View Profile: BryonD - D&D, Pathfinder, and RPGs at Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
No Recent Activity
About BryonD

Basic Information

About BryonD
Age Group:
Over 40


Total Posts
Total Posts
Posts Per Day
Last Post
Bulmahn on Pathfinder 2's Goblin Ancestry Thursday, 5th April, 2018 08:52 PM


Gold Pieces
General Information
Last Activity
Thursday, 3rd May, 2018 11:49 PM
Join Date
Sunday, 20th January, 2002
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written

3 Friends

  1. Mark CMG Mark CMG is offline


    Mark CMG
  2. Psion Psion is offline


  3. Wulf Ratbane Wulf Ratbane is offline


    Wulf Ratbane
Showing Friends 1 to 3 of 3
No results to show...
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Wednesday, 4th April, 2018

  • 06:37 AM - Hussar mentioned BryonD in post Do We Still Need "Race" in D&D?
    I'm not offended by worthless ideas. I'm also not in the minority here. Race is of absolutely no issue in the game as it stands. At least not to any appreciable number of people. Then how do you explain the change in Pathfinder? If it is of absolutely no issue, then, why is the #2 game changing it and why have a number of other RPG's changed it as well? And, frankly Maxperson, how is it possible to have a conversation with you when you absolutely refuse to acknowledge the other side's point? Whether you agree or not, fair enough. But, you're starting the conversation with "anyone who complains about this is such a tiny minority who shouldn't even be acknowledged". That makes it pretty hard to have any sort of conversation. And, as another point, I'd like to thank BryonD for illustrating my point. Having internalized his own interpretations to such a degree that he cannot even consider that those interpretations aren't actually part of the game. Compare that to Celebrim's elf example, that at least isn't counter-factual some of the time. In AD&D, since the rules were silent on the issue, any interpretation is equally valid. Of course, that means that the "nurture" interpretation is just as valid as the "nature" one. Now, after AD&D, the "nature" interpretation is flat out false since it actually contradicts what's written in the game. Like I said, I'm not terribly fussed abou this. Just bemused that people who spend this much time thinking about the game are so blind to their own internalizations.
  • 12:29 AM - Hussar mentioned BryonD in post Do We Still Need "Race" in D&D?' we are talking about is now more than 30 years old and there never was a single set of house rules or single RAW during all that time. Are you confusing "the game" with 5e D&D? As for what the game actually states, the game states that regardless of the elves background, the elf gets this advantage. What does that suggest to you? No, the game states ELVEN WEAPON TRAINING. Plus, Drow, who are also elves, don't get it. Look, I get that you spend a lot of time on your game. But, we don't play your game. We play D&D. Please stop trying to project your game onto what the game actually states. It has NEVER been stated that elves gain this simply by being an elf. It HAS been stated that it is gained because of training. In every edition of the game, it's either silent on the issue, or states that it's a trained trait. In no edition of the game is it a natural trait. Good grief, this is the whole Medusa argument all over again. ((For reference, a poster here BryonD stated that seeing a medusa in D&D automatically turns you to stone and that the saving throw is reflecting being able to close your eyes. This is not true and has never been true in any edition of the game. I know this, because I had to quote every single Medusa writeup from every edition of the game before I could adequately prove my point)) Please stop projecting your game onto what the game actually states.

Tuesday, 18th April, 2017

  • 03:18 PM - pemerton mentioned BryonD in post Judgement calls vs "railroading"
    ...a fictional positioning of the DM/GM, and, as such, can have motivations and agendas assigned to them that can be narrated in game independently of PC actions, intents, and even knowledge.What is the force of the can here? Do you mean "in accordance with the rules and procedures of play"? Then what you say is not true for the particular episode of play being discussed, where the players' victory precludes the GM simply going on to narrate the advisor improving his standing vis-a-vis the baron. If the point is that, in Maxperson's game, the same is not true - because Maxperson plays with different rules and procedures - well, yes, that is self-evident (or nearly so). But as I posted upthread, this does not tell us about any difference in the role played by NPCs in these games. In both approaches, NPCs provide opposition/antagonism. Rather, it tells us something about differences in who enjoys what sort of power to change the content of the shared fiction. I believe that BryonD and Maxperson disagree with the previous paragraph (or, at least, with its first and second sentences). But they haven't stated the details of that disagreement. I also take it that you agree with them in disagreeing, but that is an inference - although I raised the issue at least once in reply to you (as a disagreement with something I took you to have said), you haven't responded to it.

Sunday, 21st February, 2016

Friday, 15th January, 2016

  • 05:38 PM - Imaro mentioned BryonD in post Failing Forward
    I'm getting a little confused by this side tangent... is the claim that scaling DC's have always been in D&D (which are not the same thing as EL or CR)?? Because that seems to be what @BryonD is talking about... I might be mis-remembering and I certainly haven't played every edition of D&D but for the ones I have played (outside of 4th) I don't remember this being the case... Now advice along the lines of matching challenge to your PC's (which could vary vastly depending upon the skill level of players, rules used, etc ) was definitely a thing but a system set up with hard and fast numbers for actual scaling of non-combat challenges is not something I remember. But @Umbran and @Neonchameleon I admit I could be mistaken... were these present in other editions? And if so why was pg. 42 lauded as so innovative and great by 4e fans if that type of system has always been a part of D&D?

Friday, 13th November, 2015

  • 09:10 PM - pukunui mentioned BryonD in post Escapist article on SCAG is Brutal.
    BryonD: Let's not forget that these guys are gamers too. I'm not sure that saying they don't want to make more books is accurate. I'm sure that they personally would love to make more books. It's just that they're unable to do so, for the reasons you stated. And so they try to put a positive spin on it. Wouldn't you do that too, though? Do we really want to hear them say, "We can't afford to release more books per year than this because it's not profitable"? Corpsetaker: Perhaps he does have a clue, and it's just that your experience is not as common as you seem to think it is. Maybe he's got market research that would put you in the minority. You always seem so eager to see the worst in WotC employees. Try putting yourself in their shoes. Chris and Mike et al are people too. What would you do if you were in their position, in charge of a great game with much gravitas but in a vastly reduced position, forced to rely on ex-colleagues to help you out? Wouldn't you try to put as positive a ...
  • 01:47 AM - Hussar mentioned BryonD in post I just don't see why they even bothered with the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide.
    BryonD. Did they release a new phb/DMG/mm for each iteration? Was there not a strong expectation that players would rebuy those books for each iteration? Then how is that not edition churn? Look, I know you feel the sun rises and sets on all things 3e but come on here. If you rerelease the core three (now core two for Pathfinder) in what way is that not a new edition? Do you not think each iteration has been smaller than the last? Do you think there are as many Pathfinder players today as DND players in 2001? Note 4e is just as bad. Bad start and then even worse rerelease. Terrible for business. .... The next ICv2 report will be interesting. If DND stays on top that means they can release three books per calendar year and still outsell any other rpg company. That's HUGE. That would mean their profit margins would be far far greater than anyone else's. It would also be a pretty strong indicator that they business model is the way to go forward. Why produce ten books if all you do ...
  • 01:38 AM - Hussar mentioned BryonD in post I just don't see why they even bothered with the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide.
    Oops quoted myself.

Friday, 30th October, 2015

  • 09:13 PM - El Mahdi mentioned BryonD in post Warlord Name Poll
    ...ain and too authoritative) Proconsul (the Pro- makes it too authoritative) Shepherd (too religious, too bucolic, too Firefly) Synergist (too boring, and sounds like some kind of psychic) Armiger (exclusively military and noble) Sherriff (too noble, too law enforcement) Impetro/Impetrus (too authoritative – Imperial) Adjunct (too subordinate, too Star Trek Borg - Seven of Nine, Tertiary Adjunct of Unimatrix Zero-One) Prolucutor (the Pro- makes it too authoritative, sounds like the person is a professional talker, and is just too hard to say) Warden (too Ranger) Leader(zzzzzzzzzz…) @3e4ever ; @77IM @Aaron Of Barbaria; @AbdulAlhazred ; @admcewen ; @Aenghus ; @Ahrimon ; @Ainulindalion ; @airwalkrr; @Aldarc ; @akr71 ; @AmerginLiath ; @Andor ; @AntiStateQuixote ; @aramis erak; @Aribar ; @Arnwolf ; @Ashkelon ; @Ashrym ; @Athinar ; @AtomicPope ; @Azurewraith; @Azzy ; @Bawylie ; @bedir than ; @Bedrockgames ; @bert1000 ; @billd91 ; @Blackbrrd; @Blackwarder ; @Blue ; @Bluenose ; @brehobit ; @BryonD ; @Bupp ; @Campbell ; @CapnZapp; @CaptainConundrum ; @CaptainGemini ; @Carlsen Chris ; @casterblaster ; @CasvalRemDeikun; @cbwjm ; @ccooke ; @Celebrim ; @Celondon @ChameleonX ; @Charles Wright ; ChrisCarlson; @CM ; @cmad1977 ; @costermonger ; @Creamsteak ; @Crothian ; @Cybit ; @Dausuul; @Dayte ; @dd.stevenson ; @DEFCON 1 ; @Delazar ; @DersitePhantom ; @Diffan ; @discosoc; @D'karr ; @Doc Klueless ; @doctorbadwolf ; @DonAdam ; @Dragoslav ; @Duganson; @EdL ; @EditorBFG ; @Edwin Suijkerbuijk ; @Eejit ; @ehren37 ; @Elfcrusher ; @El Mahdi ; @epithet; @erf_beto ; @Eric V ; @eryndel ; @Evenglare ; @ExploderWizard ; @EzekielRaiden; @Fedge123 ; @fendak ; @FireLance ; @Fishing_Minigame ; @Flamestrike ; @FLexor the Mighty! ; @Forged Fury ; @Fragsie ; @Fralex ; @FreeTheSlaves ; @froth ; @Gadget; @Galendril ; @GameOgre ; @Garthanos ; @Ghost Matter ; @Giltonio_Santos ; @Gimul; @GMforPowergamers ; @Gnashtooth ; @Green1 ; @GreenKarl ; @Greg K ; @GreyLord; @Grimmjow ; @Grydan ; @GX.Sigma ; @Halivar ; @...

Monday, 6th July, 2015

  • 12:18 PM - pemerton mentioned BryonD in post Why does 5E SUCK?
    And again, a lot of the grousing in that thread seemed to me to be basically a cloaked example of caster entitlement. "Hey, why is your Diplomat bored, just because the wizard snapped his fingers and solved the major challenge of the day, you'll still get to convince the shop keeper to give us more bread." That's basically how I read a lot of that (IE if the difficulty doesn't resolve around what the means are of solving the challenge, then it implies that the 'superior means', which is ALWAYS casting a spell in these debates, isn't automatically extra-special).I hadn't looked at it that way. (Which is not to say you're wrong.) To me, it seems more like your discussion with BryonD: he wants to frame DCs by reference to Conan and Aragorn, you want to frame them by reference to paragon-tier PCs, and BryonD sees some radical contrast whereas - like you - I don't see the issue at all. What are Conan and Aragorn, after all, but (in 4e terms) paradigms of the paragon tier? You are saying "well, Aragorn or Conan" could do this, and my PCs are like them, so I'll set the DC such that they can do it too. Isn't that exactly the same thing? IMHO its really one or the other, either the DC reflects some game world physical considerations that can be determined entirely without reference to the PCs or else its a story-centered DC that exists because it will further the action in the desired way. Nope, not at all. Because I didn't say "well, Aragorn or Conan" could do this" and I didn't say "my PCs are like them". I said I'd use what they could do to judge where the DCs should be. It may be that I say it is too hard for Conan, so the DC is higher. Or it might be that...

Tuesday, 30th June, 2015

  • 08:37 PM - MoutonRustique mentioned BryonD in post Why does 5E SUCK?
    From what I'm seeing, you guys are working with different meanings of "hard". BryonD "Hard" means it will be difficult for a peasant. AbdulAlhazred "Hard" means it will be difficult for a PC of that level. One is a brick in worldbuilding, the other is a tool to help DMs. Of course, both can be "reverse-engineered" into the other - but those are their starting points. The question then becomes where do you want your workload - and this is a question of preference.

Saturday, 28th March, 2015

  • 02:56 PM - Sadras mentioned BryonD in post The Best Thing from 4E
    ...are simple in 5e and well most DMs I know tinker with monsters anyway. We all had to given the terribly unbalanced, untested 4e MM1. Didn’t they revise Orcus like 3 times? All I can say is thank god for SlyFlourish’s monster-damage table. Save Ends was brought across from 4e to 5e. A decent balance exists between the classes. Mechanical alignment is optional as are non-good paladins. 5e has rituals, conditions and you can use grid-play. Replace Hit Dice with Surges. Death saves, yup, they are there too. The 4 Combat Roles. Well we had @GMforPowergamers and @pemerton and a great deal many inform everyone on another thread that those roles have always existed within D&D so I guess, 4e players would identify those roles within 5e. Funny how the OP lists the 4 Combat Roles as if they are exclusive to 4e. @Imaro, @SirAntoine and @BryonD would would certainly find this amusing. If it is a tombstone edition because so much of 4e is in 5e, then I guess you're right, but then that would make 4e a tombstone edition given how much of it exists in 3.5e

Tuesday, 24th March, 2015

  • 02:02 AM - pemerton mentioned BryonD in post 7 Years of D&D Stories? And a "Big Reveal" Coming?
    The similarity is when comparing same-level characters & challenges.Yes. But BryonD is trying to draw the contrast by comparing different-level characters to the same challenge. Seem like mechanical differences to me. But, yes, I can see the 'story' difference, too.The ability to auto-kill an enemy is a mechanical difference, but a fairly minor one. (Eg the house rule to permit auto-killing of minions in 4e - either across the board, or if they're at least a tier below the attacker - is pretty easy.) Who said that? I never said that. But either way, I disagree with you. If both the L1 and the L10 wizard attack the same target, then the L10 wizard has a better chance to hit. "Same target" is a story notion, not a mechanical/mathematical one. I've quoted Tony Vargas saying that "the similarity is when comparing same-level characters and challenges". In 4e, if the L10 wizard re-encounters the "same target" as s/he met when L1, then the target will have been-restatted. If the re-statting is from standard to minion, then the chance to hit with a sword wo...

Monday, 23rd March, 2015

  • 03:40 AM - Mercurius mentioned BryonD in post 7 Years of D&D Stories? And a "Big Reveal" Coming?
    All that follows from the market record of 4e is that not enough people wanted to keep purchasing 4e books to make it worth WotC's while writing and printing more of them. Hence they wrote and printed some different books - the 5e ones. In due course they might write even more new ones, using the same or different ruleset. Good luck to them! Hmm...I don't think it is all so random and arbitrary as you imply. As BryonD said, there was a whole host of people who stopped playing 4E because they burned out on it for reasons specific to 4E, not out of vitriolic nerdrage (like the Camp Two people). 5E came along for three reasons: Camp One wasn't large enough, Camp Two hated 4E, and Camp Three lost interest. In designing 5E, I think Mearls & Co tried to account for why Camp Three lost interest and why Camp Two hated it, while still trying to create a product good enough to appeal to a large chunk of Camp One. Remarkably I think they accomplished the first two, not sure about the third. And, had those in Camp Two simply moved on and never looked back, the history of 4e would have been very different. But, they didn't move on and never look back. They constantly attacked 4e in every single place they could find. You could see edition wars starting in the comments sections of Time Magazine articles about D&D. "Don't play 4e, 4e is teh suxxorz!" was a pretty common thing to see, even if the articl...

Saturday, 14th March, 2015

  • 11:10 AM - pemerton mentioned BryonD in post So what exactly is Wizards working on?
    Sure, but then why bother with D&D at all then?Because they believe that (i) they can make money by authoring and releasing a new set of core books, and (ii) that this 'restoration' of D&D will underpin a broader D&D-brand strategy. Achieving (i) does not require publishing a large number of supplements. Obviously WotC thinks the same about (ii); BryonD, I think in one of the other threads on this issue, has expressed doubts about this. Of D&D or MtG?I was thinking of D&D licensing. Does MtG have the brand recognition to support a licensing strategy like D&D? I assume not, but I may not be in touch with the relevant demograph

Wednesday, 25th February, 2015

  • 03:33 PM - Imaro mentioned BryonD in post What are the Roles now?
    How? In AD&D melee is sticky: you can't move and attack unless you charge; if you come within 10' of a melee combatant you are locked into melee and can't withdraw at full speed without suffering a free rear attack sequence. 3E radically changed this, making freedom of movement in melee the default. 5e, like 4e, follows 3E in this respect. It is not like AD&D at all. I can't answer for @BryonD but I think he is speaking to a wider picture of "roles" as opposed to a singular detail of one class...which honestly still isn't very sticky in the bigger picture unless the terrain or luck is helping the fighter out... the fighter's opposition if already engaged with another target is free to continue attacking said target in AD&D witgh no immediate reprecussions (no way to mitigate him continuing to attack the squishy)... the fighter's opposition can just move around him and attack someone else (unless terrain, luck or some other mitigating factor helps the fighter)... and so on. So yeah if the fighter can engage him first, before his opponent gets near another enemy then I guess he can sorta kinda hold him there... Edit: Also when it comes to stickiness in AD&D how do you view the "Falling Back" and "Parry" maneuver... it seems like a prototype disengage action which while definitely harder to pull off gives the opponent an option to disengage without possibly taking that m...

Monday, 16th February, 2015

  • 12:28 AM - pemerton mentioned BryonD in post What are the Roles now?
    I agree entirely with Manbearcat's post 1029 upthread. BryonD, I have never used the term "h4ter" in this thread, nor - to the best of my recollection - in any thread ever. You want examples, if 4E fans accepted that roles felt different to a lot of people in 4E than they do in other editionsThis is not in dispute. But it is not relevant to the question of whether or not other editions had roles. Manifestly, no fighter in AD&D could be a healer or a buffer on a par with a cleric. (And this is one respect in which AD&D and 4e resemble one another pretty closely.) That is the sort of distinction in areas of competence that roles are made of. Fighters in AD&D and in 4e are both very sticky. But the mechanical devices whereby these are achieved are very different - I've outlined them earlier upthread, and again just above. I've got not doubt that some people don't care about generically sticky melee but dislike stickiness achieved by deploying a class ability (imposing the marked condition, or forced movement, or the slowed condition, et...

Friday, 6th February, 2015

  • 12:27 AM - Imaro mentioned BryonD in post What are the Roles now?
    This is just my perception, but I believe you are mistaken when you equate "Flow" with BryonD's concept of "character immersion." I believe he is talking about associated mechanics, which are distinct from flow. So when you try to disprove his statement by pointing out that you've felt flow while playing chess, to you this seems like a clincher while to Bryon it is irrelevant--he's not talking about flow in the first place. Yeah I know this "flow" he's talking about isn't what I was thinking @BryonD meant when he said "character immersion". but then I don't think @Neonchameleon is really looking to understand other views and/or playstyles only to disparage and insult them on the sly... the one style is treating players like adults comment earlier (of course it's his style :erm:)... the claim that the form of immersion he's arguing against can be experienced in chess (but let someone make a comparison between chess and 4e and it's edition war time) and so on...

Thursday, 22nd January, 2015

  • 12:48 AM - Neonchameleon mentioned BryonD in post What are the Roles now?
    ...aracters (indeed the only one that's any good in other peoples' roles in 2e is the Cleric - or the wizard into rogue). I have demonstrated how this is the case. Either your statements about 2e have nothing at all to do with 4e or I am not producing a strawman. As for your claim that the monk was a good class, apparently only intent means anything - execution is meaningless. Blue, 2e has a vastly more limited range of classes than 4e. Occupation is both your role and how you fill it. Yes, clerics can drift. But the fighter occupation says you are good at killing things with weapons and can take a lot of damage. The occupation role says you are good at sneaking and with skills. The cleric occupation is a jack of all trades with healing. And the wizard occupation gives you almost no hit points, no armour proficiency, no ability to take a hit, but a whole lot of arcane magic. Of course later 2e loosened the shackles especially for the cleric (specialty clerics were ... interesting). BryonD, I think we're roughly on the same page. Our tastes differ, but our analysis doesn't. And for the record I'm a big fan of RC D&D (or BECMI) as well as 4e. Very different games however.

Saturday, 3rd January, 2015

  • 02:28 AM - Hussar mentioned BryonD in post Waibel's Rule of Interpretation (aka "How to Interpret the Rules")
    BryonD - I am participating because I think there are other gamers, like me, who prefer consensus style games and I'm providing an example of how consensus games work. You, instead, are trying to tell me that consensus games actually don't work (they are milquetoast) and that the "proper" way to play is your style. Celebrim[/url] Aren't you the one who spent a considerable amount of time detailing slaad? I believe you are. Are you also not the one who spent considerable time criticising WOTC for their 4e changes to Salad? Yup, I'm pretty sure you were the one in that conversation. So, I would say that if I dropped Slaad in my game and did them in a completely different way, completely ignoring all prior canon regarding slaad, maybe my slaad are from the Abyss, you would have no problems whatsoever? You'd never so much as questi...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
No results to display...
Page 1 of 37 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Thursday, 5th April, 2018

  • 02:35 AM - Hussar quoted BryonD in post Do We Still Need "Race" in D&D?
    Heh, I'm not going to get dragged back into your age old battle-lost delusions. I've been doing Medusa correct to the myth for decades. You are the one with the longstanding record of putting words in other people's mouths. Hell, I haven't engaged with you for what, a year? And you bring me up here with the specific point of telling other people what *I* said, when it isn't what I said. So I think any rational person who just registered today could read nothing but this brief exchange and readily see who is doing the revisions. Enjoy Yup, absolutely. Totally agree that you've been doing the Medusa correct to myth for decades. What you haven't done for decades though, is use the D&D Medusa the way it was and is written. Like I said, thank you for providing such a perfect illustration of my point.

Wednesday, 4th April, 2018

  • 04:14 AM - Hussar quoted BryonD in post Do We Still Need "Race" in D&D?
    Yeah, not following the thread, so I can't comment on context here. But point of clarification. I know first hand that BryonD never said that. What was said is that the Medusa of myth turned you into stone if you looked at her, period. It was said that if you did a "person on the street" poll rather than a show of hands on a 4de message board, that this would be seen as stupidly obvious to anyone who knew who Medusa was. It was also said that pre-4E edition of D&D were completely compatible with modeling this. The claim that you presented a cogent counter-point, much less "proved" said point would be a pretty screwed revision. As you were. LOL. The fact that not a single version of D&D is actually "completely compatible with modeling this" was the point that was disproved since your other point couldn't actually be proven at all. Not one single version of the Medusa actually supported your claims. Not one. Yet, you still claim victory in the discussion? Wow. Now that's some serious revision there.

Wednesday, 14th March, 2018

  • 02:59 PM - Aldarc quoted BryonD in post Leveling Up
    Exactly. This is what I immediately thought. Of course, I was also a fan of Grim Tales, which took the class construction idea of D20 Modern and ran with it.I think that d20 Modern's level design, in many respects, influenced both Grim Tales and True20. (I would love to see an updated True20, but I now wonder if the new PF2 system will be the better chassis than 5E to build off from.) I'm afraid two of the most positive features of 5e * simplified math (very few niggling +1s and -1s) * a real attempt at fixing LFQW (Concentration obvs, but also fundamentally rejiggered spells) remain unlikely.LFQW will likely not be quite as pronounced in PF2. There are a number of new features that already suggest that this will be curtailed somewhat: upcasting, stat caps, spellcasting and the action economy, etc.

Thursday, 8th March, 2018

  • 03:56 AM - Sunseeker quoted BryonD in post Paizo Announces Pathfinder 2nd Edition!
    I agree that a bad system is a bad system. But I don't agree that this example in the least. You have completely neglected to offer any information about what else is happening, thus your example creates a false idea that there is nothing to engage or entertain Billy. If THAT is true, the it IS the DM's fault. Being engaged in the game, entertained, having fun, whatever, should NEVER be constrained to just those things a single player's individual character is doing. If each player isn't enthralled by the larger story then the DM isn't living up to what could be. I'm not saying you can't be engaged in a movie, but there's a different type of engagement in a movie, than a game and a game can't rely on movie-style engagement (which is non-interactive), just as a movie can't rely on game-style engagement (which is interactive). It is important in game design to keep each player engaged, because fundamentally, players are unreliable actors. The game can't assume that Bob is going to do ...
  • 02:44 AM - Sunseeker quoted BryonD in post Paizo Announces Pathfinder 2nd Edition!
    I'm not on-board with "standard" spells requiring multiple rounds to cast. So maybe this isn't a great place to comment. But I will offer that if Billy is walking away from the table then the DM isn't doing a very good job. I completely believe that a well run game can, and should, be just as engaging as a great movie. And further enhanced by the fact the player has skin in the game, even when it is not actively their turn. The DM is only so mighty. If the Game disengages Billy from play, that's on the Game. A good DM can only do so much with a bad system. I mean lets look at it this way: lets say you have 5 people at the table, and you give them each 1 minute to take their turns (DM included). That means Billy's turn comes up once every 4 minutes. If all Billy does on his turn is say "I'm still casting Fireball" and then goes back to playing on his phone or getting a drink or whatever, then Bill isn't really playing the game. The DM can attempt to engage him by say, having his...

Monday, 12th February, 2018

  • 12:57 PM - pemerton quoted BryonD in post What is *worldbuilding* for?
    Heaven forbid that someone else have both the narrative "in character" joy AND also have a great game. To quote somebody: "Inconceivable!" I think the disconnect is that you take a reasonable position, differing player agency in differing systems and/or group dynamics, and then you make an flawed leap to how that is important to the merits of the game. People react to the second part as controversialThere is no "second part". This thread isn't about what is fun and what is not. It's about the analysis of RPGing techniques. Maybe most RPGers enjoy games with only modest or little player agency. That isn't relevant to analysising the nature and extent of agency in various approaches to RPGing. If the joy that players in your game get comes from finding mundane maps hidden in mundane places then I don't think I want to play in your game.Who said the map is mundane? Or the place mundane? I don't recall, now, who originated the example - it may have been Lanefan, it may have been me,...

Saturday, 10th February, 2018

  • 07:05 AM - pemerton quoted BryonD in post What is *worldbuilding* for?
    The entire idea of "player agency" vs. "player fun" when the player wants to be 100% in character remains a disconnect. <snip> It is the unending rejection of the idea that "shared fiction" remains awesome even where the sharing is highly asymmetrical because the player's agency is constrained to what their character can do and the DM has unlimited authority of authorship.The fiction may be awesome or not - that seems mostly a matter of taste. If players enjoy the GM presenting them with the products of his/her imagination, no doubt that's a reason for the GM to create and present such products. My claim is simly about agency. In that situation, the players do not seem to have a great deal of agency over the shared fiction. This was a point that was made upthread and treated as controversial. But now it seems that it is a point that attracts widespread agreement. And yet, even with that concurrence of the vague concept of player agency, the extrapolation to "right moves" and pres...
  • 05:28 AM - pemerton quoted BryonD in post What is *worldbuilding* for?
    To me, and I'd be comfortable saying to many others I've gamed with, being a player is tied to being an alternate person within a setting and context and having the experience as that person. <snip> "NO" is an important part of the joy of success.In the context of action declarations which concern the PC learning about the gameworld rather than the PC changing the gameworld - and perhaps even for some of the latter, if there are secret elements of the fiction that the GM will treat as part of the fictional positioning (eg the notorious chamberlain example from years ago) - then succes here means trigger the GM to narrate for you the relevant part of his/her pre-authored material. Eg success in finding the map means, as player, declaring the right move (eg "I search the such-and-such") that will lead to the GM narrating the location of the map from his/her notes. This may or may not be fun - that's obviously a matter of taste. But clearly it involves relatively little player agency...

Thursday, 8th February, 2018

  • 12:57 AM - AbdulAlhazred quoted BryonD in post What is *worldbuilding* for?
    I think there is another important distinction. And, consistent with what you have said, I don't make any claim of inherent superiority. It is all about what is fun to who. But there is a lot that can be said about "NO" in the tabletop RPG context that differs from simply improv acting. ... "NO" is an important part of the joy of success. I think the context of the conversation makes this sound harsh. I've discussed this specific idea with players. But ONLY subsequent to seeing it brought up on these boards in recent years. Previously, the idea of limitations was simply obvious and not a consideration. I'd even very much call myself a "yes and" GM in more typical circumstances. But it would be "yes and" within boundary condition which, to me, require no conversation. I think fictional positioning is basically the same sort of limiter in my process of running a game. You can't just do any old arbitrary thing as a player because your PC needs the fictional positioning to make that...

Tuesday, 18th April, 2017

  • 01:41 PM - Maxperson quoted BryonD in post Judgement calls vs "railroading"
    When one side flatly states that they can't perceive the other sides position, doesn't that mean it is time to stop trying to reach a meaningful resolution? pemerton often says things like, "I don't understand...", "I can't see how...", "I don't get...", etc. all the time. Given that much of what he says that about is pretty easy to understand, and that he's a lawyer, a profession that teaches those who engage in it how to put themselves into the shoes of the opposition in order to understand and predict their strategies, I strongly suspect that it's just a tactic he's using in debate. I doubt that he's really failing to understand most the things he says he doesn't get.
  • 12:14 PM - Ilbranteloth quoted BryonD in post Judgement calls vs "railroading"
    When one side flatly states that they can't perceive the other sides position, doesn't that mean it is time to stop trying to reach a meaningful resolution? Well, I'm not trying to reach a resolution, nor am I trying to convince pemerton (or anybody else, for that matter) that my position is "right." 1) I'd like to understand better how he would run a scene like that, and how the shared authoring duties work for him and others. Doesn't mean I'll switch to that approach entirely, but I can always learn something. 2) It might benefit somebody else who's more inclined to move toward a shared authoring approach. 3) I often learn what I don't want to do in discussions like these, as much as I learn what I do. Both are helpful in refining and evolving my own skills, which in turn I hope helps me run a better game. 4) Sometimes my (and perhaps others) thickheadedness can suddenly change after an "aha!" moment when I finally "get" it. 5) Sometimes I (and others) like to tear apart...
  • 02:34 AM - Ovinomancer quoted BryonD in post Judgement calls vs "railroading"
    this Thanks, I'm not fond of rhetorical questions. I tend to drive straight at them.
  • 12:09 AM - Ovinomancer quoted BryonD in post Judgement calls vs "railroading"
    When one side flatly states that they can't perceive the other sides position, doesn't that mean it is time to stop trying to reach a meaningful resolution? Which side is that, exactly?

Friday, 14th April, 2017

  • 06:28 PM - hawkeyefan quoted BryonD in post Judgement calls vs "railroading"
    how could that possibly be even contemplated as objective fact? It is abundantly clear that to some large number of people the value of that agency is less than the cost of it. Which isn't to claim that the opposite is any less purely preference. It is objective fact that there are groups which strongly prefer each and groups which are much more moderate. In theory it could also be shown as objective fact that one approach creates more players and sales. But there is nothing objective about "more fun" for either. Ultimately though, it isn't honest debate to frame the conversation around one side as virtuous and the other as backwards. To me, quotes from 4E designers regarding things like making monks cool game pieces rather than focused on modeling a monk are completely destroying the attraction of the game. But I can readily see why someone else may feel the opposite. No, I understand that. I don't think it is an objective matter. I was replying to @Imaro who mentioned that in his p...
  • 03:24 PM - Imaro quoted BryonD in post Judgement calls vs "railroading"
    Some time back Pemerton and I had multiple conversations on the specific topic of "role playing" vs. "authorship" and the merits and drawbacks of players being completely limited to things they could do if they truly were in the shoes of their character vs players sharing some of the function of a DM. I doubt you would be surprised to hear that we rather strongly disagreed in our preference. (and this was, of course, further complicated by contributions from others (not P) refusing to accept the distinction between "preference" and objectively better gaming) I believe you are exactly right in your assessment of where the division falls. Yeah I have definitely been getting an... expose the unwashed masses/poor deprived roleplayers (which seems to be any D&D player who doesn't prefer 4e) to these superior techniques... vibe by some posters. Instead of an open exchange between the differing styles that's actually about trading and exploring the merits and pitfalls of both approaches. It'...

Wednesday, 2nd November, 2016

  • 05:23 AM - Hussar quoted BryonD in post Wanting more content doesn't always equate to wanting tons of splat options so please stop.
    I don't remotely believe that too many supplements hurt sales. I do believe that poor quality supplements and/or supplements that don't consider poor interactions add a non-zero negative weight on the gaming community perception of a system. Time is the real enemy. It is easy to look at the increasing stack of supplements and blame that for the concurrent decline caused by age. What age? All three previous WotC editions died after 2 or 3 years. 5 years if we're being generous. That's not much time between reboots.
  • 05:20 AM - Hussar quoted BryonD in post Wanting more content doesn't always equate to wanting tons of splat options so please stop.
    ok Majority of who? Maybe with more content the fan base would triple. You can't prove this is false. It is probably true that the majority of current players are either (a) opposed to more content or (b) completely agnostic on the topic. But simply saying that the majority of people currently doing a thing like that thing the way it is doesn't really add any insight. Well we do have three editions of rapid release that have all failed to triple the fan base so there is at least some evidence that rapid release does not equate to greater appeal.
  • 04:07 AM - Corwin quoted BryonD in post Wanting more content doesn't always equate to wanting tons of splat options so please stop.
    Maybe with more content the fan base would triple. You can't prove this is false. But 3e/PF can!
  • 12:14 AM - Parmandur quoted BryonD in post Wanting more content doesn't always equate to wanting tons of splat options so please stop.
    OK I'm not sure what your point really is or what I've said that you are disputing. For what its worth, I'm still convinced that WotC's choice to produce so little content has absolutely nothing to do with the reasoning you presented. It has been demonstrated that you can sell a very steady supply of product to the marketplace overall. And if that is what you want then the "overall" is what matters, not the exceptions. But the reality is that the core books may sell huge numbers, but compared to other things that WotC can invest resources into, core books don't make a great return. (And don't tell me it is sell four slots behind The Red Pony on Amazon's top sellers list. That misses the point.) Non-core books make even less return on the investment. WotC wants to make money on D&D being recognized as the name in Fantasy gaming. They are investing in 5E the smallest amount they figure will maintain *that* brand position. Any revenue they generate from the tiny pool of us geeks over ...

Tuesday, 1st November, 2016

  • 11:51 PM - Parmandur quoted BryonD in post Wanting more content doesn't always equate to wanting tons of splat options so please stop.
    Obviously. At the end of the day we should simply acknowledge that there are games that taken in total appeal to a lot of people. And those games need not overlap very much. As long as the game meets the "big appeal" it is good. Well, sure? I mean, if Pathfinder had a slower release schedule, I probably still wouldn't want it; while of 5E significantly ramped up production, I would likely buy less product (absolutely, not just relatively): just only so much to go around, and if I have six options rather than two, I will likely get none rather than one. So, companies gotta make the decisions that make sense for them; and complaining about it on a forum the company ignores where most people are cool with the release schedule? Not gonna change anything.

Page 1 of 37 1234567891011 ... LastLast

0 Badges

BryonD's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites