changing the game state to gain advantage, and maybe even has given me some hooks for the future.What's the objection to the player changing the game state to gain advantage? Isn't that something that good players try and do? What in the fiction lets me, as GM, know how difficult this task will be? I don't see anything, which makes any DC set entirely arbitrary -- it can't be grounded in either mechanics or the fiction. This is the first problem.It's never been clear to me exactly how a 5e GM is meant to decide that some action has an uncertain outcome, or not, and how the DC is to be set. You seem here to be suggesting "objective" DCs - in the sense that the difficulty corresponds to or reflects (roughly) the in-fiction causal processes. Similar to a process-sim type game and unlike (say) Dungeon World or 4e. When I wondered whether this might be a problem that you're seeing in the example I put...
  • 12:12 AM - Mistwell quoted Ovinomancer in post What's up with Vicious Mockery?
    Former. Why is disadvantage not the rough equivalent to -5? The PHB lists the value as 5 for passive checks from advantage/disadvantage. From here, where they crunch the math, "The general rule of thumb that in the mid range of the d20 (from success on a 9+ to 12+) advantage grant roughly a equivalent to a +5 bonus and disadvantage a -5 penalty. " and "The PHB provides a short cut for applying advantage via a +5 modifier to supplant the roll. Coincidently 6.650 - (6.650-3.325)/2 = 4.9875 ~ 5"

Thursday, 2nd May, 2019

  • 11:39 PM - Mistwell quoted Ovinomancer in post What's up with Vicious Mockery?
    It does not do this. I do wish I could completely stomp this out. It's not just technically wrong, it's also just misleading. Are you arguing disadvantage is not the rough equivalent to -5, or that -5 to the attack is not the rough equivalent to +5 to the AC they're attacking?
  • 06:29 PM - Oofta quoted Ovinomancer in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    Oh, I see the game now. You aren't naming people so you can technically claim you aren't talking about someone-specific's play. One wonders, then, what playstyle are you contrasting here when you say, "I don't have a problem with [other playstyle]"? Clearly no playstyle, but that then renders your post unintelligible as your contrasting make believe against your preferred play. In shorter words: don't buy the vagueness routine, and I similarly don't buy that you've recently acquired understanding. Seems to me like now you're just looking for an excuse to be offended. Have a good one.
  • 06:01 PM - Oofta quoted Ovinomancer in post If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
    This post is a good example of you not inderstanding what's being presented. Minor obstacles are quickly dealt with in my games because they don't require a check at all -- you almost always succeed outright. And play isn't: DM[in best Monty Python bridge guardian voice]: what's your goal?@ Player: um, get to the top of the wall. DM: what's your approach?! Player: I climb it? DM: okay, you can pass. Next up is Bob the Fighter. What's your goal?! Instead, it's: DM: okay, you've reached the base of the outer wall, which is made of rough stone blocks. You don't see any guards. What do you do? Player 1: I'm going to study tge wall to determine hiw hard it eould be to climb. DM: Sure. The rough construction offers lots of hsndholds. It's just a matter of doing it. Player1: I'll climb the wall, trying to quiet in case therr are guards at the top. DM: good thing, too! You scale the wall and when you get to the top, there are two hobgoblin guards looking bored. Go ahead and make a...
  • 03:31 PM - iserith quoted Ovinomancer in post What does it mean to "Challenge the Character"?
    That said, I'm pretty loose with player introductions in 5e because I strive to use my GM "no" as rarely as possible. Still, there's a limit in play and an understanding at our table because there are no mechanics available to resolve a conflict. I advise the players to keep everything in terms of an action declaration as that is what I'm on the lookout for since that is when I have to adjudicate. I even discourage asking questions of the DM, if those questions can be answered by taking action in the game world. "How many doors are in this room?" is better stated as "I look to see how many doors there are in this room..." in my view. The stop-n-chat with the DM interferes with the flow of the game in my view, plus questions are often a form of out-of-game risk mitigation as the players fish for the best solution. Anyway, I also follow the general concept that if it wasn't introduced in play then it doesn't exist and I have the option of adding it right now as long as it doesn't contradict s...
  • 01:47 PM - pemerton quoted Ovinomancer in post What does it mean to "Challenge the Character"?
    there are no mechanics available to resolve a conflict.This probably could have been in the same post as just upthread, but I didn't think of it first time round. Couldn't my example be done as a CHA check? With success/failure narrated along the lines you sketched upthread - success is fond memories and letting the PCs through; failure is either mistaken identity, or what about my poker money, etc. Is the (or one) issue that it might be hard to set a proper DC? I'll admit I haven't thought that through, but it doesn't seem too big a hurdle. I'll agree that table dynamics can get strained if the players push too hard in establishing fiction, but the same is true if the GM does: "rocks fall" is obviously at the absurd end, but I think most of us have heard stories of, and at least in my own case I've experienced multiple instances of, games failing because GMs couldn't get player buy in for the fiction they wanted to establish. In the player case just as in the GM case, I feel that this is...
  • 01:31 PM - pemerton quoted Ovinomancer in post What does it mean to "Challenge the Character"?
    I clearly notice, though, that my overhead in running 5e is much higher than in Blades because I have to do more heavy lifting on the content side AND be careful to maintain "fairness" with that content. In Blades, I just have to GM within the clear constraints and don't have to worry too much about "fairness" at all.This is interesting and really worthy of its own thread, about the burdens (or otherwise) of GMing. I get what you're aiming at here, I just question why you're doing so, or maybe why you're coming at the issue so obliquely.Well, it started by just following some thoughts where they took me. But one place they ended up taking me is that I think some of the constraints/rules that are being taken for granted in the 5e context aren't actually found in the rules but are imported from some more generic conception of RPGing. To elaborate: in one of these recent threads, someone posted about GMing a couple of kids. Kid A, in character, tells Kid B (also in character) to scout ahea...
  • 05:23 AM - pemerton quoted Ovinomancer in post What does it mean to "Challenge the Character"?
    it's the player assuming some of the DM's role. I think this is malformed: you're asking if this action declaration violates a principle of the DM not controlling characters thoughts before establishing that the action declaration violates established norms on who has this authorial control. In other words, we can even reach your last question before resolving the authorial control one. And, simply, in 5e the GM has this authority, the player does not. So, again, we can't reach your last question without stipulating that the player has already broken the rules. In which case, I think your question is mooted.I'm happy to accept that it's malformed in the context of 5e D&D. But I don't see how that conclusion can be reached without giving some account of who has what authority over which bits of the the fiction. And saying that the player has authority over what his/her PC does, thinks and feels isn't going to do the job - because Hey, that's my old friend Frances - I ask her to let us throu...


Ovinomancer's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites