View Profile: D1Tremere - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
  • D1Tremere's Avatar
    Today, 02:26 AM
    You could be right, I have been known to make mistakes and I do run my games in a certain way. I would argue that the results of the poll suggest that my interpretation is more in line with the default at most peoples tables. All of that said, I will defend my position a bit with actual rulebook information. "Ability Checks An ability check is a test to see whether a character succeeds at a...
    193 replies | 5247 view(s)
    0 XP
  • D1Tremere's Avatar
    Today, 01:26 AM
    The player always determines what the character thinks, does, and says, EXCEPT when those things are determined by the rules or the DM. They are always bound by the results of checks (or do players in your game simply disbelieve damage and hits away?). A DM can choose to disregard the outcome of the rules/roles, and a player can choose to roleplay a scenario without invoking roles in many cases,...
    193 replies | 5247 view(s)
    0 XP
  • D1Tremere's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th April, 2019, 11:46 PM
    The point of the topic, and the discussion I was having with ElfCrusher, is the use of the Perception skill in detecting lies. My stance is that once a player uses the skill he is bound by the results, and should not simply be free to act otherwise by invoking player agency. The use of this ability tells the player what his character thinks (i.e., there is or is not intent to deceive present)....
    193 replies | 5247 view(s)
    1 XP
  • D1Tremere's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th April, 2019, 11:10 PM
    The DM narrates the adventure AND arbitrates the rules. Failure isn't always fun, but it still happens sometimes. Failure exists to give success meaning in the game, and to provide environmental feedback which can lead to learning. That said, I am unclear as to why you would equate having rules and enforcing them when they are invoked by a player with not being fun/contributing to a memorable...
    193 replies | 5247 view(s)
    0 XP
  • D1Tremere's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th April, 2019, 08:48 PM
    To example 1. If the player is playing a specifically tactically minded class as incompetent I would ask for some explanation or role playing reason for this. If they are just not very good at playing that type of character it is no big deal as the rules are built into the class and the fluff is just an in game justification. For example 2, it really depends on how obvious the meta-gaming...
    193 replies | 5247 view(s)
    1 XP
  • D1Tremere's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th April, 2019, 01:40 AM
    I am a bit late, and so I have missed what looks like a rather nasty turn to what started off as a nice topic. That said, I wanted to address Elfcrusher's analysis of my statements. You are correct in that I am stating a character's perceptions of the situation should be dictated for the player once it becomes a rules arbitrated scenario. I can understand that some people do not prefer this,...
    193 replies | 5247 view(s)
    1 XP
  • D1Tremere's Avatar
    Monday, 15th April, 2019, 11:28 PM
    Wouldn't it be easier, and more in line with what you want, to use a completely different spell? This spell isn't about creating your own pocket world, it is about accessing storage. It works great for what it is. If you want to build your own extra-plane kingdom just use Plane shift, find a nice bit of nowhere in the astral plane, and use Mighty Fortress to establish your vacation keep. Throw in...
    65 replies | 23953 view(s)
    0 XP
  • D1Tremere's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th April, 2019, 12:31 AM
    This is a problem endemic to role playing games in general. If an in game deception occurs, an in game response that is separate from the player must also occur. The player is still free to determine how their character would act on their revelation.
    193 replies | 5247 view(s)
    0 XP
  • D1Tremere's Avatar
    Wednesday, 10th April, 2019, 11:53 PM
    This isn't how I see it for whatever that is worth. A player uses insight in one of two occasions, they are actively curious about a subjects intentions (such as questioning a subject), or a subject is actively attempting to deceive them (as a DM may call for an insight check if they think the PCs should have a chance of spotting a deception roll). A player cannot roll until they get a 20...
    193 replies | 5247 view(s)
    0 XP
  • D1Tremere's Avatar
    Wednesday, 10th April, 2019, 11:44 PM
    Insight, as written, lets you attempt to determine the true intentions of a creature. If the creature is intending to lie to you, you can use insight to potentially determine this, likewise it will let you determine if they are intending to be honest with you. If they mislead or lie to you because of a mistake, then it is not their intention to do so, and a successful Insight check will let you...
    193 replies | 5247 view(s)
    1 XP
  • D1Tremere's Avatar
    Wednesday, 10th April, 2019, 11:21 PM
    I am unsure as to why Crawford would say that, as the spell as written does NOT target a creature. It allows the caster to attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell. This could be interpreted or described in a lot of different ways, most of which do not need to target anything (as is written). My opinion, ignore Crawford's advice on this one and play it as written.
    35 replies | 1403 view(s)
    0 XP
  • D1Tremere's Avatar
    Sunday, 31st March, 2019, 06:16 AM
    My honest opinion is that you do not meet the basic requirements for what will be a very competitive position. If you really want the job I would focus on gaining the requirements for next time it becomes available. If you just want to work for Wizards you could look for positions that are in line with your experience and rise from within. You could also look for similar jobs with less...
    27 replies | 1065 view(s)
    0 XP
  • D1Tremere's Avatar
    Thursday, 28th March, 2019, 02:27 AM
    How can you make the scientific method (Observe, Question, Hypothesis, Test, Reject/modify/strengthen) unreliable without throwing out the rules? The nature of the game makes the scientific method reliable, unless every caster is a wild mage and no structure exists to how skills/feats/attacks function.
    24 replies | 2084 view(s)
    1 XP
No More Results
About D1Tremere

Basic Information

Date of Birth
November 4, 1977 (41)

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
119
Posts Per Day
0.03
Last Post
Should Insight be able to determine if an NPC is lying? Today 02:26 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
1
General Information
Last Activity
Today 10:50 PM
Join Date
Monday, 3rd March, 2008
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thursday, 18th April, 2019


Tuesday, 16th April, 2019


Friday, 12th April, 2019


Thursday, 11th April, 2019


Thursday, 4th April, 2019


Wednesday, 3rd April, 2019


Tuesday, 2nd April, 2019


Monday, 1st April, 2019



Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Saturday, 19th May, 2018

  • 02:17 AM - pemerton mentioned D1Tremere in post Pathfinder 2's Armor & A Preview of the Paladin!
    D1Tremere I know nothing about you, your background, your education except what I can take from your posts. But if you want to know some prominent contemporary moral philosophers who accept the objectivity of morality on non-religious objective grounds, here are some: Onora O'Neill (Professor at Cambridge, Kantian) Frances Kamm (Professor at Harvard, Kantian) John Tasioulas (Professer at King's, Oxford-school Aristotelian) Peter Singer (Professer at Princeton and Melbourne, utilitarian whose argument for objectivity is a version of RM Hare's) Frank Jackson (Professer at ANU, whose argument for objectivity is based on his general approach to response-dependent properties) Michael Smith (Professor at Princeton, a student of Jackson who runs a similar sort of argument for moral objectivity) These are just the first six people I thought of. (Seven if you include Hare.) I could mention Pettit, or Estlund (I'm pretty sure he's an objectivist) or Michael Moore and Heidi Hurd...

No results to display...
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Thursday, 18th April, 2019

  • 02:43 AM - Elfcrusher quoted D1Tremere in post Should Insight be able to determine if an NPC is lying?
    "Ability Checks An ability check is a test to see whether a character succeeds at a task that he or she has decided to attempt." Says right here that the player can decide to attempt an ability check whenever they want to see if they succeed or fail at a task. Says nothing about the DM making that decision. Wait wait wait.... How did you get from “task” to “ability check”? A task is merely something that a character attempts to do, as described by the player. “I’ll unscrew the nut from the bolt” is deciding to undertake a task. It may or may not require an ability check. Furthermore, while a box wrench is used to turn a bolt or nut, not all bolts or nuts need or even accept box wrenches. Similarly, an ability check IS used to resolve a task, but not all tasks are resolved using ability checks. When you combine the passage you quoted with the passages that iserith keeps citing it becomes more clear. (I will, however, suggest that the troll king demanding an answer from the f...
  • 02:41 AM - iserith quoted D1Tremere in post Should Insight be able to determine if an NPC is lying?
    You could be right, I have been known to make mistakes and I do run my games in a certain way. I would argue that the results of the poll suggest that my interpretation is more in line with the default at most peoples tables. All of that said, I will defend my position a bit with actual rulebook information. I voted "Yes" on the poll. "Ability Checks An ability check is a test to see whether a character succeeds at a task that he or she has decided to attempt." Says right here that the player can decide to attempt an ability check whenever they want to see if they succeed or fail at a task. Says nothing about the DM making that decision. This is a common error people make, especially if they played D&D 3.Xe or D&D 4e or learned from people who come from those traditions. D&D 5e isn't like those games in many ways. You appear to be conflating a task with an ability check. As I stated in my previous posts a few times, a task and an ability check are not the same thing. A player can choose to h...
  • 01:50 AM - iserith quoted D1Tremere in post Should Insight be able to determine if an NPC is lying?
    The player always determines what the character thinks, does, and says, EXCEPT when those things are determined by the rules or the DM. Short of magical compulsion which is an exception to the rule, the player always determines what the character thinks, does, and says. The DM can only describe the environment and narrate the result of the adventurers' actions. They are always bound by the results of checks (or do players in your game simply disbelieve damage and hits away?). That's not the same thing as the DM telling a player, for example, that he or she must have the character act as if the NPC is lying (or telling the truth). A DM can choose to disregard the outcome of the rules/roles, and a player can choose to roleplay a scenario without invoking roles in many cases, but ultimately a player roles dice to try and succeed at a task or suffer the outcomes of failure. Why else are the dice there? The dice are there to resolve uncertainty as to the outcome of a task proposed by...

Wednesday, 17th April, 2019

  • 04:37 AM - Elfcrusher quoted D1Tremere in post Should Insight be able to determine if an NPC is lying?
    The point of the topic, and the discussion I was having with ElfCrusher, is the use of the Perception skill in detecting lies. My stance is that once a player uses the skill he is bound by the results, and should not simply be free to act otherwise by invoking player agency. The use of this ability tells the player what his character thinks (i.e., there is or is not intent to deceive present). This is what it does, and to do other wise would amount to letting a player choose when/if they fail. Oh, hey, so it looks like I wasn't reading too much into your previous posts, after all. So, um, yeah, you and I, we play the game very differently. The irony here is that your DMing style inadvertently leads to the outcome espoused by goal-and-method DMs: if I know that you will require me to roleplay my character by the results of a Perception/Insight check, I'm just not going to declare any actions that might cause you to force me to make such a roll. The DM does not choose whether actions succee...

Tuesday, 16th April, 2019

  • 11:56 PM - iserith quoted D1Tremere in post Should Insight be able to determine if an NPC is lying?
    The point of the topic, and the discussion I was having with ElfCrusher, is the use of the Perception skill in detecting lies. My stance is that once a player uses the skill he is bound by the results, and should not simply be free to act otherwise by invoking player agency. The use of this ability tells the player what his character thinks (i.e., there is or is not intent to deceive present). This is what it does, and to do other wise would amount to letting a player choose when/if they fail. The DM does not choose whether actions succeed or fail. The rules say that an action either succeeds or fails (you either make the attack roll or you miss, etc.). The DM can certainly choose to ignore the rules/roles if they deem it necessary, such as, as you have said, in cases where the game would be more fun or the story more interesting. The problem is, that isn't what this topic, or my comments are about. I have been discussing the use of the Perception skill in determining intention to deceive, and ...
  • 11:26 PM - iserith quoted D1Tremere in post Should Insight be able to determine if an NPC is lying?
    The DM narrates the adventure AND arbitrates the rules. Failure isn't always fun, but it still happens sometimes. Failure exists to give success meaning in the game, and to provide environmental feedback which can lead to learning. That said, I am unclear as to why you would equate having rules and enforcing them when they are invoked by a player with not being fun/contributing to a memorable story. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you here, but you said "disregarding the rules/physics of the game whenever you dislike the outcome undermines the structure of the game." I'm saying the outcome is up to the DM even when the rules are being used to resolve an outcome (particularly in the case of ability checks), so why would the DM choose outcomes - either success or failure - that aren't fun for everyone and contribute to an exciting, memorable story? If both success and failure are fun for the players (if not the characters) then disregarding the rules because the result is not fun wouldn't really ...
  • 11:26 PM - 5ekyu quoted D1Tremere in post Should Insight be able to determine if an NPC is lying?
    The DM narrates the adventure AND arbitrates the rules. Failure isn't always fun, but it still happens sometimes. Failure exists to give success meaning in the game, and to provide environmental feedback which can lead to learning. That said, I am unclear as to why you would equate having rules and enforcing them when they are invoked by a player with not being fun/contributing to a memorable story. If success in every action were a given, I think that would undermine fun and memorable story telling more than rules arbitration. If a DM does not arbitrate rules and they break down then the fun comes to a halt when the agency of two or more player "gods" conflicts. Example: Player 1 chooses to role to detect intent regarding deception from NPC. Player 1 gets a total of 10 (which succeed, unbeknownst to player 1). Player 1 is told that their character doesn't sense any deceptive intentions. Player 1 decides to act as though they did anyway. Player 2 also makes an ability check and succeeds, but n...
  • 10:47 PM - iserith quoted D1Tremere in post Should Insight be able to determine if an NPC is lying?
    Neither of these are directly related to my main point, which is that disregarding the rules/physics of the game whenever you dislike the outcome undermines the structure of the game. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions though - not the rules - so why would the DM choose possible outcomes for success or failure that aren't fun for everyone and/or don't contribute to an exciting, memorable story?
  • 12:02 PM - pemerton quoted D1Tremere in post Should Insight be able to determine if an NPC is lying?
    You are correct in that I am stating a character's perceptions of the situation should be dictated for the player once it becomes a rules arbitrated scenario. <snip> The skill is a rule, it provides an in game effect. Giving a player clues to interpret could result in their not being able to perform as their characters would because they lack sufficient real world feedback, or it could result in their using real world feedback, such as knowledge of the DM's non-verbal communications to make their character decision. The use of dice and rule exists to mediate between real world wishes and in character reality. <snip> "My character thinks this NPC is lying" - perfectly fine in my opinion. "I want to try to read this NPCs intentions with a skill but then ignore the results" - not cool in my book.A question prompted by this: Suppose a player is playing Battle Master fighter. The rules establish this character as a tactical expert; but suppose the player - either deliberately, or bec...

Friday, 12th April, 2019

  • 06:30 PM - Elfcrusher quoted D1Tremere in post Should Insight be able to determine if an NPC is lying?
    ...s. Reading back through I both acknowledge that I wasn't as clear as I should have been, and I wasn't paying attention to who wrote what. First there was this: Either way, the character believes they have succeeded. To which I replied: For a lot of people this crosses the line of agency. And I'll stand by that claim. I do think a lot of people, here on this forum, would say that dictating "the character believes" as a result of a die roll is crossing the line of player agency. At the same time, I don't think that in this context a lot of people would take offense at, "You think he's telling the truth..." because, although it's largely meant in the same spirit, I don't think it carries the full weight of dictating beliefs. If a DM says, "You think he's telling the truth" and the player says, "Hmmm...I still don't quite trust him" I don't think (god I hope) many DMs would say, "No, sorry, you used Insight and now you must abide by the die roll." And yet, that's what I thought D1Tremere was saying. And if he was, I think a lot of people here would balk at that. Then D1Tremere wrote: The player is still free to determine how their character would act on their revelation. By which I think he means that there's no such constraint. Or it could mean that the PC's beliefs have been dictated, and the player is free to choose actions that take that into account. Honestly I'm not sure. But then to further confuse things, you wrote a post beginning with: The orc stabs you for 15 damage. It hurts. Oh, noes, the DM is trampling on my character.... ...and somehow I thought that was also coming from D1Tremere. So I've made a couple of references to D1Trememe mitigating his early statements, but that was you. :-/ Sorry...I've made a muddle of it. Ok, now that's just being petty. The obvious implication here is that the NPC is, in fact, attempting to deceive. Cheese weaseling, "his true intention is to mislead you" is, again the same meaning as "you think he's l...

Thursday, 11th April, 2019

  • 04:11 AM - Elfcrusher quoted D1Tremere in post Should Insight be able to determine if an NPC is lying?
    This is a problem endemic to role playing games in general. If an in game deception occurs, an in game response that is separate from the player must also occur. The player is still free to determine how their character would act on their revelation. Yes, that's one possible way of playing RPGs. Another way is that the player is free to decide what their character thinks and believes. Although, I suppose that if a player is required to roleplay a certain thing if they fail an Insight check, that makes a handy consequence to rolling the dice: Player: "I think he's lying...I study his face and listen to his tone of voice to see if he seems nervous." DM: "That will require an Insight check, but if you fail that means your character will have to abide by whatever conclusion I dictate." Player: "Hells no...I'll just stick with my instinct that he's lying, TYVM." (I'm being facetious, but to me this illustrates the fallacy of trying to tell players what their characters believe.)

Wednesday, 10th April, 2019


Thursday, 4th April, 2019

  • 03:56 AM - Maxperson quoted D1Tremere in post Vecna v Acererak v Larloch? Who's The Most Powerful Lich?
    I have not seen a definition of Mary Sue that uses the word charmed. Most say directly, perfect (as I quoted). The rest heavily imply perfection. Your definition may be the problem, as it is novel. You're seriously arguing that Mary Sue characters are God? Because anything less than that is imperfect. Me, I get that a Mary Sue character is not perfect and means something completely different than an all powerful, all knowing, perfect being. All of these are literally weaknesses or drawbacks that gods possess which mortals do not. So, by definition, these things make gods weaker than liches (in these specific ways at least). There may be other contexts in which gods are stronger than liches, but not the ones I listed. You realize that you are literally arguing that if I tie one hand behind your back, a weakness that a 2 year old doesn't have, that you are weaker than a 2 year old. The context in which gods are stronger than liches is power. They are more powerful than liches. ...
  • 01:55 AM - Maxperson quoted D1Tremere in post Vecna v Acererak v Larloch? Who's The Most Powerful Lich?
    You stated that you think Larloch is a Mary Sue. "A Mary Sue is an idealized and seemingly perfect fictional character. Often, this character is recognized as an author insert or wish fulfillment." If you believe him to be perfect and an object of wish fulfillment then you must think him more powerful than Vecna, who is not. Um, again, no. Being a Mary Sue does not make you all powerful. It just makes you charmed, and Larloch's entire write up is charmed writing by a guy who likes to make Mary Sue NPCs. Vecna is far more powerful than he is, despite Larloch's Mary Sue status. Gods are actively opposed by other gods, bound by rules, traditions, and often powerful cosmological laws. Their power is often tied directly or indirectly to their believers, making them a bit like politicians in most regards. They cannot act without setting in motion a series of cosmic checks and balances that more often than not end in divine stalemate. None of this makes gods weaker than liches. I wou...

Wednesday, 3rd April, 2019

  • 07:43 PM - Azzy quoted D1Tremere in post Vecna v Acererak v Larloch? Who's The Most Powerful Lich?
    How powerful can a god be in a system where they can be defeated, de-powered, or even killed by non-divine agents? Still more powerful than a mortal.
  • 05:33 AM - Dausuul quoted D1Tremere in post Vecna v Acererak v Larloch? Who's The Most Powerful Lich?
    It seems strange to me that anyone would differentiate the value of activities of a fictional character that appear in reference material such as Lords of Darkness and Volo's Guide to the Sword Cost from those of a fictional character that appear in different reference material such as Die Vecna Die! Essentially your counter to the argument that Larloch is more powerful than Vecna is to agree that he is, but then refuse to accept it because you value some types of fictional sources differently than others. Vecna and Larloch both had schemes to become gods. Vecna is now a god. Larloch... isn't. Larloch's activities are pretty well confined to the Forgotten Realms. Vecna transcended his Greyhawk origins long ago and now schemes across the multiverse. Vecna has had far more visible impact on the cosmos, including reshaping the planes themselves in "Die Vecna Die!" Ed Greenwood suggests that this is because Vecna is just flashier and noisier, but this is hard to reconcile with the fact that ...
  • 05:08 AM - Maxperson quoted D1Tremere in post Vecna v Acererak v Larloch? Who's The Most Powerful Lich?
    It seems strange to me that anyone would differentiate the value of activities of a fictional character that appear in reference material such as Lords of Darkness and Volo's Guide to the Sword Cost from those of a fictional character that appear in different reference material such as Die Vecna Die! You don't see the difference between active use in all kinds of adventures and products, and being nothing but a story? Essentially your counter to the argument that Larloch is more powerful than Vecna is to agree that he is, but then refuse to accept it because you value some types of fictional sources differently than others. Um, I've said multiple times that Vecna is more powerful, so I'm not sure where you get that from. I also don't buy the whole, a lich is more powerful than a god schtick. I think that's a silly idea.
  • 03:15 AM - Maxperson quoted D1Tremere in post Vecna v Acererak v Larloch? Who's The Most Powerful Lich?
    Done nothing? Did you not see the list of his accomplishments I posted? I would argue that he has accomplished more (According to published books) than Vecna. Those "accomplishments" were entirely written up in a very Mary Sue fashion. Very little has ever been done with Larloch. Vecna on the other hand has had his artifacts found, used, and/or destroyed for decades. He has been the villain in multiple modules, a god to worship and grant spells, used by countless DMs in their games, and probably used by Gygax himself in some of his games. Below is a link that provides some references for Vecna. Larloch doesn't even come close to being used like Vecna. Read the references and further reading. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vecna

Tuesday, 2nd April, 2019

  • 02:05 PM - lowkey13 quoted D1Tremere in post Vecna v Acererak v Larloch? Who's The Most Powerful Lich?
    Bottom line, being a god is not all it is cracked up to be, and even a god who hails from from Greyhawk pales in comparison to a Netherese Lichking. "I am so subtle and powerful that I don't even need to be a God. I was like, totally offered God-hood, and I turned it down, because I am already more powerful than a God in the FR! Like, did you know that being a God has all these disadvantages, like followers that worship you, and immortality, and all that power. I mean, what would I even do with that? If I was a God, how could I start taking credit for all the stuff going on, huh? Wait. Where are you going. Why are you ignoring me? Just think about all the books that haven't been written about me! If you don't come back, I might do something that you'll never know or hear about!" Larloch, probably, as reported by Elminster.
  • 03:41 AM - Maxperson quoted D1Tremere in post Vecna v Acererak v Larloch? Who's The Most Powerful Lich?
    Those are fancy titles, but what has he done? He was a major god for a hot minute before getting kicked out of Sigil by no one worth mentioning. Got owned by his own creations on multiple occasions. He was locked up in Ravenloft for a good while. I hate to go there, but Vecna is basically Anakin Skywalker. He becomes bitter and twisted because his mother is killed and his right hand man cuts off a bunch of his body parts. He then gets defeated by a bunch of rag tag newcomers just as he is about to achieve true power. At least Vecna did stuff. Larloch has literally done nothing. He's just a Mary Sue write-up.


Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

D1Tremere's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites