View Profile: Ovinomancer - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Today, 05:10 AM
    Okay... yes? I feel you're trying to say something but it's just not quite complete... Huh, I've completely missed that rule, and have also completely missed all the threads talking about how that works. Where is this strongly implied? Is there a thread talking about reasonable DCs to set for, say, doubling your speed? Also, where is your move speed called your walking speed, as I seem...
    113 replies | 2768 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Today, 05:05 AM
    Is that all? You want someone to tell you what 5e does well? Sheesh, you're like that character Warren from Empire Records that holds up the record store because he wants a job there -- your approach is wildly divergent from your goal. As I have disagreed mightily with you this entire thread but yet also run a weekly 5e game, I should be well qualified to answer this: 5e does exploration...
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Today, 04:49 AM
    It's a mechanical artifact because "Expert Sprinter" isn't a rogue fluff bit -- it's not mentioned anywhere. Hence, the effect of the rogue being an expert sprinter is a mechanical artifact -- it comes from interaction of the mechanics. The rogue as the maneuverable guy is maintained fully even if you drop double-dashing -- they're still the only class that can, without resource expenditure, do...
    113 replies | 2768 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Today, 01:26 AM
    When did I say my problem was a race? You added the race to add the chase mechanics to show me my problem with how the rogue is 50% faster in combat time isn't a valid complaint because they aren't, maybe, that much faster in the chase mechanics. Mechanics that you then used to present a tortoise-and-hare example while openly showing the rogue rapidly outpaces the fighter right out of the gate....
    113 replies | 2768 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Today, 01:05 AM
    I'm going with no. Putting aside a theoretical possibility that you could, if everything was perfect, do so, I think that the incentives involved prevent any reasonable or even unreasonable assumption that this is possible. To explore this, look at how the Powered by the Apocalypse game Blades in the Dark does characters. When you create a character in Blades, you have things you must have...
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    5 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:51 PM
    To be fair, lightly armored rogues also outran heavily armored rogues by the same margin. Honestly, at this point, I'm far more amused at the justifications than I ever was annoyed about the design.
    113 replies | 2768 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:06 PM
    Sorry, but when did I say anything about how the chase rules work? I apologize if I've mistaken given you that impression.
    113 replies | 2768 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:43 PM
    Right. Issue: a mechanical artifact leads to an odd result. Response: use a different resolution mechanism and just try to ignore it otherwise. Good talk?
    113 replies | 2768 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:13 PM
    And all of your points are still true if you can't double dash.
    113 replies | 2768 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:07 PM
    Not if you run the race in combat rounds. There the fighter loses badly. This is my gripe, really, that the issue is a mechanical artifact others defend by pointing out cases where it doesn't exist. As for rogues are nimble, this is very well covered by being able to dash as a bonus action after doing something else. Take away double dash and they're still super nimble and mobile...
    113 replies | 2768 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Thursday, 18th July, 2019, 06:48 PM
    Yes, lack of STR is a small hinderance for athletics, but it doesn't address that fighters, who can get Remarkable Athlete, are 1/3 slower than rogues. And the bit where it drops out if you go to chase or overland movement rules just underlines it's a mechanical artifact. I dislike mechanical artifacts that result in strains of suspension of disbelief. Note its note "rogue go fast" its the...
    113 replies | 2768 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Thursday, 18th July, 2019, 02:57 PM
    Double post
    113 replies | 2768 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Thursday, 18th July, 2019, 02:14 PM
    So thematic it never existed before, isn't nentioned in the fluff, and disappears immediately in the chase mechanics? Sure. Meanwhile, fighters are powerful athletes that are handily outrun by scrawny rogues, who, weirdly, aren't just half again faster but also better athletes.
    113 replies | 2768 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Thursday, 18th July, 2019, 01:37 PM
    Nope. No problem with classes doing different things. I like rogues being able to do lots of things. Fight and dash. Spell and dash. Some other thing and dash. Very thematic, very cool. But there's no real explanation as to why rogues can just run faster. Note I have no issues with the monk doing so -- it's thematic and tied to resources. Rogues don't run fast because it's thenatic,...
    113 replies | 2768 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Thursday, 18th July, 2019, 12:45 PM
    My design problem: rogues get to run fast while fighters don't. Design constraints: minimum intrusion Your solution: add concrete sub-system for using athletics to run faster. Because rogues will now run even faster because expertise (lacking in fighters), add and balance change to class progression to add limited expertise choice to all classes so they can choose to offset rogue run...
    113 replies | 2768 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Thursday, 18th July, 2019, 04:50 AM
    My problem isn't that rogue can go "fast," it's that no one else can. That said, I haven't done anything about it. It's just gone in the bucket of 'Many of my biggest complaints about 5e are summed up in the Rogue, but they haven't been worth the time to houserule.' It's not a heavy bucket.
    113 replies | 2768 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Thursday, 18th July, 2019, 04:41 AM
    Yes. That you don't see a way is somewhat telling. The ruby is cursed. The ruby belongs to a powerful entity who now declares enmity. The ruby.... so many ways to make finding exactly what the player wanted into something that the character suffers for. 1. applies only to stories the GM has already written down. 2. nope, this is already a caveat that player outcomes cannot violate...
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    4 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Wednesday, 17th July, 2019, 11:59 PM
    Well, yes, if you move the goalposts then the declaration violates established fiction. Upthread it was clearly stated in regards to the player decides that prior fiction and genre logic both act as constraints. I'm not sure what pointing out that if prior fiction prevents a declaration that it shouldn't happen like that really helps -- we're in agreement. And sometimes what the player...
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Wednesday, 17th July, 2019, 08:43 PM
    Yes, there is good reason -- to allow the player control over what happens on a success. You may have a different preference, and that's fine, but there is a very good reason. Coming from the D&D mindset, I can easily understand how this doesn't seem workable, but this is based on the thinking that it's the GM's story being uncovered by play. Even in the sandbox play revolves around...
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Wednesday, 17th July, 2019, 05:06 PM
    Counter-point: there's nothing preventing the asked for solution from being THE solution in the fiction. This is an important distiction from the real world. In fiction, the solution is whatever we agree it is. The real world, sadly, doesn't work this way. As an engineer working with customer requirements, and the usually horrible state those are in, I see this all the time. I have little...
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Wednesday, 17th July, 2019, 03:26 AM
    I agree with this. How a player makes a choice for the character can tell us something about that character without a challenge. I've said this before -- choices are still good play, they just aren't challenges. There's lots of tools in the box to get character out, but the nature of message boards is the hyper-focus on a point of disagreement until it looks like the whole point to begin with.
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Wednesday, 17th July, 2019, 03:24 AM
    Wait, you're asking what detriment exists if you don't gate everything through the GM's approval? I'm going to need to sit down awhile on that one. I mean... but... really? This is, well, a bit philosophically confused. I'll let pemerton bring the big words, but you're doing a decent job pointing out that what happens in game is a fiction and therefore different from what happens in...
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Wednesday, 17th July, 2019, 12:48 AM
    This goes right back to the OP where the question was about the difference between what your character does, as in proposes an action that the DM then determines the result of, or what you character does, as in you get to say the action and the outcome. This is firmly in that former group, the thin declaration, whereby the player is essentially asking the GM to do something nice if they succeed...
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    5 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Monday, 15th July, 2019, 04:01 PM
    I think that the default for D&D is that the GM can ask the player for a change to the mental state of the PC. I think this is important to D&D because the GM enjoys broad authority to directly change the PC's physical state, and has control over the fictional positioning at all times. Therefore, this narrow player authority is both important and essentially the third rail of D&D. I agree 4e...
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Monday, 15th July, 2019, 01:37 PM
    Using D&D as tge baseline, how can I, as GM, have an NPC mauden wink at a PC and melt the PC's heart without it being an ask of the player? This is why the baseline argument fails -- D&D is a specific model, not a general one. You can't logically argue from the specific to the general. This is amplified in cases where the model is of poor skill, such as D&D and social skills. As I said...
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Monday, 15th July, 2019, 11:39 AM
    I think, in D&D, it would be a serious overstep to do so. In the scene above, the player threw me for a loop. Previously, the player had established that the character had no recollection of their time before being a thrall. But, in the scene, the player revealed that they dud recall. I had been planning to offer a way to recover memory in exchange for helping this mindflayer, but that went...
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Monday, 15th July, 2019, 04:10 AM
    Like? I mean, you do know that the above method for D&D is straight from the rules, right?
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Monday, 15th July, 2019, 02:54 AM
    Dang it. I had yesterday in the dictionary pool. :( But, to address your bolded part above, the invitation is to do something. Can you fail to do something? Yes, especially if it's difficult or impossible. So, yeah, you, um, supported my argument with the dictionary. Even in the example, one can fail to make up one's mind. I'm keenly aware of this every time I have the marital "what do...
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Monday, 15th July, 2019, 02:51 AM
    Let me clarify, I find saving throws against charm to be "not much of a challenge" because they're boring and are heavy with force. The GM decides to have an NPC with charm, and the GM decides when to use it an on whom, and then the player gets one roll to see if they can prevent this GM chain from continuing to putting limits on their character. In other words, the only thing the player stakes...
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Monday, 15th July, 2019, 02:32 AM
    How do you have a baseline of doing something one way so that you can talk about doing it another way? Take cooking, for instance. If the baseline is using the oven, because that's the most popular, is it worthwhile to have to refer to using an oven every time you want to talk about microwaving? No, you just talk about microwaving and skip referencing everything to the oven because how you do...
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 11:25 PM
    Why, when discussing the ways that you can do something in RPGs, should D&D be the baseline assumption? Because it's popular? That seems a silly assertion to make, that you have to assume the popular way to do something in order to talk about ways you can do something. The base here is RPGs. D&D is a big contender -- how it does things should definitely be in-bounds. But, D&D being...
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 03:09 PM
    You're imagining bad play, and so it is bad. Go back to the example I presented about the knight and the maiden. All the results of that were from the knight attempting to do things -- ie, player initiated. All of the outcomes were due to what the player explicitly had up as stakes -- ie, player initiated. These are in game where the GM's authority is much more limited and the players have...
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 01:33 PM
    This reads very much like someone without experience in other play trying to suggest that other play must be more limited because, obviously, their play isn't limited at all! But, let's look at the outcomes that are okay in this example above. The PCs ignore the NPC. The PCs initiate combat with the NPC. The PCs agree with the NPC. The PCs do something else entirely. All of the...
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 01:08 PM
    It wasn't ignored. I'm saying it's not a challenge, and you're here adding support for that. As for why a challenge has to be binary, well... if you don't risk anything, ie, there's nothing you can lose, then you're not being challenged. If you can't win something, then it's also not a challenge, because you're just engaged in a choice between two bad things proposed by someone else. It's...
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 01:02 PM
    I'm 100% for playing with integrity. But, this thread has largely been about three things -- the proposition you posed in the the OP about the difference between two types of action declaration, if a GM should have authority over the characterization at any time, and what constitutes a challenge. Your example does address integrity of characterization, but doesn't touch on any of the previous...
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 02:17 PM
    Tsk-tsk. Given your experience in the thread, you should know better. ;)
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 02:15 PM
    Your example is fun play. I like it, and I enjoy when such things happen in my game. What I don't see, though, is how your example illuminates the discussion about choice not being a challenge or risk to characterization. You player decided that this crisis happened, and, absent a scene or scenes where this crisis is tested in a way that the player risks their characterization, it remains just...
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 06:01 AM
    Dude, irony.
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 05:56 AM
    Yes, you are confused. Finally, agreement.
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 05:34 AM
    Is there a mechanic? Can you fail? Can you succeed? There's your answer, three times over. If you play chess against yourself, is there a challenge? This is more akin to using your sole authority to determine characterization to make a choice about your characterization. You can't fail this challenge, you can just choose which side you win on.
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 05:32 AM
    Dude, irony, again.
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 05:28 AM
    What do you have if there's no failure, and no success, though? Not a challenge. If you can't fail, if there's no risk, then it's not a challenge. Does it have to be abject, absolute failure? No, of course not, but there has to be something at risk and that risk has to be losing that something. And here's where we're having a disconnect: you insist that the player has 100% sole authority...
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 04:17 AM
    Actually, I think save or be charmed isn't much of a challenge, either. My argument has been that making a choice isn't a challenge if you can chose between all the choices. Even the unknown repercussions don't make it a challenge, just a guessing game. A challenge requires that something be staked and that you have a risk of losing your stakes. There's lots and lots of ways to do this, even...
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 04:13 AM
    Dude, irony. Those comments were made about taking things either out-of-context or imagined and then trying to pin those arguments on other posters. Like you just did to me. You cannot find anywhere in this thread (or others) where I've gotten even close to saying that telling a player to make a saving throw out of the blue is a challenge. You've erected a strawman. Have fun with it.
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 04:01 AM
    I do, too. Weird, huh, that I'd agree with this last bit so easily, like maybe you've missed something fundamental?
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 11:58 AM
    So, success would be maintaining your chastity and getting the girl. How pseudo-zen of you.
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 11:54 AM
    If you cannot succeed nor fail, how are you challenged? You keep insisting that there are other challenges that don't include possibility of failure, but you haven't presented the case -- you just assert it. Show the work. Edit: multiquote is stuck
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 12:42 AM
    The choice is what's been presented as the challenge. This is the first instance of the example choice being part of a larger, interconnected story. Even there, I'm not clear on what you think the challenge is, or how the choice leads to success or failure at the challenge rather than just another part of a larger choice tree. I can see choice as part of an actual challenge only if you're...
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 09:32 PM
    Then what does a success on this challenge look like and how does it differ from a failure? You're confusing a choice, even a hard one, with a challenge. You can fail to overcome a challenge, or succeed at it, but you can't fail or succeed at a choice.
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 09:27 PM
    If you need me to tell you what conclusion you reached that you then blamed on another poster's phrasing... well, I'm just gonna have to let you wonder about that.
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 06:10 PM
    I didn't have any trouble understanding him. If you don't add words to what he said, you can avoid the conclusion leapt to.
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 03:32 AM
    Re: challenging the character concept I was using risk earlier, because it's a better framing for the issue. Are you risking your character. Challenging is so vague as to mean anything. Heck, the example of chastity versus a sword is being used, but that doesn't challenge the character at all, it challenges the player to make a choice as to what character they want to play. This isn't...
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    3 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 03:05 AM
    Huh? Are you taking Frogreaver's meds, too? The ask is to explore the reasoning behind the sudden change, not to refute it if doesn't meet guidelines. Heck, Aebir-Toril even says they wouldn't know what to do with "lol, magic sword duh" which strongly suggests that this would just be a confusing answer, not one that's censored. Perhaps I'm wrong, and AT really is running roughshod over his...
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 03:02 AM
    Yes, I agree, it is the weirdest turn. No one's mentioned calling the choice cheating, yet here you are arguing as if this was said. It's like before, when you tried to use "roll-playing" to dismiss arguments. I though that had to be the most ridiculous thing in the thread, but, no, I was wrong. This is going a bit further. I'm not sure if you just don't understand what's being said, or if...
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 03:02 PM
    You're missing my point, but that's partly on me for not being consistently explicit. There are no consequences to characterization. Your characterization is not at risk. Everything you mention here is external to the character -- and, I'm not, nor have I been, talking about that. So, I get you fine, it's you missing my points.
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 02:27 PM
    No, it isn't. If you're the only one that decides, then the concept is never at risk. There has to be a loss of control for there to be risk, and you're refusing loss of control.
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 02:25 PM
    This is just asking permission, though, something that you've roundly rejected from the player side (ie, you've rejected that player propositions are just asking permission of the GM). So, yes, there is a difference. If you risk your characterization and the result of a failure is that you're offered a choice to go through with it or ignore the failure, then there's no real failure, here -- you...
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    3 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 01:44 PM
    Mechanics for that risk, not that decide. There's nothing in D&D that calls into question a PC's concept except indirectly. The game isn't built to do this normally, with how it frames scenes, with how it resolves uncertainty, heck, with what it treats as uncertain. D&D is bad at this, and that's fine, because it's pretty good at what it does do. But, some games have mechanics that allow...
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 01:33 PM
    Sure, if that's how you think characters are tested, I suppose it is boring. Instead, picture the knight on a holy quest that has sworn a vow of chastity until the quest is complete. Then, a maiden melts his heart with a wink. The knight now has to decide between his love for the maiden and the importance of his quest, and, either way, we'll learn something about this character. I think...
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 01:04 PM
    But you're assigning that role (also) to characterization, which is misplaced. Mechanics are how the system resolves uncertainty, they're not constraints on characterization, unless you're putting undue focus on them. Here, look at this next bit: This is what I'm talking about. You, on the one hand, tell me I'm misrepresenting you looking to the mechanics for protection of your...
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 02:03 AM
    Yes, well, I thought it odd that you started by saying that you aren't focusing too much on mechanics and then talk about nothing but mechanics and how they enable your characterization and how you couldn't successfully characterize without knowing the mechanical boundaries. I mean, yeah? Weird. And, it completely doesn't address the point I initially made that you're too focused on...
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 01:44 AM
    So, you're not too focused on the mechanics, but you determine your characterization by your focus on the mechanics. All good, I guess.
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 01:43 AM
    Seems you have a good handle on it and don't need my advice. Enjoy it!
    104 replies | 2903 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Monday, 8th July, 2019, 08:27 PM
    Case 1: PC in dim light, NPC in bright light -- PC makes perception checks normally, NPC has disadvantage (on vision based checks). Case 2: PC in darkness, NPC in bright light -- PC makes perception checks about the NPC normally, NPC cannot make vision based perception checks about the PC (is effectively blinded with regards to the PC in darkness). Case 3: PC in darkness, NPC in dim light...
    34 replies | 1136 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Monday, 8th July, 2019, 08:18 PM
    1) don't confuse DCs with contested rolls -- rolling a 33 is not a Nearly Impossible challenge, even if it's pretty much a de facto one. 2) You don't challenge a rogue with stealth challenges at this point, except on rare occasion and then well telegraphed. They are really, really good at sneaking. If you apply the stealth rules reasonably, this is just very awesome and not an "I win...
    104 replies | 2903 view(s)
    4 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Monday, 8th July, 2019, 05:57 PM
    Yes! Although, you're too focused on mechanics. Just the fact that your character is at stake in more ways that just dying in combat is the real crux. Contests are just, "might my character die in this fight," but may be, "do I find out my character isn't who I thought they were at all?!"
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Sunday, 7th July, 2019, 06:09 PM
    You invited it. Hard to complain about it when you just explicitly did it.
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Sunday, 7th July, 2019, 05:03 AM
    So, not a flaw if it might hurt you.
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Saturday, 6th July, 2019, 10:48 PM
    I think it might get your table in mutiny, but most? Doubtful. As for cause and effect, well, don't look to closely at D&D, then. You might notice that you determine the effect of an attack roll and then go back and determine the cause for the description. Or, most any check, really. Other games move the check even further in front of the resolution so as to be able to resolve an intent...
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Saturday, 6th July, 2019, 10:42 PM
    Yup. You're locked into a mindset that's best represented by D&D, even if you've played other games that support that same mindset (or, given some of the games on the list you presented, you've played those games and brought with you the D&D mindset and so didn't see a difference). I mean, you're defending taking authority away from the player so long as the mechanic used has the word "magic"...
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    3 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Saturday, 6th July, 2019, 10:36 PM
    Slow down. It's not an insult. It's a statement that no progress can be made while basic assumptions are so far apart. And, yes, I love 5e's play loop. I'm a champion of it, when discussion how 5e plays. But, if you assume that's how a game should be play, it will prevent discussion of other ways to play games so long as you don't look up from it. You can prefer it, that's awesome! Go...
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Saturday, 6th July, 2019, 07:16 PM
    So, at this point, I see that the Maxperson, FrogReaver, Satyrn nexus is doing the following: 1) assuming D&D in their arguments, and 2) confusing choice/authority with roleplaying (at least Max and Frog are). No conversation is possible so long as these are the assumptions, as these are different from the assumption set of the other side, who is talking about all games, not just D&D...
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Saturday, 6th July, 2019, 04:12 AM
    Right, the mechanical means in most other games is that you fail a check. If you insist it must be a save against magic before you're comfortable, that seems like an overly specific exception that really isn't -- it's just an exception you've internalized as okay and so you wave it away when it comes up. Charm Person is actually far more invasive a mechanic into player authorities than most of...
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    3 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Saturday, 6th July, 2019, 02:54 AM
    Right, because determining elements of the fiction that you're playing a role in has absolutely nothing to do with playing the role. Wait, what? Nope, it totally does. But, this is a very nice rhetorical trick where you take me talking about play preferences and pretend it's a post about the definition of roleplaying.
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Thursday, 4th July, 2019, 04:45 PM
    I can understand that. I feel the same way in D&D ganes, but that's becayse the only authority I have in D&D is to make thin declarations -- the DM has authority over everything. So, when the DM intrudes into my very limited authority in game, it's a massive imposition. In other games, though, I have a lot more authority as a player. Many aspects if the game are my call, from foundational...
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Thursday, 4th July, 2019, 03:15 PM
    Let me give you another version of this: No, I don't. You're reifying magic when it's just another mechanic through which the GM, in this case, is acting. There is no 'other character' in the fiction -- they don't do anything in the fiction without a player directing them, so trying to say that because the GM is telling you what to do but using a fictional cover for the mechanic isn't...
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Thursday, 4th July, 2019, 03:48 AM
    This misses that, in games where this method is used, your objections don't matter. This outcome is the truth, and the players and GM have to figure out how it can be the truth, not look for ways for it to not be the truth of the game. If you're looking for procedural truth generation -- where every prerequisite is met prior to establishing the fictional truth -- then this is going to be very...
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Thursday, 4th July, 2019, 03:42 AM
    It means that you take the one the role, as in you think about how to interact with the shared fiction as if you were that character within it. No, they do not, by necessity, always determine what actions said imaginary character is taking. So long as when they have the option to make a choice they do so from within the role, this is roleplaying. When and how they get choices has nothing...
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Thursday, 4th July, 2019, 12:51 AM
    I'll leave this here again for FrogReaver, as he seems to have missed it on his last pass.
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Wednesday, 3rd July, 2019, 12:45 PM
    We're not in disagreement at all. I said that in 5e players have authority to make their own thin declarations, except in some specific circumstances. While my preference wouldn't be what you presented, it's not an uncommon example of play. And, your AW example is dead on what I've been saying about DM directing PC action on a failure in some games. So, nope, not much, if any,...
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Wednesday, 3rd July, 2019, 11:32 AM
    Magic is just a game mechanic, though. You could say "social check" or "Tuesday" or "Bob did it" with exactly as much explanatory power as to how the game works. "Magic" is just a fictional label.
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Wednesday, 3rd July, 2019, 10:57 AM
    Roleplaying is simply taking on an imaginary role in a shared fiction. There are a number of ways of doing this, including acting, therapy, and playing games. A roleplaying gane is one where the players roleplay a character(s) in the game and where the player is expected to advocate for their character. None of this is impacted by a GM being able to declare actions for a PC in some...
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Wednesday, 3rd July, 2019, 12:20 AM
    Yup. No change. Have you tried to log in and post and had success?
    12 replies | 699 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Wednesday, 3rd July, 2019, 12:15 AM
    Strongly disagree with this. You've defined 'roleplaying' as 'how I prefer to play' and not in any terms outside of your preferences. Burning Wheel is very much a role-playing game and yet has mechanics where the DM can indeed direct a PC's action. This is because it's play loop is contested truth statements, and the winner of the roll gets their statement as truth. On the GM side, this can...
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Wednesday, 3rd July, 2019, 12:12 AM
    See, I disagree. Without asking for specific duties and authorities that constitute the "GM role", we can say that whatever these are they must be severable -- ie, exercising one of these authorities does not necessarily entail the ability to exercise all of the authorities. In fact, in many games with a GM, the specific authorities are defined and do not constitute the same set of authorities....
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Tuesday, 2nd July, 2019, 02:51 AM
    Morrus, Oooh, getting closer! Nope, can't post, and almost all the threads show as unread. If I click 'mark forum as read' it does so, until I refresh the page, then they're all unread again. There hasn't been a new post since the 26th, which is unusual.
    12 replies | 699 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Monday, 1st July, 2019, 03:09 PM
    Is there, maybe, a middle ground between 'I pull my sword" and the entirely of what you posit? Could, maybe, discussion happen about things in that middle ground? In other words, no, you can't do the bottom in any game, but that's because you're not engaging the fiction of the scene or the genre of the game and are, in fact, being a jerk. Can we please dispense with the "but if a jerk does it"...
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Monday, 1st July, 2019, 03:01 PM
    That is, indeed, one way it happens, and one of the ways pemerton noted in his OP. There are other ways, though, like the other one in the OP, that you've dismissed as a falsehood. Given that it exists in a number of games, and can exist in even more, you should reconsider whether or not you've grasped the intent of the OP and whether or not you're the one engaged in a falsehood. As pemerton...
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    3 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Monday, 1st July, 2019, 05:41 AM
    Yes? How does this advance a discussion about the differences in play who chooses makes? A good example of a game that can go either way, look to 4e, which has a split personality depending on which method of outcome resolution you choose. So, no, it's not always about the game you've chosen -- there are opportunities in a number of games to let choice of outcome drift. I let this drift in...
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Monday, 1st July, 2019, 05:36 AM
    Yes, and the topic is about who gets to choose the outcome -- the GM or the player.
    701 replies | 19289 view(s)
    0 XP
More Activity
About Ovinomancer

Basic Information

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

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
4,565
Posts Per Day
0.81
Last Post
Double Dash Today 05:10 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
2
General Information
Last Activity
Today 05:42 AM
Join Date
Monday, 16th February, 2004
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0
Page 1 of 7 1234567 LastLast

Saturday, 20th July, 2019


Friday, 19th July, 2019


Thursday, 18th July, 2019


Wednesday, 17th July, 2019



Page 1 of 7 1234567 LastLast
Page 1 of 12 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Friday, 19th July, 2019

  • 12:43 PM - pemerton mentioned Ovinomancer in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    ... him roll and tell him it was a 1000gp worth ruby anyways, then there was no fictional need for that additional exchange. There's countless other reasons to still fulfill the players intent but slightly alter their specified outcome.Some other posters have already explained how finding a ruby can be a failure. Here's another way: the PC is searching for gold pieces because only gold pieces can lift the curse of the whatever-it-is (I'm imagining some variant of the gem-crushing gargoyle in ToH). Finding a ruby is a, in that circumstance, a failure - although maybe if the PC can make it to a gem market and cash in the ruby s/he can get some or even all of the gold s/he needs. As to your possibilities: (1) I don't really see how this can be known in advance unless the GM has already plotted the story out. Which maybe s/he has, but then that brings us back to the question of what the role of the players is in relation to the fiction. (2) This has been dealt with ad nauseum by Ovinomancer and by me. If the action declaration would violate the established ficiotn then that should alreayd have been sorted out. Furthremore, this is not particularly a GM function. I mean, the GM's narration of the ruby could negate some prioer fiction to if the GM is careless (eg maybe the PCs already scanned the area with a gem detection spell and it registed no gems). So all-in-all this particular possibility is a red herring. (3) I don't understand this at all. If the GM tells the player the PC fails to find 1000 gp then why is the player then making a check? What is the check for? And if this check whose purpose I don't understand is successful, what is the reason for telling the player that the PC finds a 1000 gp instead of the 1000 gp s/he was looking for. Can a single fantasy author write a story about a character that is legitimately challenged?Not in the way that I and (I believe) Ovinomancer are talking about. An author can write about a character's struggle with identity ...

Wednesday, 17th July, 2019

  • 10:56 PM - pemerton mentioned Ovinomancer in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    I say, slightly in jest, "I search the Duke's desk for a huge ancient red dragon...." In one of my recent posts I referred to violations of genre, fictional positioning and system logic. In the Burning Wheel rulebooks Luke Crane makes the point by saying (something like) "no roll for beam weaponry in the duke's toilet". But that is all about vetoing or refusing to entertain certain action declarations. Lanefan was positing a successful outcome. what are we more interested in seeing - the players getting exactly what they ask for, or the players getting what they overall want? Because they are not omniscient, and what they ask for may not actually be what they wanted, needed, or could best use.As Ovinomancer has posted, this seems to assume that the fiction has a content that is independent of the players. But why would, or should, that be so? There is a demonstrable effect in the software industry which generalizes - when you ask someone what their problem is, what they are more likely to tell you is not the problem, but their preferred solution. That solution is generally either 1) the most common solution to similar problems or 2) the first solution that came to them when they had the problem, that's been rattling around in their head, so that their thinking is in a bit of a rut. Neither case is innovative, nor necessarily a *good* solution to the problem at hand.Why would the GM know any better than the players what is good for the fiction? For any number of reasons, some that you might like and some you might not: - to introduce new or unexpected elements to the fiction (whether pre-authored or generated on the fly) - to give the players (as their PCs) something new or...

Sunday, 14th July, 2019

  • 05:08 PM - pemerton mentioned Ovinomancer in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    ... should not have total control over their characters in every system?(1) This thread is in general RPG. Not D&D. There's a reason for that. (2) I'm not saying that players should or shouldn't do anything in every system. The OP invites discussion about various ways in which true descriptions of PC actions might be established. The current discussion has moved on a bit from that, to also talk about how true descriptions of PC choices, PC emotional states, etc might be established. (3) If someone's answer to the questions posed in the OP is the way D&D does it, end of story then they're welcome not to participat in the thread. If they're going to make ungrounded assertions that nothing else is really possible, well that's not very helpful either and is fair game for clarification or correction. (4) The most interesting thing for me at the moment - obviously I can't speak for others - is what are the necessary conditions for a genuine challenge to character concept? This is what Ovinomancer and I have disagreed about - I believe without undue acrimony! I would be very interested to hear what Campbell, chaochou and/or Aldarc thinks about it, should they care to weigh in. (Of course it's their prerogatibe not to.) My own views on this are heavily influenced by a certain conception of GM role in terms of framing scenes that put players under pressure by putting things that matter to the PC at stake. I don't know Exalted at all except from Campbell's accounts in this and other threads; and my experience with PbtA games is fairly limited, although I know the rulesets for DW and AW fairly well.
  • 04:52 PM - pemerton mentioned Ovinomancer in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    ...ts/etc in opposition. That then becomes a defining moment of the PC's character.You're not learning it. You're deciding it - as seems evident in your use of the verb determining in the first quote. Maybe it's a hard decision, but it's a decision, not a discovery. As I said, I can't see how this puts the least bit of pressure on the player's conception of his/her PC's character. (I guess it could if the player had said of his PC both I am chaste and I will do whatever it takes to preserve the kingdome. But the conflict there is so obvious and so shallow that I think we can discount it as a working example.) Contrast that with the example I posted of the paladin: he learns he is a killer. Or the examples of Duel of Wits, or Exalted social conflict: the PC (and player) learn that the character is capable of being persuaded in such-and-such a fashion. Those are not choices made by the player; they're the results of putting things at risk, and then losing them. (This is, roughly, Ovinomancer's definition of a challenge.) For the PC, the persuasion attempt is a challenge only if it makes the PC stop a moment and debate back and forth on what the right course of action is. Often times, when the player is struggling to determine whether the NPC persuaded their PC, it's because the PC is having an internal struggle as well over what they should do.But in the examples you provide this "internal struggle" is all just colour - like in D&D combat if the GM narrates the hp loss as a blow to the arm or a blow to the leg. It doesn't actually matter to resolution, or to the unfolding of the fiction. It's epiphenomenal. Contrast the paladin example: the killing isn't epiphenomenal. It's an actual thing that has occurred in the fiction, which refutes the paladin's self-conception (I'm not a killer) which has been held up until that point. Similarly for the outcome of a Duel of Wits. Which goes back to the point about play experience. Thinking really hard about what you...
  • 03:05 PM - pemerton mentioned Ovinomancer in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    ...ce with Exalted, but in my experience with other systems that provide various sorts of systematic support for engagement with PC motivations and emotions the range of characters played - when considered in proportion to the overall number played - tends to be increased, not narrowed. Consider a D&D game. An NPC is trying to persuade a PC to do something. The DM states the NPC's case with a high level overview. To provide some context for the players into how persuasive the NPC argument was the DM rolls the NPC's persuasion skill just so they players can gauge how convincing said NPC would be to the average person. Then the players take the NPC's specific argument and the persuasion skill roll and filter that through the character they are playing and come to a conclusion of how to have their PC react. In this situation what is gained from actually requiring a persuasion contest with binding results for the PC in order to determine if he was persuaded?Now I haven't yet read Ovinomancer's post not far below, where I am guessing (maybe I'm wrong?) that he is going to press the issue with me about choice vs challenge. But in this post I want to make clear that what I am talking about, in trying to convey my view as to how a character conception can be challenged in the absence of mechanics of the sort that Campbell has described, is - at least to my eyes - nothing like what you (Frogreaver) describe here. I'll put to one side the GM making a Persuasion roll and telling the player that result, as I don't see what that adds to the situation - mechanics work as mechanics, but I don't see what work they are meant to do as guidelines. With that put to one side, what we have is simply the GM telling the player that a NPC wants such-and-such from the PC. I can't see any pressure there. Any tension. Any challenge. The player can weigh pros and cons, try and calculate consequences, even decide non-rationally based on feeling if s/he likes, or a coin toss, what to do...

Saturday, 13th July, 2019

  • 04:27 AM - pemerton mentioned Ovinomancer in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    I agree with Ovinomancer and Umbran that making a choice - even a hard choice - isn't a challenge to character and character concept of the sort that has been raised in this thread. Whether you need mechanics (social mechanics, emotional mechanics, whatever they might be) to generate that sort of challenge is a further question. My view is that you don't, although obviously they might help. To expain why I think you don't need such mechanics, I want to quote a recent post: If I am playing or running a game that is supposed to be more character focused I absolutely do make aesthetic judgments of other players and I expect the same in kind. We should all be invested in each others' characters - be fans of them. For that to happen players should play their characters as if they were real people with real passions and real relationships. Players should play their characters with integrity and want to find out who they really are. They shouldn't try to drive play to some preferred outcome. Still ultimately ...

Friday, 12th July, 2019

  • 11:16 PM - Aebir-Toril mentioned Ovinomancer in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    I really don't understand why @Ovinomancer and others can't grasp this simple concept. Challenges are about risk. Risk is based on uncertainity. However, even in a perfectly deterministic world, there is still uncertainty which means there is still risk which means there's still challenges. Thus, you don't need a randomization method like dice to produce uncertainty. Chess actually makes a great example. Chess is a deterministic game and it's very challenging. It's challenging because there's always uncertainty because as a human we don't possess the knowledge of all game states. That lack of knowledge causes uncertainty which causes risk which causes challenge. Now consider a simple game of a coin flip where you win if a heads is flipped. There's uncertainty there. You have a great chance to lose the game and no control over winning or losing (without cheating). That kind of a game doesn't present a challenge even though there could potentially be risk and uncertainty. The real challenge with such a game is the ...
  • 10:20 PM - FrogReaver mentioned Ovinomancer in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    By making the hard choice obviously. I you can't fail to pick a choice, but none of the choices may be what you want, so there is no success. Challenge has more than one definition and not of them are binary. Trying to limit a challenge to success or failure is a False Dichotomy. I really don't understand why @Ovinomancer and others can't grasp this simple concept. Challenges are about risk. Risk is based on uncertainity. However, even in a perfectly deterministic world, there is still uncertainty which means there is still risk which means there's still challenges. Thus, you don't need a randomization method like dice to produce uncertainty. Chess actually makes a great example. Chess is a deterministic game and it's very challenging. It's challenging because there's always uncertainty because as a human we don't possess the knowledge of all game states. That lack of knowledge causes uncertainty which causes risk which causes challenge. Now consider a simple game of a coin flip where you win if a heads is flipped. There's uncertainty there. You have a great chance to lose the game and no control over winning or losing (without cheating). That kind of a game doesn't present a challenge even though there could potentially be risk and uncertainty. The real challenge with such a game is the ...

Thursday, 11th July, 2019

  • 05:33 AM - pemerton mentioned Ovinomancer in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    isnít combat (besides being fun) really the result of failing to overcome challenges in more interesting, and in many ways less risky, ways?I don't see how this could be a general truth about RPGing. Maybe it's a truth about a certain sort of approach to D&D, Classic Traveller and maybe RQ. In Marvel Heroic RP, combat - ie fisticuffs between superheroes and supervillains - isn't a result of failing to overcome challenges in some other fashion. It's how heroes defeat villains! In Prince Valiant, a joust can be anything from friendly sport to a duel of honour. It's not normally the result of faiur in some other domain of challenge. Etc. As as a quick example - letís say your the chaste knight. You are promised Excalibur for giving up your chastity. Do you take that offer? Is that not having your character challenges while still maintaining full control of it?Just to add to my post half-a-dozen or so upthread, and also Ovinomancer's post just upthread of that - what you describe here is an offer, not a challenge. It invites the player to make a calculation or choice of some sort. You could elaborate on the scenario, so that in some way this is the culmination of a series of events in the fiction - a bit like Ovinomancer's story of the knight on a quest, or my actual play example of Nightcrawler discovering he's neither as nice nor as devout as he thought. Not all character change or development need be the result of failed checks. It can come about from fidelity to the fiction. But that fiction won't have been established solely by the player!
  • 03:41 AM - pemerton mentioned Ovinomancer in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    A long post as I catch up on this thread. If it's left to a die roll or the DM's decision, there is no real test of character. <snip> There's a huge difference between me struggling with a decision for my PC, and clack, clack, clack! Oh, look. This time he's an ass, maybe next time he'll be noble. *yawn*The second bit here suggest to me that you're not familiar with the play of any of the non-D&D games that Aldarc, Umbran, Ovinomancer and I have referenced - Fate, Pendrgaon, Prince Valiant, MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic, Bunring Wheel, etc. And the first bit is odd, because the way you find out whether a D&D character is tough enough to beat Orcus in a fight is (among other things) to roll some dice. Of course D&D combat is not nothing but die rolls. But nor is a skill challenge, or a Duel of Wits, or whatever other mechanic a system might use to find out whether or not your PC is steely-hearted enough to resist the maiden's wink. Consulting rules makes zero difference here. It's just a question of whether or not you trust the GM to set up the game to be fun. Adding a veneer of rules on top is just a comfort blanket for gamers who really like rulesI certainly find it interesting that FrogReaver and Maxperson are fine with the maiden melting a PC's heart of the GM has written down (i) that the maiden has such a special ability and (ii) it allows a saving throw. Given that there's no rule in D&D that limits the specia...

Wednesday, 10th July, 2019

  • 02:59 AM - FrogReaver mentioned Ovinomancer in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    But even so, rolling a die or having the DM dictate a failure of chastity...or even just a temptation...is kinda boring. In my opinion. Isn't what he is suggesting what is classically referred to as roll playing. When you roll dice to determine if your characters heart is melted, if you are tempted etc. Aren't playstyles heavy in such mechanics also classically deemed simulationist. I find it strange that the playstyle I'm advocating for has been referred to as roll-playing and simulationist etc, but that such mechanical tests that Ovinomancer and others keep referring to actually would be much clearer examples of such terms than anything I've advocated for.

Monday, 8th July, 2019

  • 11:07 PM - Aldarc mentioned Ovinomancer in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    ... It lies in deciding how our characters choose to respond to their emotional and psychological urges rather than in deciding the particular emotional and psychological urges themselves. These feelings are not necessarily something that lie within the realm of agency, though your response to such scenarios would be. It's not as if human agency has some grandiose authorizing power over every emotional response or erection you feel. Well, only if you have a +100-year-old out-of-date notion of a mind-body duality in which somehow your moral agency is utterly divorced from psychosomatic and biological cognitive functions. Since pemerton mentioned Pendragon, I would suspect that a lot of Arthurian courtly romantic complications could have been solved had Lancelot (et al) told the DM, "Nope, my heart doesn't melt for Guinevere, because I know that acting on that would have dire consequences for the kingdom and that it would involve me betraying my bro, Arthur." I think that gets close to Ovinomancer's accurately glib comment about how this only transpires when there are potentially negative consequences that a player may want to ignore.

Saturday, 6th July, 2019

  • 05:15 PM - pemerton mentioned Ovinomancer in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    In fiction is fine. Out of fiction is not fine. All you mentioned above are in fiction acts. Those are all fine.But having someone wink at you is also an infiction act. I don't understand what distiinction you think you're pointing to here. An in game reason that allows the DM to control my PC? Hardly. Absent some sort of mind control, I get to decide if the maiden's wink melts my heart. No, because charm is an accepted part of the game. I know going into the game that there are in-fiction mechanics such as charm, dominate, command, etc., to assert control over my PC. A wink is not one of those and shouldn't be.These are just bare assertions of preference. As Ovinomancer already noted. I already said that there are some games with out of fiction mechanics, that allows the DM to assert control over my PC via something a wink, and that I wouldn't want to play one of those.It's not "out of fiction". The wink occurs in the fiction. The melting of your PC's heart happens in the fiction. No difference from a spell. And the rule that explains how winking works is something written down in a book. Just like the rules for "an accepted part of the game" that "know going into the game." An in fiction wink has no ability to override a PC's normal reaction. Speaking personally, winks do absolutely nothing for me.Mere assertion. As many have pointed out - George Orwell probably most famously in relatively contemporary literature - everyone has their breaking point. It also suggests significant ignorance of the variety of RPG designs out there. For instance, if you really want your PC never to be influenced by another PC's friendly behaviour, you c...
  • 08:43 AM - pemerton mentioned Ovinomancer in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    ...ome action or behave some way - that's depriving your player of a moment in which he can roleplay. You're depriving him of a moment in which he can really make his vision of his character come to life.If you tell the player You're paralysed. I'll tell you when you can act again. or You're charmed. You think Orcus is your best friend you're also depriving the player of a moment in which s/he can really make his/her vision of the character come to life. The fact that the infiction reason for the PC doing such-and-such is ensorcellment has no bearing on the real-world reality that you are pointing to. Whether roleplaying = make my vision of the character come alive is a further question. This is the first post where you've suggested that particular definition. It obviously differs from other definitions that have been put forward, such as portraying a particular character in an imagined world by imposing an authorship constraint on what counts as roleplaying. I reiterate what Ovinomancer says about Bob. Whether or not it can be roleplayed, and counts as roleplaying, has nothing do with the stuff the GM (or other player) is imagining as s/he tells you what has changed about your PC's mental states.No idea what you are saying here. I've read it 3 times and still am drawing a blank.Whether the GM, when s/he tells you what has changed about your PC's mental states, is imagining a winking maiden or a might sorcerer or Ovinomancer's Bob or the Orcus of my earlier paragraph makes no difference to whether or not you, as a player carrying out the GM's directions, are playing a role. Maybe you are. Maybe you aren't. That depends on what it means to play a role. But whatever playing a role means, it is not affected by what is happening in the imagination of the GM when s/he tells you what your player should do now. For instance, if playing a role includes the authorship constraint you have stated, whether or not that constraint is honoured doesn't change because the GM imagin...
  • 03:38 AM - pemerton mentioned Ovinomancer in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    In one case the magician - has an in-fiction method of making your PC obey his commands. A maiden's wink (unless it's a wink with supernatural powers) doesn't have an in-fiction method of making a PC do anything.Two things in reply: (1) I reiterate what Ovinomancer says about Bob. Whether or not it can be roleplayed, and counts as roleplaying, has nothing do with the stuff the GM (or other player) is imagining as s/he tells you what has changed about your PC's mental states. (2) You seem to be pre-supposing that the only way that human beings can influence one another's mental states is by way of magic. I see human influence one another's mental states all the time, and I've never seen a human use magic. So I don't agree with yur presuppsition. The moment that additional description is about the PC doing something additional than what the player said then it's the DM assuming roleplaying responsibilities for that PC for that moment.And one thing here, which goes back to the OP: the player has established that her PC is looking for an escape route. The GM isn't having the player do something additional. The GM is establishing further true descriptoins of what the player has had her PC do - you look at your barred window, thinking it might b...

Thursday, 4th July, 2019

  • 08:15 AM - pemerton mentioned Ovinomancer in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    FrogReaver - I pretty much agree with Ovinomancer's most recent post about what roleplaying is (post 139 on my count). If I'm told to play an angry person, I can do that. If I'm told to play a person who is pulling the trigger to assassinate the duke, I can do that. If I'm told to play a person whose heart has just been melted by a wink, well I can do that to. Being told "The magician has ensorcelled you - play that" is no different from being told "The maiden's wink has softened your heart - play that." In some ways the latter is actually easier, I think, because it's closer to a genuine human experience! (Unless you've spent a lot of time in the company of Svengali!) I also want to go back to the Apocalypse World example that I posted and that Ovinomancer mentioned. The player establilshes that her PC is looking for an escape route. She makes her check and fails. So the GM narrates that she is looking at her barred window, thinking about how maybe she might be able to escape through it, as her enemies attack her with a gren...

Thursday, 27th June, 2019


Wednesday, 19th June, 2019

  • 02:25 PM - Fenris-77 mentioned Ovinomancer in post [5E] Urban Intrigue Campaign - Gating the Sandbox
    Or you forge an invitation; though that probably requires borrowing a valid invitation, to copy its layout and style, and to copy the signature on the valid original. This is exactly how I want the players to think, yes. Forging the invitation carries a significant set of possible consequences, and would also require, potentially, disguises and other skulduggery. That sounds like a strong role playing opportunity to me. When you're talking about society events it's more complicated than just forging an invitation. People in 'society' tend to know each other, and the hosts know who they invited and didn't, so odd people out will need to find a way to not get asked awkward questions. Ovinomancer - I realize that D&D isn't optimized for this style of play. However, I do think it will support it just fine with some tweaking. Results doesn't have to be binary. Pretty much anything can be run based on X number of successes, like 5E chase mechanics. That can work as straight roles or opposed roles. Also, there are situations where several smaller goals might need to be accomplished before a major one, and there are a bunch of ways to avoid those being save or lose propositions. For example, PCs might need to make X number of successful PER checks over the course of a party to sway opinion, that doesn't mean they only get X chances. Your comments about factions is pretty much what I was thinking, although I was planning to start based a little more on background than you as far as PC affiliation. As for the gating, we're also thinking along similar lines, as are we about plotting. Linear plots are a fools errand in most campaigns, and doubly so in this kind. I'll have important in...

Sunday, 16th June, 2019

  • 01:29 AM - Hriston mentioned Ovinomancer in post Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?
    Even so, when Ovinomancer denied that anyone had said any such thing - well, as a matter of fact, you HAD said that thing. Ovinomancer denied that anyone in this thread had said that how content is presented cannot determine whether people wish to engage with it. Hereís what I said: Because color (dungeon dressing) is content that provides atmosphere when imagined by the participants at the table. The quality of form with which itís expressed isnít whatís important but rather whether the odors, noises, furnishings, and items found in an area suggest a torture chamber, a harem, or a wizardís laboratory. In other words, itís the actual content that matters, not the particular words that are used and the way they are said. NOT the same thing!

Friday, 14th June, 2019

  • 05:30 AM - pemerton mentioned Ovinomancer in post Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?
    when Ovinomancer denied that anyone had said any such thing - well, as a matter of fact, you HAD said that thing. That sentence, as written, says that content matters, and wording doesn't matter. I'm not asking you to stand by or renounce that sentence as the sum of your thoughts on form and content; I was challenging Ovinomancer's assertion that no one had said anything along those lines.If someone says "All the cheese is gone" before the dinner party, and then the next day you and a friend are debating whether or not anyone has ever thought that there's no cheese left in the world, the person who said "All the cheese is gone" doesn't count as an example of such. It's not that they said as much but didn't mean it. It's that anyone who thinks that's what they said doesn't understand the relevant semantic features of natural language. Hriston literally did not assert that the particular words used by a speaker never matter to the effectiveness of communication. Which is the assertion that you and ...


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

Saturday, 20th July, 2019

  • 05:47 AM - Esker quoted Ovinomancer in post Double Dash
    It's a mechanical artifact because "Expert Sprinter" isn't a rogue fluff bit -- it's not mentioned anywhere. Hence, the effect of the rogue being an expert sprinter is a mechanical artifact -- it comes from interaction of the mechanics. The rogue as the maneuverable guy is maintained fully even if you drop double-dashing -- they're still the only class that can, without resource expenditure, do something as an action and then dash, disengage, or hide. As for why you might want to do it -- I had a fighter/rogue in Curse of Strahd. I had that one weapon thingy. I could force that one bad guy to use all of his legendary actions to avoid said weapon thingy every round because he just couldn't run far enough away without them. I effectively neutralized this guy because I ran fast -- (move, dash or disengage as needed to close, use action to ready dash to follow if moved away). I'm pretty sure RAW you can't ready a dash -- or rather you can, I suppose, but it does nothing since you can't move w...
  • 05:43 AM - doctorbadwolf quoted Ovinomancer in post Double Dash
    Okay... yes? I feel you're trying to say something but it's just not quite complete... You referenced out of combat speed as a problem. There are rules that cover most instances of out of combat running. It's...quite relevant. Huh, I've completely missed that rule, and have also completely missed all the threads talking about how that works. Where is this strongly implied? Is there a thread talking about reasonable DCs to set for, say, doubling your speed? Also, where is your move speed called your walking speed, as I seem to have missed that as well? I'm not ever going to care, even a tiny little bit, about this sort of nit picking. You know what walking speed is. Pedantry is entirely useless.
  • 04:52 AM - doctorbadwolf quoted Ovinomancer in post Double Dash
    Sorry, but when did I say anything about how the chase rules work? I apologize if I've mistaken given you that impression. But...that is the rule set for chases. Itís also strongly implied in the rules that exceeding your walking speed would be a function of a strength athletics check, which a strength fighter will be better at it unless the rogue is an expert, in the high case they should be better than the non expert. This only leaves normal combat movement speed dominated by rogues. Which doesnít seem weird at all, to me.
  • 04:31 AM - Esker quoted Ovinomancer in post Double Dash
    A weakling, sick rogue with no athletic ability at all beats this fighter in a 100M dash every time, using the very chase rules you are pitching as the great leveler -- you just elide that it only works as an endurance contest, not a speed contest. I mean, yes. The chase rules are about endurance; I don't think I was eliding that, just pointing out that it's not the case that the rogue is faster, period, but that there's a transition from short time scale to longer time scale during which CON score eventually dominates (and it's not like it's that long a time scale either; the fighter is very likely to catch up within the first minute, which is like, what, a tenth of a mile? A couple of city blocks worth of distance?) Some things are covered under ability scores and skills, other things are covered under class features, and others under feats. Sprinting ability is granted by cunning action, various Monk things, and the Mobile feat (and various spells); distance running is granted by CON. Could ...
  • 04:15 AM - Esker quoted Ovinomancer in post Double Dash
    Sorry, but when did I say anything about how the chase rules work? I apologize if I've mistaken given you that impression. I will say in the interest of full disclosure that I had conflated some of your posts with some of Xeviat's in my head. But that said: And the bit where it drops out if you go to chase or overland movement rules just underlines it's a mechanical artifact. I dislike mechanical artifacts that result in strains of suspension of disbelief. Note its note "rogue go fast" its the all the time and no one else can go fast. Except monks, where its a resource and very thematic. ... Not if you run the race in combat rounds. There the fighter loses badly. I was responding to that last sentence: if you run the race in combat rounds, the fighter only loses if the race is short. I still don't understand why you think it's a mechanical artifact: it seems to drop out in a pretty natural way, to me. Rogues get a burst of speed ability, which as soon as the time scale becomes mo...
  • 12:48 AM - Esker quoted Ovinomancer in post Double Dash
    Sorry, but when did I say anything about how the chase rules work? I apologize if I've mistaken given you that impression. I guess I'm considering a race and a chase to be the same thing (except that you're presumably not trying to hide during a race). Maybe you're not... but if you do, it all works out fine, no? Rogues win in a sprint; fighters (probably) win in the long run.

Friday, 19th July, 2019

  • 10:07 PM - BookBarbarian quoted Ovinomancer in post Double Dash
    Right. Issue: a mechanical artifact leads to an odd result. Response: use a different resolution mechanism and just try to ignore it otherwise. Good talk? That's pretty much how I run 5e.
  • 08:18 PM - Esker quoted Ovinomancer in post Double Dash
    Right. Issue: a mechanical artifact leads to an odd result. Response: use a different resolution mechanism and just try to ignore it otherwise. Good talk? You keep saying that there's a mechanical artifact resulting from cunning action when conducting a chase, but it's not clear at all to me that there's anything wrong at all with the way chases work when using the DMG rules in conjunction with cunning action. Rogues tend to get away more easily than other classes, if and only if they can get to a hiding place within the first few rounds and beat the perception/survival checks of their pursuer. That's what half of the rogue's class features (cunning action, uncanny dodge, evasion, elusive, even slippery mind in a different sort of way) are about: getting away from trouble. Where's the artifact?
  • 07:55 PM - Flamestrike quoted Ovinomancer in post Double Dash
    Right. Issue: a mechanical artifact leads to an odd result. Response: use a different resolution mechanism and just try to ignore it otherwise. Good talk? It's only an issue if you (the DM) let it be an issue. It's no different to a hidden creature initiating combat (which triggers initiative, possibly allowing an Alert combatant to go before the surprising hidden creature.) Your 'solution' to a problem that doesnt exist unless you (the DM) want it to, is to nerf the Rogue. I swear this is anti-rogue week. Threads on arbitrarily nerfing finesse weapons AND cunning action this week.
  • 04:52 PM - Xeviat quoted Ovinomancer in post Double Dash
    And all of your points are still true if you can't double dash. Not being able to double dash would come up so infrequently, while the ability to dash and still take another action is a big enough deal to be half of a feat (charger).
  • 04:02 PM - Flamestrike quoted Ovinomancer in post Double Dash
    Not if you run the race in combat rounds. So dont run the race in combat rounds.
  • 03:21 PM - Esker quoted Ovinomancer in post Double Dash
    Not if you run the race in combat rounds. There the fighter loses badly. This is my gripe, really, that the issue is a mechanical artifact others defend by pointing out cases where it doesn't exist. As for rogues are nimble, this is very well covered by being able to dash as a bonus action after doing something else. Take away double dash and they're still super nimble and mobile characters. And, again, I'm arguing from a position of displeasurr soooo strong I've done nothing about it over four campaigns but post here. Let's step through a hypothetical race and see what happens. The rogue has 14 CON, the fighter 16. Both have a 30' base speed. Rounds 1-2: The rogue sprints away, getting 180'. The fighter only makes it 120'. Round 3: Rogue uses their last free dash, and attempts a second. DC 10 CON check, which they have about a 2/3 chance of succeeding at, and a 1/3 chance of failing. The fighter still has plenty of free dashes left. So the rogue is either 90' ahead or 60' and...
  • 02:57 PM - Blue quoted Ovinomancer in post Double Dash
    My design problem: rogues get to run fast while fighters don't. Alternate view: Rogues are designed and positioned as skirmishers* with additional movement possibilities over fighters, so should have more mobility over short periods *Citation: Class description fluff, Cunning action's disengage and dash as bonus actions, Scout's Skirmisher, Swashbuckler's Fancy Footwork, other class features in vein. When you take that, the issue isn't Rogue's being faster than the fighter in combat - that's intentional. Now, if there is still a problem, it's using (double) dash over long periods of time to do greater long distance running. Except that Dash is listed as an action you take in combat. So now really the issue is with the ruling that many DMs take that Dash (and therefore double dash) are usable outside of combat.
  • 04:01 AM - Flamestrike quoted Ovinomancer in post Double Dash
    Yes, lack of STR is a small hinderance for athletics, but it doesn't address that fighters, who can get Remarkable Athlete, are 1/3 slower than rogues. But they're not. Rogues are more manouverable in combat. Cunning action [Dash] isnt some objective measure of a creatures overall speed; it's simply a class feature that models a Rogues greater manouverability in combat situations. In a leg race a Rogue with 30' movement speed is no faster than a Fighter with a 30' movement speed. The winner of such a race would be simply determined by an opposed Str [Athletics] check, unless it was a marathon or endurance event in which case it would likely be a Con [Athletics] check.

Thursday, 18th July, 2019

  • 07:29 PM - DM Dave1 quoted Ovinomancer in post Double Dash
    Yes, lack of STR is a small hinderance for athletics, but it doesn't address that fighters, who can get Remarkable Athlete, are 1/3 slower than rogues. Athletic does not necessarily mean "able to run fast". Real life example: Tom Brady, amirite? Remarkable Athlete just adds 1/2 proficiency to non-proficient STR, DEX, and CON checks and allows the Champion to long jump maybe 4 or 5 feet further. Note that non-proficient DEX checks would be Acrobatics, Sleight of Hand, and Stealth - none of which specifically deal with running speed. And the bit where it drops out if you go to chase or overland movement rules just underlines it's a mechanical artifact. I dislike mechanical artifacts that result in strains of suspension of disbelief. Note its note "rogue go fast" its the all the time and no one else can go fast. Except monks, where its a resource and very thematic. It seems good to note that speed in 6 second rounds of combat does not translate well to speed over hours of overland travel...
  • 06:30 PM - Esker quoted Ovinomancer in post Double Dash
    So thematic it never existed before, isn't nentioned in the fluff, and disappears immediately in the chase mechanics? Sure. Meanwhile, fighters are powerful athletes that are handily outrun by scrawny rogues, who, weirdly, aren't just half again faster but also better athletes. They're only better athletes if they have expertise in athletics, and even then are probably still not better until fairly high levels due to starting with a -3 or -4 deficit in their strength score for typical builds, which expertise doesn't overcome until level 9 or 13. And even then, they're only better athletes for things that fall under the purview of the athletics skill (so, climbing, and grappling, mostly -- there's no reference to athletics for running in the rules, and even jumping depends heavily on the strength score itself). Much of what we normally refer to as athleticism IRL, particularly the things we tend to think fighters are going to be good at, just falls under straight STR or CON in the game. A...
  • 06:20 PM - doctorbadwolf quoted Ovinomancer in post Double Dash
    My design problem: rogues get to run fast while fighters don't. Design constraints: minimum intrusion Your solution: add concrete sub-system for using athletics to run faster. Because rogues will now run even faster because expertise (lacking in fighters), add and balance change to class progression to add limited expertise choice to all classes so they can choose to offset rogue run fast options. Result: rogues still run faster because the original issue is untouched and all fixes also apply to rogues. Game much more complicated and further from baseline. My solution (if I were inclined): you can't dash twice. Why shouldnít rogues be faster than fighters? Also my solution is to make the base speed ability the same for all characters, but someone with extra running features should be faster. And itís not even complicated. Itís literally ďyou can use athletics to increase speed. You have advantage if you have a feature that allows you to dash as a bonus action.Ē Itís just a reasonable ...
  • 02:03 PM - jasper quoted Ovinomancer in post Double Dash
    Nope. No problem with classes doing different things. I like rogues being able to do lots of things. Fight and dash. Spell and dash. Some other thing and dash. Very thematic, very cool. But there's no real explanation as to why rogues can just run faster. Note I have no issues with the monk doing so -- it's thematic and tied to resources. Rogues don't run fast because it's thenatic, they run fast because of a mechanical interaction. Yawn, not interesting. Of course, this bothers me soooo much I've done nothing at all about it. Your hasty dismissal has motivated me more. Thematic. "Thieves are always slippery rogues who run away from the cops. This is dash, move, dash class. Thiefing 050 class." See Jasper's Kickstarter " 500 BS reasons to Justify class special abilities " for more information. Do you want me to reedit that in a different font and different wording to put in you PHB. The general public does not need each special feature spell. It is a freaking rogue aka thief. Every...
  • 05:23 AM - Manbearcat quoted Ovinomancer in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    Yes. That you don't see a way is somewhat telling. The ruby is cursed. The ruby belongs to a powerful entity who now declares enmity. The ruby.... so many ways to make finding exactly what the player wanted into something that the character suffers for. I agree. The GM's primary role in TTRPGing (outside of a few instances) is (a) to know what adversity is relevant to this particular play and (b) bring that adversity to bear against the PCs in the imagined space in the most interesting/compelling/challenging/provocative (and these will be contingent upon the game) way possible. Above I mentioned a Dogs play excerpt. The adversity I played was the intense shared longing through letters received on the road, provoking the PC toward finding out duty and discipline or desperate distraction? In a D&D game featuring Fail Forward like 4e, in the fiction, the temple raider PC successfully pulls an Indiana Jones swap of the ruby for the bag of sand...except mechanically, the Skill Challenge was ...
  • 04:56 AM - doctorbadwolf quoted Ovinomancer in post Double Dash
    My problem isn't that rogue can go "fast," it's that no one else can. That said, I haven't done anything about it. It's just gone in the bucket of 'Many of my biggest complaints about 5e are summed up in the Rogue, but they haven't been worth the time to houserule.' It's not a heavy bucket. Have you considered allowing Athletics checks to go faster as part of taking the Dash action, once per turn? Doing so as an action is implied in the description of Strength ability checks, IIRC, but codifying it a bit might help in this case. Much like jump distance, the hard numbers represent what is possible without a roll. But also Expertise needs to be less exclusive. Rogues and Bards get 4 each. Other characters could get 1 in tier 1 and another in tier 3 and it wouldnít break anything at all.


Ovinomancer's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites