View Profile: Hussar - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
No Recent Activity
About Hussar

Basic Information

About Hussar
Location:
Fukuoka, Japan
Sex:
Male
Age Group:
Over 40

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
21,352
Posts Per Day
4.14
Last Post
Arguments and assumptions against multi classing Yesterday 02:49 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
31
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 02:49 AM
Join Date
Monday, 9th August, 2004
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
1

10 Friends

  1. Aldarc Aldarc is offline

    Member

    Aldarc
  2. God Returns God Returns is offline

    Member

    God Returns
  3. Manbearcat Manbearcat is offline

    Member

    Manbearcat
  4. Merkuri Merkuri is offline

    Member

    • Send a message via MSN to Merkuri
    • Send a message via AIM to Merkuri
    • Send a message via Yahoo to Merkuri
    Merkuri
  5. MurderHobo1 MurderHobo1 is offline

    Member

    MurderHobo1
  6. Raunalyn Raunalyn is offline

    Member

    Raunalyn
  7. Rechan Rechan is offline

    Member

    Rechan
  8. sev sev is offline

    Member

    sev
  9. Southern Oracle Southern Oracle is offline

    Member

    • Send a message via AIM to Southern Oracle
    Southern Oracle
  10. steenan steenan is offline

    Member

    steenan
Showing Friends 1 to 10 of 10
Page 1 of 7 1234567 LastLast

Sunday, 23rd September, 2018


Saturday, 22nd September, 2018


Friday, 21st September, 2018



Page 1 of 7 1234567 LastLast
Page 1 of 48 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Tuesday, 28th August, 2018

  • 03:14 AM - pemerton mentioned Hussar in post My Attempt to Define RPG's - RPG's aren't actually Games
    Creation is a prelude to play even if it occurs during play - that's the bit you can't seem to grasp here.You're mistaken - I understand what you're saying, I just know that it's not true. Here's one way I know it's not true: X is set up for Y entails that X occurs prior to Y entails that X is not simultaneous with Y. And also: X is a prelude to Y entails that X occurs prior to Y entails that X is not simultaneous with Y. Your equation of creation with set-up is leading you into obvious contradiction. And there's an obvious solution: abandon that equation, and actually look at what is happening at the table where the game is being played. The biggest obstacle to having serious discussions about how RPGs work is this tendency to insist on dogmatic frameworks that have no foundation in the full variety of RPG play. (Typically they idealised versions of a type of 70s or 80s D&D play. Which is weird in Hussar's case, because I know that he's played plenty of non-D&D RPGs.)
  • 03:03 AM - pemerton mentioned Hussar in post My Attempt to Define RPG's - RPG's aren't actually Games
    ..., as part of playing the game, imagine a world in which these characters are inhabitants. A player's moves consist in declaring actions for this character, which aren't just moves in the traditional boardgame sense, but are also understood as intentions to change the fiction that this character is part of. Another, distinct set of "moves" consists in establishing the rst of the shared fiction beyond these characers and their players' action declarations. In most RPGs on the traditional model, the GM does this. The rules of the game (which may include various sorts of "mechanics", but may also confer direct authority on one participant to sauy what the shared fiction shall be) are used to help determine the outcomes of these moves.The self-quote is from the first page of this thread. I was the first poster in this thread to identify creation of a shared fiction as a key element in RPGing. That's not in dispute. What's in dispute is what I have bolded in the two quotes from Hussar: that creation is preparation for play rather than, itself, a key component of RPG play. No argument in favour of that proposition has been put forward in this thread. It's not true to my own experience. And it seems to rest on an unsound generalisation from two ways of playing D&D: (i) the GM draws a dungeon map and writes notes, and the heart of play is the players declaring moves that enable them to learn what the GM created and thereby make it true, in the fiction, that their PCs are looting the dungeon; (ii) the GM writes up a series of events - a scenario, like DL or any of dozens of post-DL modules/APs - and then the players "play through" the adventure. But as far as my own episodes of play, which I've posted an linked to are concerned: when I tell the players, ie my friends, who are sitting with me about a dining room table, "You're at a market in Hardby. A peddler of trinkets has an angel feather for sale. He says its from the Bright Desert," I'm not getting ready to pl...

Monday, 27th August, 2018

  • 12:27 AM - Lanefan mentioned Hussar in post My Attempt to Define RPG's - RPG's aren't actually Games
    ... response to failed Aura Reading check, that an angel feather is cursed). Here we disagree; I see pretty much all RPG creation as coming under set-up and certainly all RPG creation that comes from the GM. Play: declaring the Aura Reading and then having it fail via game mechanics Creation: deciding the feather is cursed in response to this failure, along with any associated narration thereof Play: whatever the player/PC does in response to this creation piece. Why and how do I make this distinction? That the feather is cursed is something that is and becomes a part of the setting and - taken retroactively - was therefore actually in place all along within the game world. That's set-up. And telling the players that they're at a market is not "the very definition of creating a scenario". In Moldvay Basic, a "scenario" is a premapped and pre-described dungeon, with some motivating backstory built in. In the DL modules, a "scenario" is a pre-authored sequence of events. Hussar has described scenarios by reference to events eg "wooing the widow". You are at a market. There is a seller of magical trinkets who claims to have an angel feather from the Bright Desert. What doyou do? is not a scenario. It's a bare situation. It's not "game creation" - it's playing the game (ie the GM saying stuff about the PCs' situation, as a prelude to and invitation to the players saying stuff about what their PCs do). You call it scene framing. I call it scenario creation. Same thing, and it's all set-up. Likewise You come upon a Large Steading that Reeks of Smoke and Worse. That turned out to be an invitation to make an ally of a giant shaman after trying to trick the giant chieftain by selling him his own ox. The existence of both ox and shaman were the result of successful player action declarations. Remind me what the "game creation" is here again, as opposed to the playing of the game?Creation, whether by player or GM, brought the ox and shaman into existence with...

Sunday, 26th August, 2018

  • 04:47 PM - pemerton mentioned Hussar in post My Attempt to Define RPG's - RPG's aren't actually Games
    Well it's creating an essential element of the game, without which the game cannot be played. Er...telling the players that their PCs are at the Hardby market* is the very definition of creating a scenario. The players then take that scenario and interact with it (i.e. play through it) via their PCs: in this case someone looks for and finds a peddler of tokens and feathers and seeks to buy an angel feather, etc. * - along with, I have to assume, some descriptive narration and-or trope-based examples of what the PCs see there - the bustling crowds, the weather, some examples of goods and wares available, etc. I'll leave this one to Hussar , as that's his term not mine. In this particular example: the Hardby market (created by you, I assume) and Hardby itself along with whatever other parts of the Greyhawk setting you used (created by the Greyhawk authors, as modified by you). Creating the setting is, in an RPG, a part of creating the game. However, say it with me slowly: creation/set-up - does - not - always - have - to - occur - in - advance - of - play - to - still - be - creation/set-up.You're treating creation and set-up as synonyms, or at least as co-referring. But they're not. Some RPG set-up is not creation (eg choosing house rules, or optional rules, or whatever). And some RPG creation is not set-up (eg deciding, in response to failed Aura Reading check, that an angel feather is cursed). And telling the players that they're at a market is not "the very definition of creating a scenario". In Moldvay Basic, a "scenario" is a premapped and pre-described dungeon, with some motivating backstory built in. I...
  • 11:07 AM - Lanefan mentioned Hussar in post My Attempt to Define RPG's - RPG's aren't actually Games
    Building PCs insn't creating a scenario, or a game to "play through". Well it's creating an essential element of the game, without which the game cannot be played. Telling the players that their PCs are at the Hardby market is not creating a scenario, or a game to "play through". Er...telling the players that their PCs are at the Hardby market* is the very definition of creating a scenario. The players then take that scenario and interact with it (i.e. play through it) via their PCs: in this case someone looks for and finds a peddler of tokens and feathers and seeks to buy an angel feather, etc. * - along with, I have to assume, some descriptive narration and-or trope-based examples of what the PCs see there - the bustling crowds, the weather, some examples of goods and wares available, etc. What exactly is your claim about RPGs being "game creation engines", and how does that claim apply to the two examples I've given. I'll leave this one to Hussar , as that's his term not mine. What game was created in advance of play?In this particular example: the Hardby market (created by you, I assume) and Hardby itself along with whatever other parts of the Greyhawk setting you used (created by the Greyhawk authors, as modified by you). Creating the setting is, in an RPG, a part of creating the game. However, say it with me slowly: creation/set-up - does - not - always - have - to - occur - in - advance - of - play - to - still - be - creation/set-up. I've half a hunch that Maxperson and I are agreeing on this bit, if maybe not on much else. :) Lanefan
  • 05:11 AM - pemerton mentioned Hussar in post My Attempt to Define RPG's - RPG's aren't actually Games
    Lanefan, Hussar Building PCs insn't creating a scenario, or a game to "play through". Telling the players that their PCs are at the Hardby market is not creating a scenario, or a game to "play through". What exactly is your claim about RPGs being "game creation engines", and how does that claim apply to the two examples I've given. What game was created in advance of play?

Saturday, 25th August, 2018

  • 06:38 AM - pemerton mentioned Hussar in post My Attempt to Define RPG's - RPG's aren't actually Games
    ...rio being "played through". From the descriptions of the set-up - which are not missing anything - you can't even tell what happened next, let alone what had happened by the end of the scenario: you can't predict the NPCs, or the locations, or the actions. Nor could have I, or the players. before you can do more detailed attention to training the young son how to be a knight, you MUST create something to play off of."Something to play off" is not a scenario. It need not be anything more than a simple game element, which in this instance already existed - the son. "Playing off" is just another way of saying engaging the fiction. It doesn't have to mean playing through a scenario. Lanefan: I don't know why you're trying to persuade me that playing a RPG involves creating fiction. I think I was the first person to make that point in my thread. But creating fiction need not be preparing for play - as you say - nor need it be using the game creation engine to create a game - as Hussar says. It can just be playing a RPG.

Thursday, 23rd August, 2018

  • 11:37 PM - Chaosmancer mentioned Hussar in post Revised Ranger update
    @Hussar, your quote is at the bottom. Sorry for the long read, but I prefer multi-quoting to making multiple posts. I didn't imply it I said it. And it was accurate, as we were discussing topics which had already been discussed in the thread earlier, and you were asking for a list that had already been listed and discussed earlier. Why are you trying to imply or say you had read it? I was not attacking you, I was making an accurate observation that we were re-treading old ground. I never asked for a list. I stated that there are very few spells that actually allow you to add beasts to your party, because most spells that summon actually create fey. You decided to list a bunch of spells to prove me wrong, the majority of which did not add a beast to the party. Now, I'll grant, I've been in this thread for over a week and it stretches nearly 400 posts, we might have talked about how conjure animals creates fey before and I might have forgotten. I don't have a steel-trap mind to remember ...
  • 01:36 PM - Maxperson mentioned Hussar in post My Attempt to Define RPG's - RPG's aren't actually Games
    ...like a great many other games. B is where we disagree. Creating a secret door is not set-up. It's creation, yes, but the only thing that happens prior to the player in a No Myth game creating a secret door in game play is the thought to do so. Thought is not set-up. If it was, then literally all game play in or out of RPGs would be set-up. Even something as simple as me having my PC say to a guard, "How's the wife and kids?" involves me thinking of what to say before hand, and creating that dialogue, which could be considered to be interaction set-up. Set-up involves more than just a thought process immediately before creation. Yes, this is true. But what shuffling cards for a card game does not include is having to draw and paint some new and different cards for each game even during play, which is more analagous to what happens in an RPG when background and-or setting are (in some cases) prepared beforehand and (in all cases) expanded on during play. Okay, but other than @Hussar attributing that to me via several Strawmen, nobody I can remember has said that those are equivalent forms of set-up. The rules say to draw something, as opposed to trying to act it out or give synonyms or move pawn-to-king-4. As a result of this, you draw something (and yeah, drawing for Cagney would stump me too). And as I mentioned to @Hussar, the D&D rules say to create a scenario. Another difference between Pictionary and any RPG that just occurred to me: in Pictionary, any creation that happens is temporary: the pictures you draw for that particular round have no influence or use beyond that round. Your picture of Lacey, for example, won't be at all relevant two rounds later when you're trying to represent Hogwarts School in a drawing; and when you play again next week will have probably long since been tossed in the recycle bucket. Maybe so, but they will still be laughing at my horribly bad drawing of Cagney Even my stick figures end up lopsided. ;)
  • 12:48 PM - pemerton mentioned Hussar in post My Attempt to Define RPG's - RPG's aren't actually Games
    ...ny, the bits that were exciting, the bits that were surprising, etc. Even while a campaign is still on-foot, individual bits of fiction created for it might cease to be relevant. In a Moldvay Basic game, if the PCs enter a dungeon and have a random encounter with 2 giant rats, it's highly unlikely that particular bit of fiction will ever matter to anything that happens again. That might be true even of a random encounter with 2 hobgoblins! - depending on the approach the GM takes to integrating random encounters into the non-random components of the dungeon setting. Trying to analyse RPGs through the metaphysical status of their fictions is in my view a dead end, as well as being an almost surefire way to make assertions that won't hold true. (Maybe she's not a widow at all but everyone just thought she was . . . that could happen easily enough in my game, and even more easily in a game with time travel, or memory horror, or dimension hopping, or whatever else aspects to it.) Hussar is on the right track by focusing on the process of play rather than its product: the fiction produced by playing a RPG isn't inherently different from any other fiction produced in some other way, and if we go more abstract, the "artwork" produced by playing a RPG isn't inherently different from any other "artwork" produced in some other way, including by the play of some other game. His mistake is to generalise a process that is true for most D&D play (both pre-and-post DL), and for quite a bit of play that is pretty similar to D&D, but that isn't true of RPGing in general.

Tuesday, 21st August, 2018

  • 01:18 AM - Ovinomancer mentioned Hussar in post My Attempt to Define RPG's - RPG's aren't actually Games
    ...interesting gray area. A true TotM collective-storytelling or pass-the-conch game would be perhaps the one type of game where prep and play largely become one and the same once play begins. An RPG using story creation mechanics as in your example would lead to a bizarre situation where play causes prep to happen - the use of the mechanic is play but the result kinda falls under prep! Further engagement with the door thus created is, obviously, play. How is it obviously play? The nature of the door being able to be opened seems like it would be prep, because someone has to create that bit of fiction. Is it locked? Prep. Does it open inward or outward? Prep. Pin hinges or pivot? Prep. All of these things, according to your framework, are prep. The play is... not sure what the play is, when so much is prep. Your framework is what's bizarre, not the play description. Absent the requirement to define the creation of fiction happening during play as prep so as to save Hussar's definition, the bizarre drops away and you just have a game.

Monday, 20th August, 2018

  • 02:02 PM - pemerton mentioned Hussar in post My Attempt to Define RPG's - RPG's aren't actually Games
    ....This is bollocks. A player declaring an attack for his/her PC is not prep - it's playing the game. Yesterday, in the session that I ran, at one point we had to work out whether or not one of the PCs was married or widowed. That became relevant because of events that had happened in play - namely, the emergence of an opportunity to woo a recently widowed noblewoman. That is not preparing to play, it's playing the game. It's not "pseudo-preparation" either - if the game is not on rails, then no one knows what might happen during play, and hence what fiction might need to be established as part of play. Another major difference in your system is that it's not just you doing these on-the-fly prep steps; your players are doing some of it as well, probably without realizing it. Contrast this with a more traditional game where the DM does nearly all the prep, whether ahead of time or on the fly.What's your point here? That I'm not playing RPGs? That the definition of RPGs that you and Hussar are advocating doesn't capture the way I play RPGs (which is not terribly radical as soon as you look beyond the parameters of traditional D&D RPGing)? If the former, I disagree - what do you think I'm doing, then, when I think I'm playing a RPG? If the latter, well that's my point - the two of you are advocating a definition that only fits a limited range of approaches to RPGing, namely, those in which the GM designs a scenario or dungeon in advance and then runs the players through it. But that's not the only way that RPGs are played. Other games don't have this, which is all I'm trying to point out.Other non-storytelling games don't have authorship of fiction. That's verging on tautology. But they do involve steps that replicate steps that might be part of set-up - I already gave an example of drawing a new hand of cards during the course of the play of a board game.
  • 07:27 AM - MichaelSomething mentioned Hussar in post My Attempt to Define RPG's - RPG's aren't actually Games
    So according to Hussar , Super Mario Maker wouldn't count as a game either?
  • 02:58 AM - pemerton mentioned Hussar in post My Attempt to Define RPG's - RPG's aren't actually Games
    Lanefan, Hussar - the idea that one is "setting up" a game while playing it is silly. Yesterday before our RPG session a few of us (not me) were playing a boardgame. After each turn the player had to draw some cards. Is that "set up" that happens at the same time as playing the game? Or is it just playing the game? If the former, then Hussar's distinction between board games and RPGs collapses. If the latter, then why are RPGs being analysed differently? when the PCs in my game, for example, decide to grill some random shopkeeper for information and I-as-DM suddenly have to dream up a random shopkeeper in response, that dreaming-it-up bit is in fact a part of game set-up. Game play, from my side, is when I role-play this shopkeeper as he interacts with the PCs. Put another way, as the random shopkeeper is a) in theory going to be the same whether prepped now or prepped a long time ago, and b) in theory now becomes a part of my game's setting, dreaming him up right now falls just as much und...

Saturday, 18th August, 2018

  • 08:12 PM - Lanefan mentioned Hussar in post My Attempt to Define RPG's - RPG's aren't actually Games
    Hussar - I don't understand why you describe one aspect of playing the game as creating the game. When I think of "creating a game" I think of game design. But when I decide in the Traveller game that Lt Li (the initial patron) is part of a bioweapons conspiracy, that's not game design. Is it? I think what Hussar is saying (and I know he'll correct me if I'm wrong :) ) is that there's more to creating the game in an RPG than simply designing the rules; and that your-as-GM decision that Lt Li is part of a conspiracy comes under game creation rather than game play. In more clear-cut situations, the game creation and set-up phase is pretty much finished before game play begins: you don't start making chess moves before all the pieces are on the board where they should be, and a traditional DM doesn't start running an adventure before she's got it all mapped out and stocked. But in the way you play RPGs I'd say the creation and set-up phase never really ends and very much overlaps with the ac...
  • 12:28 PM - pemerton mentioned Hussar in post My Attempt to Define RPG's - RPG's aren't actually Games
    Hussar - I don't understand why you describe one aspect of playing the game as creating the game. When I think of "creating a game" I think of game design. But when I decide in the Traveller game that Lt Li (the initial patron) is part of a bioweapons conspiracy, that's not game design. Is it? The approach to RPGing where your description seems most apt is classic dungeoncrawling, where mapping and stocking the dungeon is highly analogous to designing a (very complex) board for a boardgame. But I don't think most of your RPGing looks much like that, or anyone else's really these days except for an old school or OSR minority.

Thursday, 16th August, 2018

  • 10:14 AM - pemerton mentioned Hussar in post My Attempt to Define RPG's - RPG's aren't actually Games
    ...ses, and we came up with a reason why he was also heading to the tournament (it involved horses, but I can't remember now whether he was looking for buyers, or sellers, or just to admire the many horses that would be on display). I used a total of three "episodes" - what in D&D terms would be considered "mini-scenarios" of 1 to 3 pages each - to provide material for the session (both fiction and stats). One I had read before and so knew what I was looking for when I hunted through the core rulebook to find it. The two others are in the "Episodes" supplement which I hadn't read before, and I chose one on the basis of authorship + theme (Kenneth Hite, "The Wild Hunt") and the other based on theme alone (it was a tournament scenario, and I can't remember the author's name but it wasn't someone I recognised). Elaborating on the scenarios - eg providing NPC motivations and responses in the tournament - and connecting them together was something that I did as we went along. Contra Hussar's claim, we were able to open the rulebook, read it, or at least the relevant bits of it - obviously it's longer than most boardgame rulebooks - and then start playing. This is exactly the sort of play experience that makes me think that Hussar is write to focus on scenario as a key element of RPGing but is making a mistake in seeing it as an intermediate step that takes "game creation engine" to "game". Scenario is key because shared fiction is key - and the rules of a RPG can tell you when you need to establish some shared fiction, and they can tell you subject matters for that fiction, and they can even give suggestions for that fiction (eg as the Prince Valiant "episodes" do). But in the end the people at the table have to actually construct that fiction, because that's part of the core activity of playing a RPG.

Tuesday, 14th August, 2018

  • 06:05 PM - Eric V mentioned Hussar in post Revised Ranger update
    Hussar, I agreed with you earlier that the class works. I use it myself. I am concerned, however, that it might be a bit over-the-top in some of its abilities, and wanted the professionals (with more expertise in this area than me) to give it another pass, like it was originally intended. That desire is not coming from a min-maxing place, and it's boorish to assume that it does.

Wednesday, 8th August, 2018

  • 08:15 AM - Coroc mentioned Hussar in post Sage Advice: Plane and world hopping (includes how Eberron and Ravnica fit in D&D cosmology)
    ...e advantage of making it all fit with each other. Even in the DM Guide they offer different world philosophies, e.g. Heaven Hell Prime (shadow) for something very basic, Great wheel, Axis etc. The only time you really need something logic is when you are doing the following: 1. And precondition: You are a DM who sticks to the published material (mostly) true to the letter, especially on things like canon 2. You decide to connect two or more official primes (Or planescape) in a campaign. For every other scenario NOTHING has to be done, Eberron works fine with its own philosophy of the planes (Better eventually than with some shoehorned great wheel), Dragonlance works well with its Philosophy and any of the primes of the official settings are far easier to shoehorn into a homebrew plane arrangement - aka axis instead of wheel - than to be implemented into the planescape universe which is a great setting, but on its own, and not as an INTERPLANAR SUBWAY of some sort. Btw Hussar help me out here, I am not at home and cannot look it up: Tiamat / Takishis was put into one of the nine hells layers as far as I can remember, ?whereas in Dragonlance 1e she was from the abyss? I think they also did change her alignment from CE to LE at some point for that? Am I correct?
  • 03:59 AM - SkidAce mentioned Hussar in post Sage Advice: Plane and world hopping (includes how Eberron and Ravnica fit in D&D cosmology)
    I agree with Hussar on the implications if you buy into the Planescape setting. If you don't use it (I don't) then many of those things are not true. And, possibly, WotC could publish a setting, or adventure that didn't use or even mention Planescape.


Page 1 of 48 1234567891011 ... LastLast
No results to display...

Saturday, 22nd September, 2018

  • 10:56 AM - Lanefan quoted Hussar in post Burning Questions: What's the Worst Thing a DM Can Do?
    But rolling this back around to the original question of the thread, IMO, ((barring the more extreme/illegal actions a person might do)) the worst thing a DM can do as a DM (and not just as a human being), is allow his or her ego to dominate. Pretty much every DM/Player issue that's the DM's fault can be traced back to the DM not checking his or her ego at the door. People who forget that the DM is just another player at the table and is no more or less important than anyone else at the table make very, very poor DM's.Not 100% convinced on this one, based on my own experience...and I guess that'd make me a very very poor DM in that from either side of the screen I do see the DM as the most important person at the table. Never mind that no DM = no game. Having a reasonably strong ego often implies also having a reasonable degree of self-confidence, without which a DM is more or less doomed. Yeah there's examples of overkill out there, but I can think of one DM from way back who was qu...
  • 10:44 AM - pemerton quoted Hussar in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    removing *ALL* mechanical advantages means that all characters are mechanically identical in all ways, and no actions (including roleplay choices) on the part of the PCs impact resolution of events, which is probably not what we want in RPGsThis doesn't seem right. A few weeks ago I GMed a session of Cthulhu Dark. Each PC had two things written on their sheet: a name and an occupation. There was also a sanity die in front of each player (it starts at 1; 6 is bad news). The basic mechanics are build a pool and roll, taking the highest - if the action is within the scope of your occuption, you get a die for that; if it's something within human capabilities, yout get a die for that; and if you're willing to risk your sanity to succeed, you can include your sanity die. The actions chosen by the players impacted the resolution of events. One player played a reporter, one a secretary in a law firm and one a longshoreman, but even had they all been playing longshoremen the actions that they...
  • 04:59 AM - Greg K quoted Hussar in post Arguments and assumptions against multi classing
    Why not? Paladins aren't "knights in shining armor" anymore. Never really were, but, that's how a lot of people viewed them.. I am not saying others cannot or should not do it or interpret them that way. However I would not allow it a game that I am running. For the Three Musketeers and Wesley, I would rule that the oaths falls under ideals and bonds rather than Paladin oaths, because, as you pointed out, they are not doing spell stuff. For Luke, I can see it inspiring a Paladin like order, but to me the Jedi stuff falls more under a psionic or arcane warrior or even a weapon using monk with semi-religious or philosophical overtones. Assuming, there is a jedi influenced order, I as the DM would decide how I want them represented.
  • 04:09 AM - pemerton quoted Hussar in post Burning Questions: What's the Worst Thing a DM Can Do?
    Heh. I tried to say this in another thread and got dogpiled for it.To be fair, you got dogpiled for saying that it's a game creation engine in which the adventure/scenario is the game that is created. That's not what Nagol said - he pointed to a feature of adjudication of player-declared moves in RPGs.
  • 03:14 AM - Parmandur quoted Hussar in post New D&D Monsters and More in Guildmasters’ Guide to Ravnica
    Having the art budget that Magic brings to its cards design D&D based Eberron or Dark Sun cards? Yes, please. And I'll have a second helping if I could. And I haven't played Magic since the 90's. I remember the old Battletech CCG. It really was a fantastic gateway game for getting people into Battletech. Lots of great art, the game was a pile of fun and all the tidbits on the cards really gave a great feel for the setting. I could only hope that D&D would get that kind of boost from Magic. Their approach to Ravnica is very suggestive: a purely D&D version is f the world, no mention of Magic cosmology or metaphysics. They could go the other other way, and have a card set with a pure Magic version of, say, Eberron. They could easily do an all-Magic version of a setting, an all-D&D version of the setting and a game-neutral art book all at the same time...as they are doing with Ravnica right now. Would also work with developit bew settings for both games simultaneously. I'd buy...
  • 02:54 AM - iserith quoted Hussar in post Burning Questions: What's the Worst Thing a DM Can Do?
    But rolling this back around to the original question of the thread, IMO, ((barring the more extreme/illegal actions a person might do)) the worst thing a DM can do as a DM (and not just as a human being), is allow his or her ego to dominate. Pretty much every DM/Player issue that's the DM's fault can be traced back to the DM not checking his or her ego at the door. People who forget that the DM is just another player at the table and is no more or less important than anyone else at the table make very, very poor DM's. I agree. The DM has no more power socially than anyone else. It gets weird otherwise, like that Jack Chick tract.

Friday, 21st September, 2018

  • 05:17 PM - Muso quoted Hussar in post New D&D Monsters and More in Guildmasters’ Guide to Ravnica
    Wow, I am into the lion's den surrounded by enemies :) My point was that WotC is most concerned with the majority of D&D players. Only about 10-15% of the market (at most) has the desire for a particular setting other than homebrew and FR. They simply cannot focus on that small of a market and make the money they need to under their current model. 5e has only been out for 4years, nothing was promised that long ago. Heck, we switched to 5e in 2014/2015 and my PCs are still only at 12th level. OK, D&D team cannot copletely focus on that small market, but they should almost partially focus on it because their fan-base asked for old settings. And Mearls&Co continued to talk about the old settings from the Next's play-test times. Somehow they made us desire the old settings and a part of us (not the majority, I am not saying this) are asking for them. P.s. sorry, but the level of your PCs is irrilevent in a general discussion. We are not talking of your game pace. Spelljammer is considered...

Thursday, 20th September, 2018

  • 12:09 AM - gyor quoted Hussar in post New D&D Monsters and More in Guildmasters’ Guide to Ravnica
    And, let's not forget, that while fans have requested updates to older settings, those older settings are so incredibly unpopular with the larger hobby population that doing any one of them is basically pouring money down the drain. According to those surveys, it was homebrew for about 50% of gamers, Forgotten Realms was the next big chunk, and everyone else was essentially a rounding error. Taken together, they might have appealed to about a third of gamers, but, individually? They're very much a non-starter. I know that's not what setting fans want to hear. They think that their favorite setting is the greatest thing. Unfortunately, it's a simple fact that most settings just aren't popular enough to justify the effort to update them. "The popularity of settings in the survey fell into three distinct clusters. Not surprisingly, our most popular settings from prior editions landed at the top of the rankings, with Eberron, Ravenloft, Dark Sun, Planescape, and the Forgotten Realms a...

Wednesday, 19th September, 2018

  • 01:09 AM - TheCosmicKid quoted Hussar in post Arguments and assumptions against multi classing
    I'm trying to remember just how long SAelorn has had me on ignore because of the spanking received for pushing the ludicrous notion that all meta gaming is bad and cheating. Fun to see the points being repeated in quotes being spanked just as hard. It's just so toxic to the hobby. He's not even really listening to the counterpoints, because he can't even conceive of a universe where his opinion is not the objective truth. If anyone else gets tired of him, the easiest way to get him to ignore you is to suggest that the Belgariad might not be particularly good.
  • 12:34 AM - iserith quoted Hussar in post Burning Questions: What's the Worst Thing a DM Can Do?
    Don't let the door hit you on the way out. I mean, good grief, if the DM cannot make any assumptions at all, the game is going to grind to a mind numbing halt as every five seconds the DM has to stop and ask, "what are you doing?" because he cannot assume that during the dinner scene, you have to tell the DM every single time you take a bite of food. And, of course, then the DM gets in the poop for things like, "Well, you didn't say that you were doing that..." Sorry, mind reading is not part of the DM's job. And forcing the group to endure endless "what do you do" questions because I cannot make any assumptions is the fastest way for a player to suck all the fun out of a game. I'm not asking for mind-reading. Just don't ask me to make a check before you ask me what I'm doing.

Tuesday, 18th September, 2018

  • 02:33 PM - Maxperson quoted Hussar in post Arguments and assumptions against multi classing
    Does make me feel bad though for the RPG refugees I keep having to give shelter to after they have such incredibly poor experiences at some tables. :( And it's such a PITA having to treat their gamer PTSD and get them to realize that D&D is a shared game where everyone at the table is equal. Yep! Makes me grateful that my players don't try to pull ridiculous shenanigans like a 5 int genius or a 5 strength strongest man in the world. The trauma that sort of thing causes has given me many players over the years.
  • 02:24 PM - Maxperson quoted Hussar in post Arguments and assumptions against multi classing
    Threads like this remind me of the hours that I wasted playing terrible games with terrible DM's. *shudder* Does make me thankful for the group I have though. Good! You should be happy with the group you play with.
  • 12:16 AM - Shasarak quoted Hussar in post Dragon Reflections #11 - The Sorcerer Speaks!
    I gotta say though, what's with the slave girls in the background of the cover? Yeesh. o_O

Monday, 17th September, 2018

  • 07:49 PM - S'mon quoted Hussar in post Arguments and assumptions against multi classing
    Heck, I just ran a campaign with no classes with cantrips. Any class with a cantrip was off the table. I was trying an experiment (and it worked pretty well too) and I made that very clear to the players - I wanted to see if 5e works as a low magic game. It does. That being said though, I did run into a LOT of resistance. Three of the six players tried to "one off" caster characters as their concept. It did get kinda frustrating. And, in the end, because we wound up with like 3 rangers and a paladin, there was still a fair bit of spell casting going on. That reminds me of the time I pitched a low-magic, swords vs sorcery campaign, & asked for PCs 'like Conan' - so of course I got a Tiefling Warlock, a Revenant Warlock, a Goliath Warden... the only PCs that really worked were the two human Fighters I created as pregens.
  • 06:04 PM - Koloth quoted Hussar in post Dragon Reflections #11 - The Sorcerer Speaks!
    That's not two gals on the wagon, unless one of them has a beard. So, no, those are man boobs. :D But, yeah, not really sad that this sort of thing has been left by the wayside. Nothing tells women that they are welcome in the hobby like every depiction of a woman either being a whore or a slave. Hadn't finished my morning mug of tea when I first saw the post. Now that I look again, could be a bearded lady as part of a carnival show. The wagon does have that look to it. And the little critter in the brown robe with the shackled creature in tow looks like they could have wandered off Tatooine from Star Wars. Wonder if the artist was inspired by SW just a bit when this cover was drawn?
  • 02:29 PM - Maxperson quoted Hussar in post Arguments and assumptions against multi classing
    Ladies and gentlemen, I present Exhibit A. Words mean something. D&D uses many, many words that correspond to the real world. Barbarian, cleric, fighter, wizard, rogue, sword, dagger, mace, spear, elf, dwarf, human, and on and on and on and... Barbarian corresponds to the real world equivalent of barbaric tribes, Conan, etc. At no time in the real world were street urchins considered to be barbarian hordes. If you want to change the meaning for your game, have at it. Enjoy. For my games, I'm going to retain the intended meanings of those words.
  • 01:22 PM - Maxperson quoted Hussar in post Arguments and assumptions against multi classing
    Rolling back to the Street Urchin Barbarian for a second, because this, in my mind, gets to the heart of the issue of the disconnect between DM and Player. @Maxperson is insisting that Street Urchin doesn't fit with the barbarian class because street urchins aren't physically strong and barbarians are. The image just doesn't fit, in his opinion. But, here's the rub, when you actually READ the description of Street Urchin in the PHB you find: And because they are pure city, while barbarians are all about being away from the city in a barbarian tribe. An urchin that becomes a barbarian would need to have lived enough of his life in a barbarian tribe to remember it, before being taken or moving to the city and becoming an urchin.
  • 12:00 PM - Koloth quoted Hussar in post Dragon Reflections #11 - The Sorcerer Speaks!
    Work! WORK for our entertainment, I say! :D Immensely enjoying the columns. Also immensely enjoyed your module Expedition To the Lost Peaks. Had a blast with it. One of my players collected a bunch of the "medicine" cubes and uses them routinely to this day. I gotta say though, what's with the slave girls in the background of the cover? Yeesh. Notice the whole cover. Guessing related to one of the fiction pieces. The little guy has a slave in tow. Presumably to sell to the folks on the wagon. Or he just purchased same and is wrapping up the transaction. At least it isn't just slave girls, the loincloth guy looks to be shackled as well. Wondering if the two gals in the wagon engage in a slightly different business. They don't seem too happy with either the little guy or the critter in tow. Adds to the possibility he just arrived to the wagon rather then is in the process of finishing a transaction. Enjoying the look back. Doubt we would see bare female breasts on a Dragon ...
  • 10:59 AM - S'mon quoted Hussar in post Arguments and assumptions against multi classing
    To me, therein lies the difference. You are being pretty up front here. You don't like the multiclassing rules, so, you disallow them. You're not trying to say that the rules are broken or bad or anything else. Just expressing your preference. Which is fine. It would be helpful if more DM's were more upfront about their personal preferences instead of trying to justify them. Yeah; I mean I have my reasons and I was talking about them yesterday with my Sunday group. But if people at another table get a thrill out of building optimised (or incapable) multi-class PCs, or whatever it is they like doing with that nonsense, it's no skin off my shin. :p
  • 09:32 AM - 5ekyu quoted Hussar in post Arguments and assumptions against multi classing
    Rolling back to the Street Urchin Barbarian for a second, because this, in my mind, gets to the heart of the issue of the disconnect between DM and Player. Maxperson is insisting that Street Urchin doesn't fit with the barbarian class because street urchins aren't physically strong and barbarians are. The image just doesn't fit, in his opinion. But, here's the rub, when you actually READ the description of Street Urchin in the PHB you find: Huh, sounds like a high Str and Con barbarian would fit this background perfectly. Surviving the elements, constantly fighting, and surviving through strength. Sounds like a barbarian to me. See, this is why I have such a problem with the argument that DM's put forth that "X doesn't fit in my setting". Because, most of the time, they just haven't actually read what X is, and are just going with the gut reaction."Because, most of the time, they just haven't actually read what X is, and are just going with the gut reaction." Who you gonna believe...


Hussar's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites