View Profile: Ovinomancer - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Yesterday, 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...
    83 replies | 2124 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:57 PM
    Double post
    83 replies | 2124 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Yesterday, 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.
    83 replies | 2124 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Yesterday, 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,...
    83 replies | 2124 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Yesterday, 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...
    83 replies | 2124 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Yesterday, 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.
    83 replies | 2124 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Yesterday, 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...
    683 replies | 18687 view(s)
    2 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...
    683 replies | 18687 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...
    683 replies | 18687 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...
    683 replies | 18687 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.
    683 replies | 18687 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...
    683 replies | 18687 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...
    683 replies | 18687 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...
    683 replies | 18687 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...
    683 replies | 18687 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...
    683 replies | 18687 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?
    683 replies | 18687 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...
    683 replies | 18687 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...
    683 replies | 18687 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...
    683 replies | 18687 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...
    683 replies | 18687 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...
    683 replies | 18687 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...
    683 replies | 18687 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...
    683 replies | 18687 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...
    683 replies | 18687 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. ;)
    683 replies | 18687 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...
    683 replies | 18687 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 06:01 AM
    Dude, irony.
    683 replies | 18687 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 05:56 AM
    Yes, you are confused. Finally, agreement.
    683 replies | 18687 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.
    683 replies | 18687 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 05:32 AM
    Dude, irony, again.
    683 replies | 18687 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...
    683 replies | 18687 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...
    683 replies | 18687 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.
    683 replies | 18687 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?
    683 replies | 18687 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.
    683 replies | 18687 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
    683 replies | 18687 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...
    683 replies | 18687 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.
    683 replies | 18687 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.
    683 replies | 18687 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.
    683 replies | 18687 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...
    683 replies | 18687 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...
    683 replies | 18687 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...
    683 replies | 18687 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.
    683 replies | 18687 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.
    683 replies | 18687 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...
    683 replies | 18687 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...
    683 replies | 18687 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...
    683 replies | 18687 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...
    683 replies | 18687 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...
    683 replies | 18687 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.
    683 replies | 18687 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 | 2887 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 | 1128 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 | 2887 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?!"
    683 replies | 18687 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.
    683 replies | 18687 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Sunday, 7th July, 2019, 05:03 AM
    So, not a flaw if it might hurt you.
    683 replies | 18687 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...
    683 replies | 18687 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"...
    683 replies | 18687 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...
    683 replies | 18687 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...
    683 replies | 18687 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...
    683 replies | 18687 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.
    683 replies | 18687 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...
    683 replies | 18687 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...
    683 replies | 18687 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...
    683 replies | 18687 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...
    683 replies | 18687 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.
    683 replies | 18687 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,...
    683 replies | 18687 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.
    683 replies | 18687 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...
    683 replies | 18687 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 | 677 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...
    683 replies | 18687 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....
    683 replies | 18687 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 | 677 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"...
    683 replies | 18687 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...
    683 replies | 18687 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...
    683 replies | 18687 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.
    683 replies | 18687 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Monday, 1st July, 2019, 02:54 AM
    You know, thinking on this a bit more, I'm not sure where the resolution mechanic comes in. Are you talking about the outcome on a successful resolution? I'd guess you are, but it's best to be clear. Note that I'd lump, "saying yes" under successful resolution.
    683 replies | 18687 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Monday, 1st July, 2019, 02:52 AM
    Sounds like you have half of it down pat. Now, you need to work on grasping how the player determines the outcome of the wink rather than the GM.
    683 replies | 18687 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Sunday, 30th June, 2019, 01:19 PM
    That it's a according to preference. Firstly, I agree with the way you've presented this -- so no issues at all with how you've explained the difference in approach. That said, the choice is really a matter of preference. There's two different kinds of games going on here, with different play goals, and that means that it's the play goals that are making the choice, not the actual mechanic. ...
    683 replies | 18687 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Saturday, 29th June, 2019, 12:26 PM
    Course it doesn't. Then it wouldn't be fun!
    12 replies | 677 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Saturday, 29th June, 2019, 03:36 AM
    Morrus I know it's low priority, but CM is straight up broken today. I tried to post something and it said "This forum requires that you wait 30 seconds between posts. Please try again in 37372418 seconds." That's not a typo, I C&P'd it. Also, thread read status is broken in all subforums (everything shows as unread and won't change), recent threads aren't showing, and somehow goldomark...
    12 replies | 677 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Friday, 28th June, 2019, 10:59 PM
    Okay, so, your point is that players can't understand enough to make reasoned choices because the play loop is so fixed (who said this? Oh, no one, it's a strawman) that they can't ask questions and the DM will refuse to answer questions because, well, the play loop won't let them (again, strawman), but, nope, there aren't any jerks involved here. This is even more hogwash. For one, you're...
    178 replies | 5662 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 09:15 PM
    No. What turns out is that this PC is capable enough at that level of uncertainty. Uncertainty does not append to the outcome of the check -- this presupposes a check -- but to the action -- is this action uncertain to be successful. What you're doing here is assuming a check and looking for uncertainty in the outcome of the check. This is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that you look at...
    178 replies | 5662 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 08:49 PM
    This seems... odd? You use you understanding of the approach and fiction to set the DC to double check your understabding of the approach and fiction? Let's say I think that a given approach is uncertain and seems moderately difficult. How is setting the DC to 15 a check on the above? What if I think it's super easy and set the DC at -5. How is this a check against my thinking the approach...
    178 replies | 5662 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 08:21 PM
    D&D's shift is pretty sudden. There's a reason people have talked about the combat whoosh before. Otherwise, yes? Was there a point beside this extra qualification?
    178 replies | 5662 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Thursday, 27th June, 2019, 08:16 PM
    The same way you determine the DC? You consider the approach in regards to the fictional positioning? I honestly don't understand this question, given you're doing the same thing only you've cloaked it inside a mechanics check and are pretending that makes it somehow more valid. I work at the level of the approach, not the specific PC. You seem to want to never ask for a roll that...
    178 replies | 5662 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
4,555
Posts Per Day
0.81
Last Post
Double Dash Yesterday 06:48 PM

Currency

Gold Pieces
2
General Information
Last Activity
Today 02:39 AM
Join Date
Monday, 16th February, 2004
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Thursday, 4th July, 2019


Wednesday, 3rd July, 2019


Tuesday, 2nd July, 2019


Monday, 1st July, 2019


Saturday, 29th June, 2019


Friday, 28th June, 2019


Thursday, 27th June, 2019



Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Friday, 8th March, 2019

  • 04:48 AM - Asgorath mentioned Ovinomancer in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    ...re integral to being about to understand complex topics. The Rules don't have to spell absolutely everything out as we can reason. If reasoning is applied to a given interpretation and it results in something you disagree with you can not reasonably use the notion that the rules would have to state that. What's being provided is a logical deduction from your stated interpretation (the facts you've presented about your interprestion) and what the rules actually say. The whole idea is that given your truths and the truth of the rules we will be able to reason out other facts. If your arguing against that reasoning based on your interpretation "facts" and raw that leads to some conclusion you don't agree with then at least present a reasonable argument as to why the reasoning fails. Saying there's no rule doesn't cut it in such a situation. Or, perhaps the rules of the game are designed to be simple and straight forward, and not require a ton of reasoning and interpretation. As Ovinomancer so eloquently put it, just do what it says on the tin. Occam's razor: the Attack action means making attacks. Sanctuary means the attack fails if you fail your saving throw. "If you X, you can Y" means you have to actually do X before you can do Y. There's a rule that says you can split your movement before and after your action, as well as between attacks in the Attack action. If I was a game designer and trying to build a rule system that was easy for new players to understand, then I'd lean towards my previous paragraph and not something that relies on knowledge of every single word in the PHB and that the text of the Sanctuary spell radically changes the way the entire action system works (with no words about this in the actual text of that action system itself) and thousands of other obscure rules interactions. There's a really simple solution here, and my position is that this is the correct one. Which also just happens to be confirmed by the Sage Advice Compendium.
  • 04:40 AM - Asgorath mentioned Ovinomancer in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    How about responding to the rest of my post What's the point? Ovinomancer and I have been responding to this using the words in the PHB. There is no text that says "due to the way Sanctuary works, the Attack action is separate from the actual attacks". There is no text that talks about the duration of an action. You can perform the Cast a Spell action and not actually cast a spell, due to it being Counterspelled. You seem to have latched onto Sanctuary as the proof that your interpretation is correct, but I fundamentally disagree and have posted at length about how I believe the Attack action and actions in general work (i.e. the Attack action is making an attack, Extra Attack gives you multiple attacks, it's all part of the action, there's a specific rule that says you can insert movement between attacks, etc etc etc). JEC has talked at length about how spells in 5E work, specifically that all you need to know about a particular spell is the words in that spell alone. You don't need to refer to other spells or other features of the game, you simply ...

Wednesday, 6th March, 2019

  • 03:35 PM - Asgorath mentioned Ovinomancer in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    If I can will you confess your ignorance? I was genuinely curious how you reached that conclusion, there is no need to be rude about it. I'll just defer to Ovinomancer again, as they have once again made an excellent post on this subject. Do you let your players take a different action after their spells get Counterspelled? If not, how is that different to what you're proposing with Sanctuary and the Attack action?
  • 01:35 PM - pemerton mentioned Ovinomancer in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    Ovinomancer - I think I remember that now but had forgotten - sorry for dragging you into it given that backstory.
  • 01:28 PM - pemerton mentioned Ovinomancer in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    you seem to be questioning the feasibility of posters who express a desire for realism to achieve any level of realismAre you confusing me with Ovinomancer? Not only do I not question the feasibility of achieving some degree of realism, I assert that most of my RPGing has more of it than most of Maxperson's! I think the most interesting domains of realism in a RPG are in the domains of human relations and social and cultural phenomena - because these are also the most interesting domains of realism in fiction generally. There's a form of realism that I don't think is well-suited to RPGing - namely, the fact that most people's lives are (without editing) narratively uninteresting - but I don't think many people, in their RPGing, actually try to reproduce an unedited ilfe. My reason for asserting this is the same as my reason for asserting that very few people have ever actually watched all 5+ hours of Andy Warhol's Sleep.

Tuesday, 5th March, 2019

  • 08:20 PM - Hriston mentioned Ovinomancer in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    I see your point on this, but while it may be true, it isn't yet. And, unfortunately, until it is true, you haven't gained the bonus action effect yet. You also haven't not gained it yet. :) Seriously, this goes back to what Ovinomancer said up-thread. I.e., you have to get to the future before you can check if the condition has been satisfied. Since the question is whether you take the Attack action on your turn, you may potentially have to wait until the end of your turn before it's known one way or the other.

Monday, 4th March, 2019

  • 12:39 PM - Aldarc mentioned Ovinomancer in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    I've wandered off my original point, so let me return to the path. "If everything's dramatic, nothing is" means that if there's drama all the time it'll tend to plateau and, as we know from the movie-sequel example, plateau-ing leads to a disappointed audience. So, you're stuck with always trying to top whatever you did before, which is of course unsustainable beyond the very short term. What's the answer? Back off on the drama until and unless it's needed.It's difficult to take this assertion seriously when 1) you are arguing from a position of ignorance about a play preference you self-admittedly have mostly second-hand exposure to online and minimal to zero actual play experience, and 2) you demonstrate repeated lack of good faith arguments about story-narrative play styles. :erm: I believe that even AbdulAlhazred and Ovinomancer had noted how one side seems to have more experiential awareness of other playstyles than the other side. And this can be a glaring weakness when one side attempts to argue how those games would operate under such game design principles and mechanics. That said, consider most things with a serialized format. Generally there are multiple points of dramatic conflict throughout a series. There will dramatic conflict that is the forefront of the episode. There will be dramatic conflict in the backdrop of the episode. (Usually A, B, and maybe C plots.) There will be dramatic conflict centered around lengthy character arcs. There will be dramatic conflict centered around narrative or story arcs. There will be dramatic conflict between characters. This drama will overlap, crisscross, and branch. Some storylines will naturally slow down in favor of other storylines. Over the long term, we are not looking at a plateau, but, rather, a mountain range containing peaks, valleys, and hills. ...

Sunday, 3rd March, 2019

  • 08:13 PM - Asgorath mentioned Ovinomancer in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    Oh, really? Which ruling is that? I didn’t know there was one about how the whole game was designed to work. Btw, did you know this thread is about the recent update to the Sage Advice Compendium? This language in the Sage Advice Compendium is quite clear that the phrasing of the condition applies to the entire game, not just Shield Master: "This sort of if-then setup appears in many of the game’s rules. The “if” must be satisfied before the “then” comes into play." If "you take the Attack action on your turn" is true, then that's something that's true of your turn in its entirety. It can't be both true of your turn and not true of the same turn. You either take the Attack action on your turn, or you don't take the Attack action on your turn. If I have a turn in which I take the Attack action, then I can use a bonus action to shove a creature on that turn. I'll refer you to @Ovinomancer's excellent post above where they talk about "if and only if" or IFF, as they did a much better job of explaining why these "if you X, you can Y" sentences have a strict timing requirement.
  • 04:18 PM - Maxperson mentioned Ovinomancer in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    ...enjoyment of the game. For you, that appears to be what you look for. Different strokes for different folks. If something is very important to my PC, I'm going to find a way to make it happen in the game. Second, there are tons of things that interest me and I'm not going to remember them all. Many of the things the DM comes up with will be interesting to me anyway, and that's really cool. It's nice to be surprised with interesting things. It isn't about "compliant with my wishes", this is the straw man again which equates player empowerment over the direction of the game with some sort of 'easy mode' or 'candy store' where your character just lives in a world where all his wishes are fulfilled. That might be a possible game, but it isn't the game we're talking about, anymore than a DM-centered game is talking about "rocks fall and you die" which is also of course 'possible'. Well, it's not a Strawman, because it has nothing to do with your argument. It was a response to Ovinomancer who tried to falsely attribute my success at pursuing the goals of my PCs as coming from DMs who "align with my expectations," rather than just from gameplay. My response wasn't to you or about you in any way. :)
  • 01:11 AM - pemerton mentioned Ovinomancer in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    ... towards that stronghold and rule my land one way or another. Many settings have wild areas not ruled. The kingdoms next to those areas would be prime areas for me to go to for this sort of thing. I could set up my own kingdom, after proving my worth and promising trade exclusives, mutual protections and such. 5e does as much interesting stuff as you have it do. I'm sure mechanical aids would make it easier, but those aids aren't necessary to accomplish goals. Every ask you make here is to the GM. You, as a player, have zero authority to "make it happen." This is wrong. I have absolute authority over what my PC does. The DM is socially obligated not to be an asshat, so he's not going to be smashing what I do with a bunch of crap. I don't have to worry about him being a bad DM, because those are rare as hell, and if I did manage to find one, I would have left long before I really made a push for those goals. It may take work, but I can get there if I have the drive.What Ovinomancer says is true, but is orthogonal to the point I want to make about this. I think my point is related to what AbdulAlhazred said. Here's an example of MEAT: Suppose a player has, as a goal/Belief/whatever for his/her PC, I will free my brother from his possession by a balrog - and will not leave this town without something to help me do this! The first event in the campaign is the PC being at a bazaar, where a peddler claims to have an angel feather for sale. Here's why it counts as MEAT: the first thing the player has to think about in playing the game is Will this angel feather help me free my brother? Which leads to other questions like Who is this peddler? Can I trust him? Am I sorcerer enough to harness the power of an angel feather? Whether this is good or pedestrian story/drama is a matter of taste; but it's clear that, from the get-go, the action of play raises dramatic questions that tie directly to the theme/dramatic arc of this PC. Here's an example of NON-MEAT: t...

Friday, 1st March, 2019

  • 10:04 AM - pemerton mentioned Ovinomancer in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    as I already posted upthread there are some contexts in which even the Death Knight's immunity to fear may be an example of "Mother may I" (eg as an important aspect of play, a PC has sworn to drive away the next foe s/he encounters by sheer terror alone, and then the GM presents a Death Knight as the next foe and thus dictates the failure of the PC's oath).There no Mother May I there, either. The player is not asking if his PC can do something. He is doing it. It's also okay to fail at something. Even something the PC swears to do.This goes right back to the issue innerdude was concerned with in the OP on the other thread, namely how do framing, player-chosen stakes, and adjudication/resolution interact? And as chaochou noted, we can't talk about these things meaningfully without attending to differences between systems. Upthread, Manbearcat and Ovinomancer, in reply to Numidius, explored this in the context of Dungeon World. Their point was that, although in DW all backstory authority rests with the GM, the principles of the game oblige the GM (i) to have regard to player-chosen stakes in (ii) adjudication - eg establishing the outcomes of an attempt to Spout Lore or Discern Realities - and (iii) framing. In respect of the lattermost, the GM is obliged to build on the fiction that was established via adjudication. Thus (i) feeds into (ii) feeds into (iii), and so even though players don't have backstory authority, their choices as to what matters - looking for secret doors, swearing oaths to drive foes away in terror, whatever it might be - ought to feed directly into the GM's authorship of the shared fiction. It would be incredibly bad DW GMing to simply frame the PC who has sworn the terror oath into a conflict with a fear-immune death knight, full stop and end of story. Such a thing might be one way of the GM establishing advers...

Wednesday, 27th February, 2019

  • 06:57 AM - Sadras mentioned Ovinomancer in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    ...ions or the authority to unilaterally overide agreed resolution mechanics (or not) - are all the same. I do not believe I'm conflating here. Hard No's exist in combat. Some actions (attacks) taken by characters have no effect other than to inform the PC that their action (attack) had no effect. I'm saying that is the same as a PC declaring he/she is going to the Tea House to find sect members. At the TH no sect members are present. A new declaration must be made to find these sect members/to hurt the enemy. Firstly, you don't even know what games I might be talking about. You're stumbling around blind. But more pertinently - to argue as you have is to provide yet more evidence that you not only run MMI, but can't conceive of any other way to play. To lump together lots of types of authority and imagine they must all sit under the GM simply and clearly reiterates it. Attempt to argue the point not the poster and you will have more success in the debate. I am engaging in earnest. @Ovinomancer, @pemerton AbdulAlhazred - I will have to get to your replies much later.

Saturday, 23rd February, 2019


Friday, 22nd February, 2019

  • 03:58 PM - Numidius mentioned Ovinomancer in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    Ovinomancer (Briefly) in Dw new fiction cannot be brought thru action declaration (apart from the action of pcs themselves of course)
  • 02:09 PM - Numidius mentioned Ovinomancer in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    Ovinomancer Why do you say I'm wrong about No dice for content intro in Dw? How does it work in BitD? A game I'd like to play one o'these days
  • 10:13 AM - pemerton mentioned Ovinomancer in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    old D&D was basically all Say Yes Or Roll: the dice to roll were those of Combat, in case the DM wasn't convinced of the players' alternative plans to it. (Here, your mileage may vary about realism)I tend to agree with Ovinomancer about this - as a general rule classic wargaming/dungeon-crawling D&D doesn't support "say 'yes' or roll the dice", because the GM is meant to have already mapped and "stocked" the dungeon and uses that to regulate what gets introduced into the fiction without being obliged to allow a die roll if s/he doesn't just want to say "yes". And even if you wanted to play classic D&D in that way, it doesn't have the mechanical framework to support it - there's no general system of calling for checks. I can see how classic D&D combat can be played in a "say 'yes' or roll the dice" fashion, though, and think that's an interesting take on it. pemerton, correct me if I'm wrong about Traveller and 4e4e D&D has two basic mechanical frameworks: combat, which in mechanical terms is highly structured; and non-combat, which in mechanical terms is very loose and based on either checks or skill challenges. (The skill descriptions in the PHB try to introduce some non-combat subsystems associated with...

Thursday, 14th February, 2019

  • 07:05 PM - Manbearcat mentioned Ovinomancer in post Blades In The Dark
    Awesome hawkeyefan . I think it would be good (for yourself and prospective players) if you, Ovinomancer, the lead poster and anyone else who is playing Blades to post their play excerpts and a postmortem.

Wednesday, 6th February, 2019

  • 06:19 PM - Aldarc mentioned Ovinomancer in post Introducing Complications Without Forcing Players to Play the "Mother May I?" Game
    Ok this is interesting.First, I am incredibly thankful for Ovinomancer's cogent response. I hope that clarifies some of the matters for you. But I hope that I can expand on that excellent post with some additional points of my own. Diplomacy say for 5eSure. But one of the interesting things about Blades is the decision of what Action (out of typically 12 total) to use for a situation rests with the player. The GM does not get to decide that. In a game of Blades the player could decide to use Sway (i.e., Persuasion/Diplomacy) or maybe Command, though the GM may believe that Sway would actually be more effective than Command. The PC could even try to use Wreck if the player felt that if Frost Giants would show greater respect with a show of force or strength, which may or not be true depending on the GM's sense of the fiction. An example from the BitD SRD: The GM’s choices for effect level and position can be strongly influenced by the player’s choice of action rating. If a player wants to try to make a new friend by Wrecking something—well... maybe...

Saturday, 2nd February, 2019

  • 11:46 PM - Mistwell mentioned Ovinomancer in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    YES LOL Proof that purposefully being pedantic rarely pays off :( Just like there's always a bigger fish in the sea. There's always a bigger pedant than me. Nobody is a bigger pedant than Ovinomancer !

Thursday, 31st January, 2019

  • 05:08 PM - hawkeyefan mentioned Ovinomancer in post Worlds of Design: “Old School” in RPGs and other Games – Part 1 Failure and Story
    ...Crew to be something else. Scum & Villainy is a sci-fi, space pirate take on the game, and the PCs get a ship that they can improve and upgrade. Band of Blades is a "Black Company" style game about a mercenary company making its way through harsh enemy territory in a dark fantasy landscape. It changes the idea of the Crew even more, as it's replaced with the Legion. Players have their own characters, but may also wind up playing "rookie" characters on some missions. Rookies can be promoted to Specialist status (what the PCs are), so it seems you kind of build up a stable of playable PCs along the way. Each player also acts as a role within the Legion's command such as Marshall, Quartermaster, Spymaster, and the like, and each has their own role in decidinig how the Legion progresses along the way, and so on. This game is not fully released yet, so I'm not entirely sure on all these points. So I think the concept of the Crew can be altered to suit a Hack of the game. But as Ovinomancer mentioned, the mechanics and the theme of Blades are woven so tightly that changing things can be challenging. There are any number of incomplete hacks out there that show this is true. That being said, your idea of a Community of characters interacting with other Communities seems to be very suitable.


No results to display...

Thursday, 4th July, 2019

  • 07:27 PM - Maxperson quoted Ovinomancer in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    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 themes to scene elements to even the results -- I get to tell the GM what happens. In that case, having the GM direct my character sometimes is much less of an imposition, especially since I can impose back. For me it's not about how much authority I have, though. I could have more authority over other aspects of the game and I would feel the same way. For me it's about the PC being mine. I'm the only one, barring some sort of mechanical means like charm, who gets to control what he feels and does. If you look at this issue only from the point of view of D&D, then you're missing the forest for the tree...
  • 07:07 PM - FrogReaver quoted Ovinomancer in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    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 themes to scene elements to even the results -- I get to tell the GM what happens. In that case, having the GM direct my character sometimes is much less of an imposition, especially since I can impose back. Choosing a foundational theme or scene elements or even results of your actions - all of those things are not-roleplaying - per your own definition roleplaying is about taking on a role in a shared fiction - none of those things involve taking on a role in a shared fiction. (Well, I suppose you could be roleplaying a DM but that's not really what we are talking about here...)
  • 03:25 PM - FrogReaver quoted Ovinomancer in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    Let me give you another version of this: It all depends on if Bob is an in-fiction character and not-Bob is an out of fiction character. I see you dropped that distinction from your other version... 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 functionally any different from the GM telling you what to do. If the maiden softens your heart, this is the same thing. You're confusing a magic for something special and unique -- it's just another mechanic. I'm reifying in-fiction.
  • 04:39 AM - FrogReaver quoted Ovinomancer in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    Frankly, your argument is steeped in a single-point-of-view of how RPGs are played. It shows a lack of understanding of the broader context of RPGs and the varied playstyles. It relies on a one-true-way of playing, at least if you want to be able to claim you're still roleplaying. It fails to be a practically applicable definition -- it doesn't even work within the game you prefer without using special pleading for mechanics that subvert it (ie, "magic"). Since you keep bringing magic up let's take a moment and go more in depth on that topic. Let's take a dominate person like effect - that is a share fiction wherein the PC must obey the commands of an NPC. It's very easy to roleplay a PC that is under seem mind altering affect that makes him obey the commands of another in fiction character. That is roleplaying! in fact, that may be the easiest roleplaying any one has ever done... Contrast this with an out of fiction DM stating what your character must do. Having your PC do whatever the ...
  • 04:37 AM - Nagol quoted Ovinomancer in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    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 confusing and hard to grasp. It is, instead, a product of a fluid set of events where you can determine the outcome and then go back to set up the prerequisite truths. The only constraint is that you can't overrule previously established truths (without good cause, at least) or genre expectations. So, in this case, when the maiden softens your heart, then she is the right type, the right gender, and the right species because your heart is softened. Your job as a player now is to play with this new truth about yourself and find out where it goes. Perhaps this is a good thing. Perhaps it's a major pro...
  • 02:01 AM - FrogReaver quoted Ovinomancer in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    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. Hopefully this explains why this part is so important to me. What does it mean to take on an imaginary role in a shared fiction? That's the crux of the matter. Doesn't a player who takes on an imaginary role of a specific character in a shared fiction of an RPG by necessity determine what actions said imaginary character is taking? That's what is actually meant roleplay in this context right? If that's correct, then isn't your definition actually the same as mine? That a player determines the actions of the character he is portraying in the shared fiction? (I suppose by actions, it's best I clarify as being attempted actions for precisions sake - I say attempted because there is often a disconnect between the players fiction and the DM's fiction which can result in a player stating his character does something that doesn't actuall...

Wednesday, 3rd July, 2019

  • 11:43 AM - pemerton quoted Ovinomancer in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    In 5e, the expectation is that players have absolute authority to declare thin actions, except in specific cases, usually magic. Even here I think there are some interesting exceptions (or maybe they're borderline cases). Eg the search example: suppose the GM has narrated a wall that has a ledge towards its top that is too high for the PCs to visually inspect even when they stand on tippy-toes, but that they can reach with outstretched arms. A player narrates I reach up high and run my fingers along the ledge. The GM replies You run your fingers along the ledge and feel several bumps - one of them depresses as you brush your fingers over it - make a DEX saving throw!. The player makes the roll, and succeeds. The GM continues You pull your hand away as a blade springs up from inside the ledge! If you'd been slower it might have pierced your hand. That might be good play or bad play, depending on everything from table preferences to larger context in which the episode is located to the dramat...
  • 10:07 AM - Bagpuss quoted Ovinomancer in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    Yes, and the topic is about who gets to choose the outcome -- the GM or the player. This normally depends on the system, and usually some sort of success mechanic.
  • 12:53 AM - FrogReaver quoted Ovinomancer in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    Strongly disagree with this. You've defined 'roleplaying' as 'how I prefer to play' No I've not. I've defined it as what it is. 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. Which is not a true RPG mechanic. It's a narrative/storytelling style mechanic. As I said, the games are RPG's because they do contain many RPG elements as well. But the mechanic you are bringing up is not one of those RPG mechanics. On the GM side, this can very much be declaring a different action for the PC (and the outcome) than what the player wanted. Which is not a roleplaying mechanic but a story/narrative mechanic. It's a still a role-playing game though, Of course it is. That doesn't mean every mechanic involved in for roleplay though. See the distinction? ...
  • 12:48 AM - FrogReaver quoted Ovinomancer in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    EDIT: for a more D&D oriented response, see dominate person/monster, charm abilities, and emotion spells. These can all have the GM dictating PC actions, so even in D&D your argument runs into problems. See Magic
  • 12:38 AM - GrahamWills quoted Ovinomancer in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    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 ... On the GM side, this can very much be declaring a different action for the PC (and the outcome) than what the player wanted. Agree with Ovinomancer; it's not a "requirement of roleplaying" that the DM cannot direct how players react. In fact, it'd guess that pretty much every GM has had players react to being hit by taking damage, react to being scared by running, react to being knocked unconscious by falling over, react to being awed by a dragon by taking a penalty to attacks, etc. I know that some people like to make a distinction and say that the GM's job is to judge purely physical reactions only, making them play the role of a physics simulation runner. But that's only some GMs and some players -- many other of us prefer to play games where simulation of physical reality is accompanied by simulation of emotional reality also. In fact, some of use like games where that is the main role the GM plays and the physics part is shared by all players.

Monday, 1st July, 2019

  • 06:05 PM - Tony Vargas quoted Ovinomancer in post Attacking defenseless NPCs
    Sorry to mince the following quote to answer smoothly: Okay, so, your point is that players can't understand enough to make reasoned choices because the play loop is so fixed that they can't ask questions...For one, you're only making this argument against goal and approach,... (who said this?iserith: goal & approach requires an action declaration with a goal (acquiring information) and an approach (searching, 'trying to remember' lore from past specific study, etc...) /instead/ of asking questions of the DM. I don't think that requirement should preclude asking for /clarification/ about the DM's narration of the situation, though. Like, if the DM says standing in the room are a half-dozen goblins & hobgoblins... Asking, "is that a total of 6, or six of each for a total of 12?" shouldn't be out of line. Though the follow up "OK, but how many of the six are hobgoblins" /might/ call for an approach of /actually counting the taller enemies/, if there's more than one or two, anyway. Essenti...
  • 04:06 PM - pemerton quoted Ovinomancer in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    I like Blades in the Dark, which does a similar thing.I don't know BitD beyond what I read about it. I've played a bit of DW and am slowly working my way through a close reading of AW preparatory, I hope, to playing it - it actually feels more compelling to me than DW, though some of that may be the visceral Vincent Baker prose! In BitD does a failure permit the GM to narrate a PC's action at the "micro-"/thin level (eg you failed to wink)? My sense of AW is that the answer to that question is assumed to be no - that when the GM makes a move, even a hard/direct move, it draws on prep to establish stuff beyond the intentional bodily motions of the PC. Though (as in BW) it can extend to the PC's gear. Which sends me off on a whole other tangent - in what ways is gear able to be brought under descriptions of actions, and by whom? I have a soft spot for the way that AW and BW encourage the GM to use effects to gear as part of their narration of failure; and BW's approach to this infuenced my ...
  • 03:58 PM - TwoSix quoted Ovinomancer in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    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 my 5e games, where I, as GM, try to let the players choose outcomes more often than not. Yea, I agree, assigning the method to individual systems isn't really correct. Except for a few modern games, most game designers probably haven't even considered the question. I don't even think it's uniquely the GM's purview as to what method is used (although they hold considerable sway, and will end up as the final arbiter if they decide to be). Even as a player, you have the opportunity to frame your declarations in terms of physical actions or in terms of overall intent. I know my personal play has improv...
  • 08:31 AM - pemerton quoted Ovinomancer in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    they seem to like foiling whatever thing the GM (often me) came up with. That there was a story without them that they then changed. And part of getting this feeling, I suppose, is to make the right thin declarations to get the GM to narrate that success. There's an element of puzzle solving there. This sounds badI don't think it sounds bad! Not quite my cup of tea, but that's a different less interesting matter. A little while ago now I started a thread which tooks as its premise that there is a key puzzle-solving/learning-what-the-GM-is-thinking aspect in the sort of approach to fiction-creation you are (if I've understood you) describing here. I think this sort of play, which seems very prevalent, is under-analysed. They like the tactical game a good bit (most also have or still do wargame), and that's full of thin declarations (the mechanics provide outcomes, not players or GMs).I think another avenue of exploration is around what sorts of descriptions are up for grabs when checks ar...
  • 06:46 AM - Elfcrusher quoted Ovinomancer in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    Yes, and the topic is about who gets to choose the outcome -- the GM or the player. Except the OP is trying to make it sound like the distinction between the wink and the softening is blurrier than it is. I mean, it’s still useful and interesting to talk about who gets to resolve the action, and the division line moves depending on the game. But it’s a more straightforward question than the OP seems to be suggesting.
  • 06:21 AM - Maxperson quoted Ovinomancer in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    Yes, and the topic is about who gets to choose the outcome -- the GM or the player. It doesn't really matter. Pick the game you like and be done with it. There's no right or wrong here, unless you're trying to say your way is the best.

Friday, 28th June, 2019

  • 05:16 AM - Umbran quoted Ovinomancer in post Attacking defenseless NPCs
    This is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that you look at the action with regard to the fictional state and determine if it is uncertain, and if so, select mechanics to resolve the uncertainty. A check is not a given. And like I just said with robus, I am saying that this has failure modes. Another ecampke of "but what if a jerk does it," as if this addresses the topic rather than just introduces a jerk. No. Incorrect. Wrong. I didn't say that. You are missing the point, and thereby demonstrating my point in the process. Nowhere in my point is anyone being a jerk. Nobody is being unreasonable. Nobody is acting with ill-intent. Get that idea out of your head, or we will talk past each other. They are just carrying on with play in the best way they can. They are coming at play, however, with different desires and different thoughts. Our failure to connect on this point is *exactly* the kind of failure that can hit gameplay, even when everyone is being reasonable. We simply ...

Thursday, 27th June, 2019

  • 09:56 PM - Tony Vargas quoted Ovinomancer in post Attacking defenseless NPCs
    Fir one, tge play loop is as much rules as the combat section. It's right there in the front of the book as how to play the game. In 5e, it is. In 3e, there's Rule 0, instead. It's a subtle but important difference. In 3e, the DM's ultimate control of the shape of his own game - of deciding what game, and what variations on the game, he's going to run - is acknowledged, up front, in a "get it over with, but stick to it" kind of way. The expectation in the community was clearly RAW, and if you House Ruled (used Rule 0, or even just used a less-popular interpretation), you better stick to those house rules. Once play is joined, the expectation was that the rules were more or less set in stone. In contrast, 5e builds it's acknowledgement of the DM's primacy over the system into /every resolution that takes place in the course of play/. There is no game without the DM, and the DM comes before the rules every time. There's an elegance and an honesty to that is probably the closest modern a...
  • 09:30 PM - Saelorn quoted Ovinomancer in post Attacking defenseless NPCs
    This seems... odd? You use your understanding of the approach and fiction to set the DC to double check your understanding of the approach and fiction?I mainly use my understanding of the situation to double check its interaction with outside factors. The inherent ability of the character performing the action is a factor outside of the the approach to action. Many DMs forget that. (I'm not saying that you have that problem. Just in general.) Let's say I think that a given approach is uncertain and seems moderately difficult. How is setting the DC to 15 a check on the above?It guarantees that the only ones who automatically fail are the ones with a modifier of -5 or worse, and the only ones to automatically succeed are the ones with +14 or more. It guarantees that the characters who should roll, do roll. It prevents you from accidentally narrating the feeble wizard into failure, when they actually should have had a chance to succeed. It prevents you from narrating the agile ranger into success,...


Ovinomancer's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites