View Profile: Shasarak - D&D, Pathfinder, and RPGs at Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Today, 10:30 AM
    Ok, thats alright. I have found that in most scenarios it is hard to fit one or two of the PCs in like maybe the Fighter in this Bear scenario, while the Ranger is in his element. Obviously it depends on your character abilities so maybe the Sorcerer can pull off Intimidate but if the Wizard had to do it then it would be basically an impossible roll. I was asking about about whether you let...
    307 replies | 9008 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Today, 10:16 AM
    I really dont see that 4e does not rely on the adventuring day. Everyone has Daily abilities, they all get a certain number of Healing surges per day with Action points that reset every day and items that also have Daily abilities. At high levels you get abiltiies like: "Once per day, when you die....". 4e is full of the normal DnD resources that need to be carefully hoarded and preserved. It...
    307 replies | 9008 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Today, 09:44 AM
    Now this is very interesting. So you decided to go for 6 successes and you have detailed 3 of them, did the Players know they had to keep going for 3 more successes and how did you change the scenario, if at all, as they were going through? Did anything happen after the bear was being soothed and subdued? As I understand it the Ranger can not just keep using his Nature skill and if there...
    307 replies | 9008 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Today, 09:37 AM
    That is exactly why some DMs are wary of Reflavouring and really all the Player wants to do is get cool Wolverine claws.
    307 replies | 9008 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Today, 09:24 AM
    Personally I love me some third person Wrestler roleplaying.
    416 replies | 8721 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Today, 08:49 AM
    If I had designed an encounter in a room that had a certain number of Orcs guarding a certain number of Pies and I had determined that the only way to win was for the Party to hit the Orcs X number of times before the Orcs hit them Y number of times then I would agree that does look a lot like a Skill Challenge.
    307 replies | 9008 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:23 PM
    If you are looking at ADnD classes then there is no effective difference in metagaming between playing any class and playing a character class that you have designed yourself. In either case it does not matter what happens during the actual campaign.
    416 replies | 8721 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:15 PM
    I dont know if I would agree with DM driven play other then the DM making a "mistake" during his map creation phase and/or expecting the Party to know the Elven word for "Friend" to get through the door perhaps. I guess in a sandbox game having a door that you can not get through is not really a problem in that there are other things to do. I dont really see that the DM picking an...
    307 replies | 9008 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:24 AM
    That is true, especially if characters dont take wounds! ;0)
    416 replies | 8721 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:38 AM
    I dont remember coming across the Story Now term. This article seems to have a very comprehensive description of it though so I will have to take the time to look at it in more depth.
    307 replies | 9008 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:33 AM
    By abusive I mean things like re-flavouring your Adamantine sword as being retractable Adamantine claws that can pop out of your hand. The mechanics are obviously exactly the same attack, damage etc but the flavour is very different. And now you get questions like, if everyone else is disarmed then do you get dis "armed" or is it just your luck that you sneak your weapon inside? I could see a...
    307 replies | 9008 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:14 AM
    Ha, well that could explain the problems that I had trying to use that Screw Driver as a Hammer then. ;0) Guardmore Abbey was far too late for me, I had stopped buying official adventures before then. I have seen a lot of advice re: Skill Challenges and seen a few videos I think Matt Colvile did one or two. Honestly I am not sure what the set structure brings to the table that makes...
    307 replies | 9008 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:41 AM
    There are definitely degrees of Railroading. Honestly I dont see anything wrong with the DM saying that they have brought this Adventure path and who wants to jump on the Adventure train. There is still plenty of Player agency within the concept to have fun as long as you are not bringing a Paladin to a Pirate fight.
    307 replies | 9008 view(s)
    3 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:28 AM
    Mmmhmm, I am not sure I would put it down to willful ignorance. There are definitions of Games, Narrative and Simulation already that do not seems to match 100% with your definitions. Thank you for taking the time to explain. I can certainly see how some of those features framed in a different context can look the way you say. Certainly looking at some of the encounters that iserith has...
    307 replies | 9008 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:25 AM
    It seems to be common for terms to change and even to take on an opposite meaning then the original term. My favourite example is the term Decimate which originally meant to kill one out of ten soldiers but now is used as a description of killing a large proportion (maybe even 9 out of 10?) of people. Are you able to describe what makes 4e more or less railroady then other DnD games? ...
    307 replies | 9008 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:07 AM
    I never really saw any real problem with reflavouring during the 4e era. I mean there are a few edge cases which could be abusive if a Player wanted to push it. The latest edition of Gamma World used reflavouring even more then 4e did.
    307 replies | 9008 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Sunday, 15th July, 2018, 10:30 PM
    That would be my question as well considering that both of the PCs are mechanically "fine" and able to do everything that they would have been able to do at 30hp?
    416 replies | 8721 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Sunday, 15th July, 2018, 08:44 AM
    Well ADnD locked you into a fixed class progression which you said that you did not like.
    416 replies | 8721 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Sunday, 15th July, 2018, 08:40 AM
    Of course it is a false equivalence, no Doctors can cast spells! And although your dad can make you CEO of his company he cant get you that Doctorate qualification that you wanted, only an honourary one.
    416 replies | 8721 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Sunday, 15th July, 2018, 12:26 AM
    I love the metagame and on the other hand in ADnD the rules for multiclassing just dont even make a lick of sense. and dont even get me started about being locked into planning out every character in advance from level 1. :shake fist:
    416 replies | 8721 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Sunday, 15th July, 2018, 12:22 AM
    Well thats what the rules said but I am sure you did not have to follow every rule. Yes and I bet that I can find a 5th level Wizard who can not cast Fireball. Same level titled people can have different skills.
    416 replies | 8721 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Saturday, 14th July, 2018, 09:20 AM
    Ryan Dancey predicted what would happen to DnD back in 2012 and it looks like things have played out almost exactly as he thought.
    307 replies | 9008 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Saturday, 14th July, 2018, 09:05 AM
    That is pretty much the Stormwind Fallacy though. What you think is meta I could explain with a perfectly logical in-game reasoning. It would be even better if you could work with the DM to explain what was happening and on the other hand you can not rely on the DM supporting your 20 level character plan so sometimes it is just better to just do it without a big fanfare. I used to...
    416 replies | 8721 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Saturday, 14th July, 2018, 08:54 AM
    If levels are just a metagame then how come you used to gain a new title with each level? Depending on what career you are in I can bet that you have different titles depending where you are in your career path. I know that Doctors for example go through several ranks as they are leveling up and that they are expected to have certain skills at those ranks. They can also choose to specialise...
    416 replies | 8721 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Saturday, 14th July, 2018, 08:45 AM
    That example is how a mulitclass Cleric/Ranger works in ADnD. You get a fixed planned progression with no choices on which class you level up in. Your example is exactly why I believe that multiclassing in 3e is less metagamy then in ADnD. Your Ranger could never do that in ADnD unless he happened to be Human with exceptional Wisdom and even then you would have finished as a Cleric that...
    416 replies | 8721 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Saturday, 14th July, 2018, 12:22 AM
    The future of DnD was looking grim but not for the reason that you may be thinking. When the pendulum of DnD swings right to the extreme edge of the DnD axis then either it shoots off the edge and fails or it comes back into the larger DnD tent. Say what you will about 5e but it at least succeeded in returning to a more normal DnD base line.
    307 replies | 9008 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Friday, 13th July, 2018, 11:34 PM
    I think that you can be a good friend and a bad DM at the same time.
    307 replies | 9008 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Friday, 13th July, 2018, 11:19 PM
    I dont see it as any more or less meta. Infact I had a discussion with Kobold Boots regarding planning out 20 levels of your character progression in advance, is that not what a multiclass Cleric/Ranger has done? It effectively does not matter what they do to earn their XP because you know that you are going to level up in Cleric first irregardless of how much Rangering that you have done. And...
    416 replies | 8721 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Friday, 13th July, 2018, 07:08 AM
    Wait are you trying to say that earning XP is meta? Because I would definitely agree with that. If you are trying to argue that using XP to go up a level is meta then I would say that yes it could be if you did not roleplay how you were specifically working to go up a level Ranger or Cleric or some such.
    416 replies | 8721 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Friday, 13th July, 2018, 03:36 AM
    No the differences between ADnD and 3e are pretty clear. I think Lanefan explained it pretty well the real difference is that 3e does what Lanefans split XP system also does.
    416 replies | 8721 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Friday, 13th July, 2018, 01:40 AM
    I dont buy the excuse that having a rule saying that you can cheat means you can not cheat. Sure you can have a party walk into a room of 50 Orcs and every single Orc pulls out their javelin and throws at the one guy. I have seen the comic too: If that happened to my character and then DM started bragging about it then I would not turn up with another character. I am sorry to hear...
    307 replies | 9008 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Friday, 13th July, 2018, 01:12 AM
    I agree that you can have long fights in any DnD system. The main problem for me with 4e fights was that every* fight was a long fight. *OK so we did have one fast fight where the Rogue went first and hit and killed every minion with an AoE. But I guess that would be an equivalent to the 2 guards example above.
    307 replies | 9008 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Thursday, 12th July, 2018, 06:49 AM
    I had not heard of having an uneven split with XP. But you see that you go up one level of Fighter and then another level of Fighter and then finally one level of Wizard which is effectively the same as leveling up one level of Fighter, one level of Fighter, one level of Wizard (except not being able to start as a Fighter/Wizard at level 1 of course.) I dont know maybe there is an exploit...
    416 replies | 8721 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Thursday, 12th July, 2018, 06:27 AM
    You would imagine that would be the case wouldnt you but nope.
    416 replies | 8721 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Thursday, 12th July, 2018, 06:25 AM
    That is indeed the problem of using a level system but it is much the same in 1e you go up one whole level in one class at a time. It was definitely a big improvement over the dual class rules for humans though where you stopped being a Fighter until your other class was high enough. That is true. Most martial classes did add together so a Fighter 8/Rogue 2 would be much the same as a...
    416 replies | 8721 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Thursday, 12th July, 2018, 01:56 AM
    1e multi classing is way to metagamy for me and I love the meta game. If you play a Fighter who because of game reasons wants to become a Cleric then you are stuff out of luck if your stats are not exceptional and if you are not human. 3e fixed that problem.
    416 replies | 8721 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Thursday, 12th July, 2018, 12:51 AM
    You know I would love to give you the benefit of the doubt. Just give me one reasonable excuse for a DM to go out of their way to cheat and kill a PC just because the Player is excited enough to try and plan out their character build. I mean the PC still has to adventure to earn XP to level up so it is not as if the Player is trying to some how cheat the system. They still earn their...
    307 replies | 9008 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Wednesday, 11th July, 2018, 11:32 PM
    Number 2 does not apply because a smart DM would not kill a character just because a Player plans out their character arc. In reality people have a idea of what they want to be and then go out and do it all the time.
    307 replies | 9008 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Wednesday, 11th July, 2018, 10:10 PM
    Meh, then just make exactly the same character and do it again and again and again. Really rub that DMs face in it.
    307 replies | 9008 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Tuesday, 10th July, 2018, 11:04 PM
    Brands under 50 million had to stand on their own merits. Brands over 50 million got extra support from Hasbro. There is no evidence that DnD would have folded as long as it could have retained an income that supported its expenses. Which is exactly what we have now: a couple of guys making a couple of books a year.
    307 replies | 9008 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Tuesday, 10th July, 2018, 11:17 AM
    Honestly I am not sure how Mike plays. In any case we just followed the rules as presented and even from level one it was slooowww. Players turns were slow, monsters felt like big spongy bags of hit points that just did not want to go down and off turn reactions made things even slower as well as contributing to the extra added initiative confusion.
    307 replies | 9008 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Tuesday, 10th July, 2018, 11:10 AM
    No, we are going to observe that predictions of DnDs demise were greatly exaggerated. I mean they even got enough funding to have a two year playtest.
    307 replies | 9008 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Tuesday, 10th July, 2018, 06:05 AM
    I think you are right. It seems doubtful that Paizo would have realised that 4e was a "story first" game and been able to create an adventure path to play to 4e's strengths. That would have been asking for a real hail mary shot to pull that off for sure.
    307 replies | 9008 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Tuesday, 10th July, 2018, 03:10 AM
    It turns out that the other alternative to DnD getting shut down was to cut down the staff to a couple of guys who put out a couple of books a year. No magazines, no VTT, no novels but DnD is still going.
    307 replies | 9008 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Monday, 9th July, 2018, 08:10 AM
    I always pronounced Drow as in Bow.
    165 replies | 22450 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Monday, 9th July, 2018, 08:07 AM
    The lead designer said that he never wanted to use "the exact same power structure for every class". But I guess many of the other designers could have felt differently.
    307 replies | 9008 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Friday, 6th July, 2018, 10:51 PM
    The real problem with 4e is that it is just too slow. I just dont see how blaming the community or lack of decent adventures or lack of DDI is going to solve the real fundamental problem with the rules.
    307 replies | 9008 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Wednesday, 4th July, 2018, 10:29 PM
    In my opinion machine guns had a lot more to do with WW1 trench warfare then artillery did.
    47 replies | 1881 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Friday, 29th June, 2018, 10:33 PM
    That sounds more like a Player problem then a System problem to me. Maybe you could have a talk with the Player that sounds like it would probably fix that issue up the fastest.
    171 replies | 5760 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Friday, 29th June, 2018, 05:24 AM
    I dont really understand what you are saying? Are you saying that the caster can not cast his spells on anyone in the team?
    171 replies | 5760 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Friday, 29th June, 2018, 05:04 AM
    Yes Hit Dice and Healing Surges are individual resources and on the other hand spells can be cast on anyone in the team.
    171 replies | 5760 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Friday, 29th June, 2018, 02:51 AM
    By giving you a pool of healing that your character can access and also allowing you to use other magical healing as well.
    171 replies | 5760 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Friday, 29th June, 2018, 01:02 AM
    It seems like a team game and on the other hand the way that healing surges work mean that instead of healing being a team resourcet it became an individual resource that could force the whole party to have to rest. I know that 5e Hit Dice and healing mostly fixed this problem.
    171 replies | 5760 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Friday, 29th June, 2018, 12:36 AM
    My experience with healing surges was that there was always one character that ran out of healing surges before the rest of the party which forced the whole party to stop.
    171 replies | 5760 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Thursday, 28th June, 2018, 07:08 AM
    I think Steve Winter said it best:
    307 replies | 9008 view(s)
    3 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Thursday, 28th June, 2018, 04:18 AM
    Best spelling mistake I have seen today! Haggis will exit whether you like it or not!
    157 replies | 4812 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Thursday, 28th June, 2018, 04:15 AM
    I guess if you make the decision in the instant that damage is dealt then you never have to retroactively unkill him. If you wait until after the DM applies the damage then yeah retroactive unkilling :bleagh:
    157 replies | 4812 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Wednesday, 20th June, 2018, 10:08 PM
    It is not really that ironic once you have learnt all the old stuff then it is probably easier to keep going then relearning a different system.
    61 replies | 1880 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Shasarak's Avatar
    Wednesday, 20th June, 2018, 12:42 AM
    I think in general I prefer the unified mechanics. Certainly there is not much different between using a d20 and a d100 unless you have a level of granularity that needs values less then 5%. Having said that, one mechanic that I would enjoy seeing again is the Ability check so maybe having two mechanics would not be too much of a stretch and certainly would give Ability scores more of a...
    61 replies | 1880 view(s)
    1 XP
No More Results
About Shasarak

Basic Information

About Shasarak
Location:
Auckland, New Zealand

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
3,017
Posts Per Day
1.04
Last Post
Pathfinder 2 Character Sheet #5: Merisiel, Elf Rogue Today 12:14 PM

Currency

Gold Pieces
2
General Information
Last Activity
Today 12:14 PM
Join Date
Saturday, 21st August, 2010
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Tuesday, 17th July, 2018


Monday, 16th July, 2018


Sunday, 15th July, 2018



Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tuesday, 17th October, 2017

  • 10:22 AM - pemerton mentioned Shasarak in post RPG Combat: Sport or War?
    I'd like to stress that when playing a 'grittier' RPG system, you have less freedom, in a way: Since combat is lethal, it's something that must be avoided at all cost. Players _must_ come up with ways to overcome their opposition by means other than open combat, otherwise your campaign is going to be short-lived.For me, this illustrates the point I've been making upthread, to Saelorn, Shasarak and billd91. In a genuinely grim & gritty RPG, ambushing someone with a sword, or a crossbow, should be (more-or-less) as dangerous as dropping a rock on them. It's purely an artefact of D&D's mechanics, which rates a sword at d8 or d10 but leaves the rating of a boulder to the GM, that results in a fighter being unable to kill someone in a weapon ambush but able- at least at the tables of those GMs mentioned - to kill someone with a boulder ambush. Which once again relates back to Aenghus's point, that the effectiveness of the boulder vs the sword turns primarily on end-running around the damage rules. It's entirely an artefact of mechanics, not of "narrative first". In a "narrative first" game involving people of "flesh and bone" (to quote Saelorn), an ambush with a sword or bow should be capable of lethality. (And in games like RuneQuest, Rolemaster, Burning Wheel, etc - ie with broadly simulationist action resolution mechanics - it is.) But D&D chooses to subordinate letha...

Friday, 7th July, 2017

  • 05:02 AM - hawkeyefan mentioned Shasarak in post Mearls on other settings
    ...terest them. This way, DMs can easily keep unwanted assumptions 100% out of their rulebooks and their games. In my own case, if the Great Wheel of Planescape and all of its polytheism was a separate expansion pack, while the Players Handbook made no mention to it, then I would be at peace and able to enjoy the game better. Different DMs are sensitive to different things, but we can all benefit from compartmentalizing the options. I disagree that it's WotC's responsibility to cater to the sensitivities of DMs and players. I think it's up to the DMs and players themselves to decide what material to use or not. I mean, I get the appeal of rule books written exactly to my personal preference...but it's simply not a realistic expectation. So Ravenloft was never meant to be a living setting in its own.? It's only visited from others? That's where my lack of history trips me up :) I thought it was a fully fledged setting that could host campaigns without needing outside support? As Shasarak said, the many realms that made up the Demiplane of Dread, the setting for the Ravenloft game, were each made for a particular dark lord. These realms were the domain of a dark lord, but also their prison as well. Each of these dark lords was taken from another world...Toril, Oerth, Krynn, or any number of unnamed worlds. Typically, the PCs in Ravenloft adventures are drawn through the misty barriwrs from their world and into the demiplane of dread. So the setting was its own, but it was conmected to the other worlds and interacted with them.

Friday, 23rd June, 2017

  • 05:32 AM - Yaarel mentioned Shasarak in post Why FR Is "Hated"
    @Shasarak and @Azzy You are kinda proving my point about ‘D&D peer pressure’ to pretend to ‘worship’ ‘gods’. If I told you, I hate Kobolds. I imagine your response would be something like. Thats nice. I dont care. But when I say, I hate polytheism. You guys seem as if unable to stop yourself from launching into some kind of reallife culture war about issues that I couldnt care less about. I enjoy D&D without ‘gods’. I watch televisions shows where polytheism is irrelevant. I want to play games where it is irrelevant too.

Monday, 12th June, 2017

  • 02:30 AM - Hussar mentioned Shasarak in post Why FR Is "Hated"
    It's interesting that you bring up Caderly Shasarak. That's one of the few FR books I actually have read. Although, it was a LONG time ago and I don't think I read all of them. Wasn't there something about a killer yo-yo in those books? Anyway, think about what you just said though. Cadderly is the exception. Most of the priests don't adventure, and never did. Yet, funnily enough, there were higher level clerics than Cadderly at his temple. How did they gain levels? They specifically weren't adventurers, so, what did they kill or loot in order to gain several thousand xp points to go from 1st to, say, 3rd level. Just to roll this back to the idea of NPC's using PC rules. Lanefan spells it out pretty well. In AD&D, sure, you could use NPC rules for a humanoid (and only a humanoid - sorry, no class levels for your beholder), or, you could kinda sorta just bolt on some PC abilities onto an NPC, or, as was the much more common case, you could use a unique stat block. 3e changed all that. Not only did you have the option of...

Friday, 19th May, 2017

  • 12:34 AM - robus mentioned Shasarak in post To Post or Not to Post: An Ethics Question
    Something that is being ignored is fair use. I'm not saying that this is a case of that (I'm not a copyright lawyer) but it certainly sounds like the work is transformative (by recontextualizing the works) and there is certainly no impact on the "market" as the works have already been freely shared on the Internet. So the legality and the ethics are not as cut and dried as they may appear. And Shasarak is correct that an awful lot of stuff on the internet would be illegal if including others work was the only criteria.
  • 12:00 AM - LordEntrails mentioned Shasarak in post To Post or Not to Post: An Ethics Question
    Shasarak, I know where you are going with this. And I'm not going to have a debate with you about it. Suffice it to say in your country and mine what you are suggesting is illegal. In almost every ethical system what you are suggesting is unethical.

Saturday, 15th April, 2017

  • 01:41 AM - LordEntrails mentioned Shasarak in post We're Finally Mainstream! Now What?
    Shasarak, I simply can't follow your arguments. It seems like you are taking comments and arguments from anyone that doesn't side with you as being all in one pool, or something. But anyways, it doesn't matter. Labels are only as good as people are willing to agree upon them and use them consistantly. Which isn't happening here.

Tuesday, 14th February, 2017

  • 03:28 PM - Sadras mentioned Shasarak in post Whatever "lore" is, it isn't "rules."
    Simply having an opinion about a call is nothing to apologize for. Here is the thing though Max, doesn't a Onetruewayism zealot also state their opinion? It becomes increasingly messy to differentiate which unfavourable opinion of one's game is tolerable and which one is not. This might all just be a simple matter of etiquette. @Shasarak did the exact same thing with me in the other thread, calling me a lazy DM because I don't allow every character concept under the sun at my table when I DM. It ain't right either way. His style and my style are clearly different, but we shouldn't go around making disparaging remarks of each others preferences. Hiding behind it just an opinion doesn't give it a free pass. Sorry. EDIT: We cross-posted. Just saw your post above. ;)

Sunday, 12th February, 2017

  • 01:04 AM - pemerton mentioned Shasarak in post Whatever "lore" is, it isn't "rules."
    Imaro, Maxperson, Shasarak: Wizards Presents: Worlds & Monsters, p 62: [T]he design for elementals themselves had to change. . . . The elemental archons are a good example of a new creature born of this design approach. THey were created by the primordials to be elite soldiers . . . In the elemental hierarchy, they form the basis of world-scouring armies. The designers know that these are new creatures - they are not a reconcepting of Jeff Grubb's creation. It surprises me that this is even contentious. Again, contrast eladrin: from pp 40-41 of the same book: Some of the existing good-aligned monsters did incorporate neeat designs that we wanted to preserve and improve upon. Most of the eladrins fell into that category. . . . [W]e noted their generally fey appearance, and this led to a natural association with the Feywild. . . . Eladrins were already powerful magical beings in previous editions of the game. Now they have a very similar role, but as mysterious lords and ladies of the Feywild. When they a...

Saturday, 4th February, 2017

  • 04:20 AM - pemerton mentioned Shasarak in post Whatever "lore" is, it isn't "rules."
    what inherent value would you say it has for you to hew as closely as possible to what feels like the structural essence or foundation of the setting? I asked (a version of) this question on the other thread. Shasarak answered - roughly (but I hope not too loose a paraphrase) the answer was that the setting is a work of art, and departure from canon is a type of "affront" to the artwork. ("Affront" is my word, not Shasarak's - it's not quite right, becuase the artwork doesn't itself have feelings, but for present purposes hopefully it conveys the general idea in a comprehensible fashion.) Respect for my players. If I tell them I'm going to run Darksun, I feel obligated to give them Darksun, not some bastardized version.This seems to imply that one of the reasons you think that my decision to include the WoHS in my GH game was that it disrespected my players. If that is correct, it makes it even more odd to me that you haven't made any inquiries about the circumstances of the case. Is it relevant, for instance, that I started GMing that group as the outcome of a "revolt" against a prior GM whom the rest of us all agreed was terrible - and that it was on the basis of an offer to run a game ...
  • 04:04 AM - pemerton mentioned Shasarak in post Whatever "lore" is, it isn't "rules."
    ...s there are? Maybe they liked the extra magic sub system?Well they clearly liked the magic system, given that they engaged with it via PC building when they were under no obligation to do so. They also liked the story. (I think it's a fairly compelling one. That's why I put it into my game!) But some of them were certainly quite familiar with GH. And even those who didn't know it very well would have seen the well-known cover of Unearthed Arcana with its two moons. I think they simply realised that two visible moons doesn't preclude a third invisible one. I'm not saying that the 3rd moon is canon - of course it's not. I'm saying that adding it doesn't make the game cease to be a GH game. Any RPGing will mean that the setting takes on non-canonical features/elements.I think most Greyhawk GMs would agree with you there.Maybe. That said, this thread consists of a significant number of posts - from Maxperson, Imaro and maybe some other posters (eg I'm less clear about Shasarak on this poiint) - stating that my GH game is not really a GH game precisely because of addditional elements - like the 3rd moon, and the WoHS to go with it - that I have introduced. there's a differences between grabbing someone's work whole cloth and dropping it into your setting, slightly modifying someone else's work and using another's idea as inspiration to springboard off of for your own creation.This is not in dispute either. In my case, the WoHS are dropped largely whole-cloth into GH, with only as many changes made (Suel origins, astronomical details, relationships to other sorcerous traditions) as are needed to have them fit into their new home. My claim is that such a whole-cloth drop (with such slight modifications as are needed to make it work) doesn't make the game cease to be a GH one. as more material got published for campaign settings as well as in Dragon Magazine and in novels, there were a lot more players cropping up with passing familiarity in the se...

Tuesday, 31st January, 2017

  • 03:02 AM - Maxperson mentioned Shasarak in post Whatever "lore" is, it isn't "rules."
    But the only reason you have given for it being "alternative GH" rathwr than GH per se is that you, Maxperson, would have certain expectations disappointed. You have expressly eschewed offering any reason that is not individual and particular to you. Pretty much everyone has a line where settings stop being that setting. It varies from person to person, so of course I can't speak to anyone but myself. My line isn't your line. Your line isn't Shasarak's line. His line isn't Imaro's, and so on. The line does exist for everyone, though. How is that a reason for judging whether or not it is really a GH game (as oppposed to, say, a game that you want to play in).I didn't say I wouldn't want to play in it. I said I wouldn't view it as Greyhawk.

Saturday, 28th January, 2017

  • 08:01 AM - Sadras mentioned Shasarak in post Do you care about setting "canon"?
    ... if you're playing canon, the setting of Krynn doesn't cater for those races, however we have a PHB and now Volo's Guide riddled with additional races and classes which do not have a history in that setting. Now If the intention of the DM is to create a game within the parameters of setting are you saying that is not allowable? Similarly, I have my own limitation for my setting, I don't permit monks at my table for whatever reason for my Mystara game. The players know this beforehand. We have been playing within this setting for the last 20 years and they're very much aware of this ruling. It is not as if they are coming every week to my table with a character sheet and I'm going "No, not happening" Not pre-adding everything that a player could possibly want to your campaign setting, and telling a player you won't add in a specific something they like under any circumstance are worlds apart. The former is fine, not at all lazy, and not what was being discussed. The later is what @Shasarak called "lazy". Sorry no you're very much misrepresenting him. @Shasarak has very much outed his intentions by neither responding to my post or @Caliban's. He firmly said that all should be allowed otherwise it's lazy DMing. I'm assuming this is because he still carries the scars of a bad DM or his players have limited (lazy) imaginations and can only play one-trick ponies.
  • 07:49 AM - AaronOfBarbaria mentioned Shasarak in post Do you care about setting "canon"?
    [MENTION=6701872]Apparently Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman were lazy because they did not allow Tieflings, Orcs, Half-Orcs, Drow and Lyncathropes in Krynn.Unless you have anecdotes of those two refusing to work something out with a player wanting to play one of those things, you've created a false equivalence. Not pre-adding everything that a player could possibly want to your campaign setting, and telling a player you won't add in a specific something they like under any circumstance are worlds apart. The former is fine, not at all lazy, and not what was being discussed. The later is what Shasarak called "lazy".
  • 06:58 AM - Sadras mentioned Shasarak in post Do you care about setting "canon"?
    However, I generally do try to work together with the player, but not always. There are some races that simply don't fit, or I'm simply not willing to deal with. That's my prerogative as a DM. AaronOfBarbaria doesn't follow that line of reasoning, neither does his head-scratching friend Shasarak. The former posted his reasoning in the Capricious Home Rules and DM Pet Peeves thread. The latter is so entitled that he casually calls the rest of us lazy. Apparently Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman were lazy because they did not allow Tieflings, Orcs, Half-Orcs, Drow and Lyncathropes in Krynn. Lazy DMs those two. How about all the other world builders who didn't include Kender. Lazy! And now with Volo's Guide, well you just cannot imagine how many Lazy DM's are out there these days. Its an epidemic I tell you!
  • 02:38 AM - AaronOfBarbaria mentioned Shasarak in post Do you care about setting "canon"?
    I also don't like to eat liver. It tastes horrible to me.Using your analogy, and attempting to explain what appears to be Shasarak's view that you just don't seem to be getting: Not eating liver because you don't like the taste makes perfect sense. I don't eat liver either, interestingly enough. But when you say "No dragonborn at my table." it doesn't sound like you are saying "No liver for me, thanks." so much as it sounds like "No liver for anyone eating at the same table as me."

Thursday, 19th January, 2017

  • 09:56 AM - pemerton mentioned Shasarak in post Do you care about setting "canon"?
    ...au trope, and it makes the ancient empire trope carried by the Suel pick up stupid backage. All the Suel and the Scarlet Brotherhood have going for them is that they are workings out of these pulp tropes, so once you dilute them you just get less compelling stuff. *The inclusion of a cult of Chauntea in module OA7 - which introduces needless and distracting FR-isms into an otherwise very good module that, more than any other OA module except perhaps OA3, actually makes tropes around the Celestial Bureaucracy, immortality, peachling children, etc central to play. Look, this thread is 163 pages of people mostly trying to explain to you why canon is important to them. At some point you just need to accept that it is a concept you don't understand. I think you're misunderstanding me, or underestimating me, or both. I can read the posts. I can draw inferences from what is said. I'm inviting posters, though, to actually articulate the value that is moving them to care about canon. Shasarak has done this not too far upthread. But some other posters seem to shy away from it: eg they feel like they need to advance instrumental reasons (eg "players will get confused if canon changes") when it seems transparently clear that their concern is not instrumental; or they try and defend blanket claims about the importance of adherence to canon, yet in doing so put forward examples where canon has changed rather markedly (eg what, if anything, differentiates D&D orcs from JRRT's, or D&D orcs from D&D hobgoblins). I think some notion of "integrity of a body of work" is probably in the right neighbourhood for a number of posters other than just Shasarak, but the criteria by which integrity is judged could probably bear more elaboration. For instance, what sorts of trade-offs between thematic integrity and "factual" integrity are permissible (eg can we get rid of earthbergs to get something that is more fitting to the themes of Norse mythology - ie foster thematic integrity - even t...

Wednesday, 18th January, 2017

  • 09:16 AM - pemerton mentioned Shasarak in post Do you care about setting "canon"?
    ...ively gambling that the people who find the change to be positive will be larger than the people who find the change to be negativeWhat is the nature of the gamble? Clearly, it is a commercial gamble: if people don't like what you write/publish, they won't buy it. But you seem to be implying that the gamble has some other dimension as well. Which relates to "THIS IS IMPORTANT TO PEOPLE". The idea is that it matters to some people that WotC publishes a story (about gnolls, say) that contradicts some other story they once published about gnolls. And this is where I ask Why? Why is the existence of the new stuff, that you don't like and so don't want to buy, a burden on your enjoyment of the old stuff that you do like? And if the only answer is "Because it's hard to change", then I'm just not seeing it. TwoSix has just reiterated the reasons why. I think the answer must be something non-instrumental, but I haven't really seen it articulated in this thread (other than by Shasarak in a recent post). I'm a Banana has talked about "brand identity", but that's something for WotC to care about, not something for a customer to care about. What is the value, to the individual D&D player, of coherence over time of published story elements? The language of "invalidation" almost suggests that people feel that their love of some story is put under some sort of cloud if WotC decides to publish a different, inconsistent story. But that seems very odd to me: why is one person's aesthetic judgement hostage to WotC's commercial (or even artistic) decisions?

Monday, 16th January, 2017

  • 05:06 AM - pemerton mentioned Shasarak in post Do you care about setting "canon"?
    And when, new players come into D&D and hear troll, most are not thinking Poul Anderson's version which is the basis for the D&D troll. They hear the world troll and are probably are thinking of the troll in "Billy Goats Gruff", the war troll from The Lord of the Rings movie, or the trolls The Hobbit movie which are completely different from Poul Anderson's version. So, by the same token, perhaps we should rename the D&D troll to something else. The next version of D&D shouldn't just exercise lore, it should exercise the monster names as well! Remathilis, your post doesn't address Greg K's point. The D&D troll doesn't help new players orient themselves in the gameworld. I remember finding it weird (and not very Billy Goat Gruff) 30 years ago. I don't think Anderson's work is any more familiar today. So my question is - why are you, and billd91, and Shasarak, insisting that the reason you value lore is because of the epistemic function it serves? Whereas examples like this show that in many cases there is no such epistemic function. Likewise, the fact that module writers don't feel beholden to it undermines its supposed epistemic function (eg players of RttToEE can't infer that they won't meet any blue dragons, and hence don't need to memorise lightning resistance spells, simply because they are not entereing into a desert). Despite these cases where lore apparenlty doesn't serve any significant epistemic function, you nevertheless still seem to value it! Why not articulate those reasons, instead of setting out a purely instrumental account of its value which doesn't seem to do justice to your evident passion for it? (A conversation that TwoSix tried to kick off not too far upthread.)

Friday, 9th December, 2016

  • 01:01 AM - pemerton mentioned Shasarak in post Do you care about setting "canon"?
    Imaro, Shasarak, Elderbrain I am utterly baffled. You are now arguing that it is a house rule to play a character with the 4e Good alignment with the same personality and outlook as a 2nd ed AD&D character with the CG alignment, even though the description of Good clearly encompasses the description of CG. Presumably, it follows that you think that no character before AD&D could be played identically with an AD&D character because the prior alignment descriptors were different. Presumably, it follow that you think that every LE monster that, in 4e, was relabelled "Evil" was fundamentally changed. This is just bizarre. Utterly bizarre. Why do you think the label is more important than the actual personality, motivation, moral outlook, etc - which have not changed one iota!


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
No results to display...

Tuesday, 17th July, 2018

  • 02:30 PM - ohokwy quoted Shasarak in post Pathfinder 2 Character Sheet #5: Merisiel, Elf Rogue
    Does anyone know what the Pathfinder 2 Playtest rules were for Sneak Attacking against creatures like undead? Can you do it now, or are Rogues still out of luck? I believe the various playtests have revealed that a Rogue can sneak attack zombies, at least. You could sneak attack undead PF1, as well, so its unlikely to be an issue.
  • 01:14 PM - pemerton quoted Shasarak in post The roots of 4e exposed?
    I really dont see that 4e does not rely on the adventuring day. Everyone has Daily abilities, they all get a certain number of Healing surges per day with Action points that reset every day and items that also have Daily abilities. At high levels you get abiltiies like: "Once per day, when you die....". 4e is full of the normal DnD resources that need to be carefully hoarded and preserved. It kind of detracts from your main points to be honest.Those daily abilities don't have to be hoarded/preserved., though. The "adventuring day" might involve one encounter, or a dozen, and it makes no difference to game balance. If the players all nova in the first encounter of the day, this doesn't allow wizards to outshine fighters. It's purely about pacing. Whereas other editions (and 13th Age) depend for balance upon an "adventuring day" that has enough encounters, or the threat of them, to balance wizards and other casters against fighters and thieves/rogues. 13th Age formalises this into a rule o...
  • 12:43 PM - pemerton quoted Shasarak in post The roots of 4e exposed?
    I was asking about about whether you let the Players know they are in a Skill Challenge with number of successes or not because for me it always seems to make it into a kind of mini game. It feels very much like when Combat starts and the Minis come out and now the real game is on hold while we resolve this seperate part. I have seen a few people suggesting to not let the Players know and others who take the opposite tact.I think players need to know they're in a skill challenge if they're going to make reasoned choices about what resources to use (eg powers, action points, equipment, etc). In that respect I think the comparison to combat is apt. I don't see resolution as something separate from the "real" game.
  • 10:02 AM - pemerton quoted Shasarak in post The roots of 4e exposed?
    Now this is very interesting. So you decided to go for 6 successes and you have detailed 3 of them, did the Players know they had to keep going for 3 more successes and how did you change the scenario, if at all, as they were going through? Did anything happen after the bear was being soothed and subdued? As I understand it the Ranger can not just keep using his Nature skill and if there are any other PCs in the party do they also have to do something to contribute?To be honest I don't remember any of that - it was a while ago now! I know that the paladin did stuff, as his player was the one who initiated the idea of taming rather than killing the bear. The fighter must have done something too, but I don't remember what that was: I have a vague memory of the bear being hostile to him, and him doing something in response (but I can't remember what, or whether or not it was successful). I do have a memory that, even once tamed, the bear was not friendly to the fighter! Which maybe suggests ...
  • 09:28 AM - pemerton quoted Shasarak in post The roots of 4e exposed?
    If I had designed an encounter in a room that had a certain number of Orcs guarding a certain number of Pies and I had determined that the only way to win was for the Party to hit the Orcs X number of times before the Orcs hit them Y number of times then I would agree that does look a lot like a Skill Challenge.There are two things here - I had determined that the only way and hit the Orcs X times before the Orcs hit the PCs Y times. The latter is, more-or-less, what D&D combat looks like (where X and Y equals hit points divided by damage per hit). The former is about establishing stakes and modes of approach. There is nothing about a skill challenge as a mode of resolution that says that the GM must, or should, establish the stakes and the modes of approach (although it is likely that the GM will play some role in relation to this simply because, 4e being a fairly traditional game in its allocation of player and GM roles, the GM has a preeminent role as adjudicator of fictional positioni...
  • 05:44 AM - AbdulAlhazred quoted Shasarak in post The roots of 4e exposed?
    By abusive I mean things like re-flavouring your Adamantine sword as being retractable Adamantine claws that can pop out of your hand. The mechanics are obviously exactly the same attack, damage etc but the flavour is very different. And now you get questions like, if everyone else is disarmed then do you get dis "armed" or is it just your luck that you sneak your weapon inside? I could see a lot of DMs freaking out about something like that. Well, see, with 4e at least, the mechanics are pretty clear. So I would consider this to be a mechanically significant change, and thus a little beyond reflavoring. I mean, you could argue for instance that an ability to hide your sword is on par with many feats, or many magical item properties. It could be a grey area in other games that are less precise, and I'd consider it a fairly minor perk that I might just say "oh, yeah, whatever, OK. You can do that." I mean, it will be useful once or twice, or never maybe, in most games. As a feat it probably ...
  • 05:40 AM - AbdulAlhazred quoted Shasarak in post The roots of 4e exposed?
    I have seen a lot of advice re: Skill Challenges and seen a few videos I think Matt Colvile did one or two. Honestly I am not sure what the set structure brings to the table that makes it better then just playing out the Narrative as it comes. My feeling is that it affords the players with an assurance that they are getting a result and that the stakes are controllable. In other words, in 3e/5e style play with unstructured use of skills there are no guarantees at all. Any particular effort you make may be enough to accomplish the goal, or it may be an almost meaninglessly insignificant increment towards the goal. It may not even be clear what the goal IS, or that one exists. In 4e you do know, its a complexity 1 SC, it will last between 3 and 6 skill checks and each one will produce an identical increment of mechanical progress. It also helps the GM by simply showing him when enough is enough. In the unstructured case the GM is left to simply guess, to 'play it by ear', which often leads ...
  • 04:18 AM - AbdulAlhazred quoted Shasarak in post The roots of 4e exposed?
    There are definitely degrees of Railroading. Honestly I dont see anything wrong with the DM saying that they have brought this Adventure path and who wants to jump on the Adventure train. There is still plenty of Player agency within the concept to have fun as long as you are not bringing a Paladin to a Pirate fight. Oh, I'll go further. People are foolish to criticize others for simply wanting to play a certain game. Beyond that there's nothing wrong with a 'railroad'. I think its best to do it explicitly and consciously as a means of play, and not accidentally and covertly, but I'd say the same about any mode of play if I thought about it for a second. I mean, 'player agency' doesn't really factor in, nor any other 'theoretical' consideration when it comes to what you WANT to do. Heck, with the right parameters I'd play in a game where player choice is largely irrelevant.
  • 02:32 AM - AbdulAlhazred quoted Shasarak in post The roots of 4e exposed?
    Mmmhmm, I am not sure I would put it down to willful ignorance. There are definitions of Games, Narrative and Simulation already that do not seems to match 100% with your definitions. Thank you for taking the time to explain. I can certainly see how some of those features framed in a different context can look the way you say. Certainly looking at some of the encounters that @iserith has created gives me more appreciation of the type of thing that you can do with a well crafted encounter. From my perspective, the fact that 4e plays so well to this type of set piece encounter means that it would play much better in a railroad type adventure where every encounter is well crafted in advance. The 3 room Delve format of adventures for example rather then a free form Cave of Chaos adventure. I know that in my group the skill challenge mechanic felt more like using your skills to solve a puzzle rather then using them in a Narrative sense, which is why I would have classified it as a Gameist m...
  • 12:39 AM - pemerton quoted Shasarak in post The roots of 4e exposed?
    I dont really see that the DM picking an arbitary number of successes before the narrative begins has any relation to the outcome excpet by adding an extra level of gamification to the narrative. The Players actions are going to drive the narrative in any case and the DMs opinion is always going to be a factor.Do you think this is true of combat also - that it makes no difference adjudicating combat as hp attrition, or adjudicating combat via a GM's freeform opinion of when the players have done enough to defeat their enemies?

Monday, 16th July, 2018

  • 11:06 PM - Aldarc quoted Shasarak in post Pathfinder 2 Character Sheet #3: Valeros, Human Fighter
    I would also like a Pony.Nah, that only works when I do it. :p
  • 10:25 PM - Charlaquin quoted Shasarak in post Pathfinder 2 Character Sheet #3: Valeros, Human Fighter
    I would also like a Pony. https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSigvVEd5VoarX-teRaAUaQcnEEsj9JtkhtP5JiO974zvFRk2OM0A
  • 05:45 PM - Kobold Boots quoted Shasarak in post A discussion of metagame concepts in game design
    I dont see it as any more or less meta. Infact I had a discussion with @Kobold Boots regarding planning out 20 levels of your character progression in advance, is that not what a multiclass Cleric/Ranger has done? It effectively does not matter what they do to earn their XP because you know that you are going to level up in Cleric first irregardless of how much Rangering that you have done. And then you have an adventure where you are Clericing your heart out and get enough XP to level up in Ranger. Hi Shasarak - Dropping in due to the mention. I think that there's a different definition of metagaming that I subscribe to which is ever so slightly different than the definition of the OP. Additionally, I've not read the first 28 pages aside from the OP, so there's a good chance this is going to go tangentially to the original reason for your post. Definition of metagaming for me is: Player makes a decision that his or her character could not reasonably make because it requires player knowledge of the rules that the character could not logically make due to lack of similar knowledge in game. So a player building his character out for 20 levels in advance with all bells and whistles before game start is definitely metagaming. The same player making plans for his character five levels out because the character has developed his or her relationships with their guilds or trainers and knows more or less where they want to spend their time is not metagaming. The difference is obvious, but it's ...
  • 01:49 PM - pemerton quoted Shasarak in post The roots of 4e exposed?
    I think that the advice about failing forward is helpful though like for example instead of being stuck at a closed door on a failed roll you instead open it really loudly alerting everyone on the other side.I think the idea of "being stuck at a closed door" is mostly a feature of GM-driven/railroad play. In "story now" play, the story just is that the PCs didn't go through that door, so some other thing happened. I have seen a lot of advice re: Skill Challenges and seen a few videos I think Matt Colvile did one or two. Honestly I am not sure what the set structure brings to the table that makes it better then just playing out the Narrative as it comes.I don't know what Matt Colville has to say about it, but the structure of a skill challenge serves the same purpose as the structure of combat resolution: it establishes a mechanical finality which means that the outcomes are driven by player actions declarations and their resolution, rather than the GM's opinion as to where the fiction shou...
  • 05:30 AM - AbdulAlhazred quoted Shasarak in post The roots of 4e exposed?
    Are you able to describe what makes 4e more or less railroady then other DnD games? I am just having trouble imagining how a 4e DM is less able to railroad (or not) then using other rules. Not 'less able' in the absolute sense, but 4e militates against, or at the very least facilitates the divergence from, railroaded GM-driven scripts. You can do Story Now with 4e, quite easily. Even in more traditional play the game has the character that players are much less reliant on GM interpretation of the situation for fictional positioning and such. So GMs have a lot less leverage to simply dictate how things will go, at least without it becoming hilariously obvious that the 'game' part of the game is a joke.
  • 05:23 AM - AbdulAlhazred quoted Shasarak in post The roots of 4e exposed?
    I never really saw any real problem with reflavouring during the 4e era. I mean there are a few edge cases which could be abusive if a Player wanted to push it. The latest edition of Gamma World used reflavouring even more then 4e did. Welllllllllll, if the player actually literally is true to the reflavoring in the sense that NOTHING in the mechanics is impacted at all, then there should be no effect. At least in terms of the mechanical inputs to the game. As for the FICTIONAL inputs, and the implications in terms of fictional positioning, there's clearly an impact there. I am not sure it is proper to call it out as 'abusive', but I'm not sure what the abuse you are referring to is, actually, so I'm not positive. That is to say, I guess I could hypothesize that a player could start reflavoring things in order to undermine some GM devised story, but that would imply the game was already on rails, wouldn't it? I mean, it all starts to get a bit loopy once you get to that point. I'd say then ...
  • 04:49 AM - heretic888 quoted Shasarak in post The roots of 4e exposed?
    Thank you for taking the time to explain. I can certainly see how some of those features framed in a different context can look the way you say. Certainly looking at some of the encounters that iserith has created gives me more appreciation of the type of thing that you can do with a well crafted encounter. From my perspective, the fact that 4e plays so well to this type of set piece encounter means that it would play much better in a railroad type adventure where every encounter is well crafted in advance. The 3 room Delve format of adventures for example rather then a free form Cave of Chaos adventure. Yes, but I should note that Story Now doesn't mean No Prep At All. You can certainly prepare potential encounters the PCs may face. However, in a Story Now context what you would also do is a) allow for multiple pathways for "defeating" the encounter, b) make sure each encounter is meaningful to the shared fiction, c) do not pre-prepare outcomes for any given encounter, and d) do not a...
  • 02:14 AM - heretic888 quoted Shasarak in post The roots of 4e exposed?
    It seems to be common for terms to change and even to take on an opposite meaning then the original term. True, but in this case it seems to owe to willful ignorance moreso than linguistic evolution. Are you able to describe what makes 4e more or less railroady then other DnD games? I am just having trouble imagining how a 4e DM is less able to railroad (or not) then using other rules. Its mostly the elements of 4E that make it amenable to Story Now play in general, although GMs are free to ignore much of these elements (and clearly quite a few did). I actually think the Skill Challenge framework is important here and how much it gets utilized by a 4E table (as well as how it gets used) is probably a pretty good indication of how much Story Now play is happening there. The MM math and Rule 42 also makes improvisational, non-scripted play much easier to pull off compared to typical DnD structural elements. The length and complexity of 4E encounters makes meaningful Stakes as well as...

Sunday, 15th July, 2018

  • 08:33 PM - Emerikol quoted Shasarak in post A discussion of metagame concepts in game design
    Well ADnD locked you into a fixed class progression which you said that you did not like. Maybe you misunderstood. I do prefer a system mechanism for powers like the feat concept. I am only talking about the multiclassing in 1e. The idea you advance every class you multiclass at the same time and the same rate xp wise.
  • 03:07 PM - Maxperson quoted Shasarak in post A discussion of metagame concepts in game design
    Of course it is a false equivalence, no Doctors can cast spells! And although your dad can make you CEO of his company he cant get you that Doctorate qualification that you wanted, only an honourary one. Okay. I'm done. You've dodged my argument sufficiently to show people that you know I am correct here. Peace!


0 Badges

Shasarak's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites