View Profile: Ovinomancer - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:17 PM
    I don't think this will make it ckearer because I think this discussion is mired a lot further back on the trail. I think FrogReaver's definition of roleplaying is for a player to imagine a character and then imagine how that character will act and declare actions accordingly. This being fully under the control of the player is a hard requirement, so anything that interferes with a player...
    784 replies | 22649 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 08:21 PM
    Not if you can't attack, which is the point. It doesn't, not sure why you think that's relevant. It's certainly not something U've claimed ir would claim. Thank you? You can't Dash twice seems to cover not being able to Dash and then Dash and not being abke to Dash and then Ready a Dash. It's the repetition of "Dash" that does it fir me. Also, I don't play with jerks, so I...
    123 replies | 3682 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Sunday, 21st July, 2019, 02:15 PM
    I Readied a 2nd Dash on my turn. Being unable to Dash twice would have prevented this, as you cannot Ready an action you don't have available (a Champion Fighter, frex, cannot Ready a Meteor Storm just because it doesn't hapoen on his turn).
    123 replies | 3682 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Saturday, 20th July, 2019, 10:07 PM
    Attacking was not the goal.
    123 replies | 3682 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Saturday, 20th July, 2019, 02:07 PM
    There's a thread on this that didn't resolve the situation, either, so you're telling me your ruling as if it's rules. Also, for what it's worth, Crawford says you can ready a dash -- it gives you your speed in movement.
    123 replies | 3682 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Saturday, 20th July, 2019, 01:58 PM
    Sigh. Already had this conversation. I didn't bring up out of combat movement, that was others. So, no. I don't, actually. Calling it a walking speed comes with a host of assumptions, like "what's your running speed?" that are entirely unwarranted and not intended by the rules of the game. I also note that you didn't provide the reference to Athletics increasing your speed.
    123 replies | 3682 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Saturday, 20th July, 2019, 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...
    123 replies | 3682 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Saturday, 20th July, 2019, 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...
    784 replies | 22649 view(s)
    3 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Saturday, 20th July, 2019, 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...
    123 replies | 3682 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Saturday, 20th July, 2019, 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....
    123 replies | 3682 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Saturday, 20th July, 2019, 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...
    784 replies | 22649 view(s)
    5 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Friday, 19th July, 2019, 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.
    123 replies | 3682 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Friday, 19th July, 2019, 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.
    123 replies | 3682 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Friday, 19th July, 2019, 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?
    123 replies | 3682 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Friday, 19th July, 2019, 03:13 PM
    And all of your points are still true if you can't double dash.
    123 replies | 3682 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Friday, 19th July, 2019, 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...
    123 replies | 3682 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...
    123 replies | 3682 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Thursday, 18th July, 2019, 02:57 PM
    Double post
    123 replies | 3682 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.
    123 replies | 3682 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,...
    123 replies | 3682 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...
    123 replies | 3682 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.
    123 replies | 3682 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...
    784 replies | 22649 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...
    784 replies | 22649 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...
    784 replies | 22649 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...
    784 replies | 22649 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.
    784 replies | 22649 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...
    784 replies | 22649 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...
    784 replies | 22649 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...
    784 replies | 22649 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...
    784 replies | 22649 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...
    784 replies | 22649 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?
    784 replies | 22649 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...
    784 replies | 22649 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...
    784 replies | 22649 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...
    784 replies | 22649 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...
    784 replies | 22649 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...
    784 replies | 22649 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...
    784 replies | 22649 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...
    784 replies | 22649 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...
    784 replies | 22649 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. ;)
    784 replies | 22649 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...
    784 replies | 22649 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 06:01 AM
    Dude, irony.
    784 replies | 22649 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 05:56 AM
    Yes, you are confused. Finally, agreement.
    784 replies | 22649 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.
    784 replies | 22649 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 05:32 AM
    Dude, irony, again.
    784 replies | 22649 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...
    784 replies | 22649 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...
    784 replies | 22649 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.
    784 replies | 22649 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?
    784 replies | 22649 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.
    784 replies | 22649 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
    784 replies | 22649 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...
    784 replies | 22649 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.
    784 replies | 22649 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.
    784 replies | 22649 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.
    784 replies | 22649 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...
    784 replies | 22649 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...
    784 replies | 22649 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...
    784 replies | 22649 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.
    784 replies | 22649 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.
    784 replies | 22649 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...
    784 replies | 22649 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...
    784 replies | 22649 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...
    784 replies | 22649 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...
    784 replies | 22649 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...
    784 replies | 22649 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.
    784 replies | 22649 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 | 3014 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 | 1174 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 | 3014 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?!"
    784 replies | 22649 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.
    784 replies | 22649 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Sunday, 7th July, 2019, 05:03 AM
    So, not a flaw if it might hurt you.
    784 replies | 22649 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...
    784 replies | 22649 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"...
    784 replies | 22649 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...
    784 replies | 22649 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...
    784 replies | 22649 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...
    784 replies | 22649 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.
    784 replies | 22649 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...
    784 replies | 22649 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...
    784 replies | 22649 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...
    784 replies | 22649 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...
    784 replies | 22649 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.
    784 replies | 22649 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,...
    784 replies | 22649 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.
    784 replies | 22649 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...
    784 replies | 22649 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 | 713 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...
    784 replies | 22649 view(s)
    2 XP
More Activity
About Ovinomancer

Basic Information

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

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
4,571
Posts Per Day
0.81
Last Post
Players choose what their PCs do . . . Yesterday 08:17 PM

Currency

Gold Pieces
2
General Information
Last Activity
Today 04:27 AM
Join Date
Monday, 16th February, 2004
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678

No results to show...
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678

Friday, 2nd February, 2018

  • 12:35 PM - pemerton mentioned Ovinomancer in post What is *worldbuilding* for?
    Ovinomancer, novels aren't imaginary. But the people they talk about are. I never said that shared fictions are imaginary, either - in fact I've tried to analyse in some detail that social processes that generate them. Thoughts are real - they are caused by complex processes that begin (typically) in the "external" world and terminate somewhere in the brain. But fictional things - the orcs, swords, maps, studies etc that make up the imaginary worlds of our roleplaying games, and that we think about when RPGing - do not exist. They are imaginary. Not real. If you want to discuss the metaphysics of fictions, and of ideas about and reference to fictional things, I'm happy to do so. It's a topic on which I have a degree of expertise. But I don't think it is necessary in the context of this thread, as the basic point - that imaginary things don't exist and don't exercise causal power - is sufficient. I can explore the streets of Melbourne. (And have done so.) I can't literally explore the stre...

Thursday, 1st February, 2018

  • 01:28 PM - pemerton mentioned Ovinomancer in post What is *worldbuilding* for?
    You mean you thwarted player agency by having secret information in the form of pre-generated worlds that would trigger GM narration when the players traveled there - instead of letting the players impose their will on the fiction by declaring what kind of worlds they wanted to find.The players didn't express any such preference (ie there was no player agency at work there). If they had, the process might have been different. See the discussion upthread, in response to Ovinomancer and hawkeyefan, of the difference between players looking for more fiction and players wanting a particular content to be part of the fiction.
  • 10:32 AM - pemerton mentioned Ovinomancer in post What is *worldbuilding* for?
    ...st want to say a bit more about how I see things. By GM control over "big picture" I don't mean so much the setting/genre conventions you raise - I see that as more about reaching group consensus on setting basics (eg my Cortex+ Fantasy game started with a vote for Japan vs vikings, because I'd written pre-gens in a way to deliberately leave either option open). I mean stuff like who the nemesis will be, what the basic trajectory of play will be (eg the final fight will be against Tiamat). Then the nitty-gritty stuff is things like (to go back to an upthread example) whether there are bribeable officials around. So whereever the players look to engage the fiction, they find stuff that's there because the GM put it there. (Your mercenary comany example is more-or-less the opposite of what I'm talking about here.) APs are obvious examples of what I've just described, but not the only one. Now, on club-bashing: that's not my issue (at least, if that's similar to "fairness" which Ovinomancer raised not too far upthread). The GM can be fair with secret backstory and I stil wouldn't like it. My issue is that it makes the game about what the GM wants it to be about. So it's a concern that's cumulative with the stuff about framing (both big picture framing and "nitty-gritty" framing. And on random tables - I agree that they are no panacea, and I'm using them in Traveller because without them it wouldn't be Traveller! But I think they're different from pre-authorship, because (i) they don't lock the GM into one track of fiction, so don't cause the same GM-focus issue that pre-authored framing tends to (the players can even help make sense of the random roll, as with the ambergris example), and (ii) because they happen in the course of play, often triggered by player action declarations (eg roll for a starship encouner when you leave the system), they don't generate declaration-blocking/defeating secret backstory, but rather feed into the resolution of the declared action. ...
  • 09:23 AM - pemerton mentioned Ovinomancer in post What is *worldbuilding* for?
    ...oll. Why is it contentious? D&D does not mirror reality in many places. It has different biology (eg dragons can fly and breathe fire; there are giant arthropods). It has different physics (eg conservation laws don't apply; there are other "planes" of existence). It has different sociology (eg societies are primarily pre-modern in technology yet very often modern in some of their basic attitudes and behavious). It has different economics and ecology (eg large numbers of being that are essentially humans are able to live without, it seems, hunting, gathering, rearing animals or growing crops). Etc. Yet D&D is the most popular of all RPGs. Player: "I open the door and look beyond it. What do I see?" DM: "What are you looking for?" Player: "I'll tell you what I'm looking for once you tell me what I'm looking at." Translation: the player can't say what she's looking for until the DM tells her at least the basics of what she can already see.I wrote a whole essay in reply to Ovinomancer discussing this. If the game system and conventions of play permit the player to ask the GM to introduce more fiction than s/he can. As I said, this happens fairly often in my 4e game. If the GM wants to force the player to commit, because that's what the game expects - why are you looking behind that door? what are you hoping for? - then your player who won't commit is simply refusing to play the game. For instance, a player who won't commit simply can't play Burning Wheel as it is written. And is going to have trouble with Cortex+ Heroic also. And will probably come unstuck in 4e skill challenges. Part of exercising your agency over the fiction, as a player, is to commit. A player can't wait to find out whether or not a blow will be a killing one before rolling an attack die. There's no in principle reason why looking through a door should be different.

Saturday, 27th January, 2018

  • 03:57 AM - howandwhy99 mentioned Ovinomancer in post What is *worldbuilding* for?
    ...hobby, the one requiring more rulebooks than any other in history (perhaps the first hardcover rulebooks?) in order to even play these games has "forever been about improvising stories where no rules are necessary". This is all deliberate lies, not a "new way to play a game". So-called "1-page RPGs" was another intentional attack upon the gaming hobby in order to eradicate gameplay and supplant it by misnamed improv. Improv is NOT what makes an RPG an RPG. It is what makes something not a game. It is certainly not what made Arneson and Gygax write lengthy books of balanced rulesets when they created RPGs out of wargame theory. The truth is, no referee should ever improvise in a roleplaying game. That's the actual hobby. The mantra of D&D is, "I"m not making it up!" I have no idea where you suppose I did this. On the first page of the thread, you said You do realise that I wrote the post that you were praising, don't you?So you're saying I am not to trust the above assessment by Ovinomancer of you in this thread? That you actually are an advocate for the RPG hobby as truly the hobby of hidden design games? And that this is a good and preferable practice more people should identify as the real hobby of RPGs?

Thursday, 25th January, 2018

  • 11:57 PM - Lanefan mentioned Ovinomancer in post What is *worldbuilding* for?
    While I've quoted Ovinomancer here as the points raised lead nicely into what I want to say, this is mainly for pemerton . What doesn't help this discussion is that you (pemerton) keep casting the use of secret backstory in the worst light -- as a tool bluntly wielded by the DM in defiance of his players.This, along with consistently referencing "Gygaxian play" as if it's something to be avoided at all costs (while, ironically, quoting Gygax when it bolsters his argument), is the foundation for my comment a few pages back about slighting other forms of play. The real crux here is to cater to the players. I'd be fine playing in a story now style game. One of my DMs essentially ran this style of game behind the curtains as presented it as a secret backstory game. Essentially, he crafted a great illusion that we, as players, were finding out things he's written down, but this wasn't the truth, he adapted to player action descriptions and responded much more like a story now game than anything more tradition...

Friday, 19th January, 2018

  • 10:42 PM - DM Dave1 mentioned Ovinomancer in post Survivor Iconic D&D Monster- BEHOLDER WINS!
    Beholder 26 Gelatinous Cube 21 Mimic 8 Mind Flayer/Illithid 19 Owlbear 11 Purple Worm 7 Rust Monster 9 Correcting Ovinomancer's +2 vote to Beholder
  • 06:13 PM - innerdude mentioned Ovinomancer in post What is *worldbuilding* for?
    ... was even introduced, yet you seem to dismiss this act of worldbuilding as trivial. It is not. I was going to comment on exactly this. Be careful, pemerton , not to mistake "world building" as "just the stuff I, the GM, have to make up in my head." One of the powerful effects of using known settings is that you can sidestep so much of the need to explain to players just what the world is and what lives within it contextually. They already know. Many settings use real-world cultural analogues for this reason exactly---if I want the players to be immersed in a place that's highly compatible with 18th century France, I'm going to say, "picture 18th century France," and the players immediately get it. It's powdered wigs and fighting with rapiers and muskets, with orchestral string music playing at the royal ball. I don't have to "worldbuild" any of that context/milieu, it's already there. In my experience, the best RPGs I've played in have leveraged this heavily, because as Ovinomancer mentions, doing this creates instantly accessible cues for the players without the GM having to do a ton of work. It's much easier for players to "plug in" to the world and its basic expectations.

Thursday, 28th December, 2017

  • 07:22 PM - iserith mentioned Ovinomancer in post "My Character Is Always..." and related topics.
    ...ess with rate of advancement hanging in the balance because that is the system i built/chose and what it was built/chosen to do. others may not but hey, thats what it is. Obviously at times roleplaying your character may indeed run counter to in-game odds of success and that is nothing exceptional in my experience - it happens at a fairly decent rate in complex situations - but adding advancement rate into that mix has never IMX helped make things better. I would hate for the approach a player chose for his character to deal with an in-game situation/task to be made based on "am i close to levelling up" and the XP consequences. i thought that kind of thing (systems promoting players choosing in game character actions based on XP to be gained) was outdated when systems (even DND) began to award points for "overcoming monsters/encounters" whether it was by stealth or trickery instead of just "you get Xp if you kill the monster". But i guess no idea ever goes away completely. See @Ovinomancer's post above. And note that my criticism of your criticism of @pming's approach is not an endorsement of his methods. Roleplaying (in the sense that you and pming are using the word, not how I would choose to use it) is rewarded with Inspiration in D&D 5e so that's how I do it in my games. I change how I award XP from campaign to campaign based on what I want to incentivize. Kind of like how I change my approach to DMing based on the game I'm playing rather than just stick to things I came up with 15 years ago when I was playing some other game.

Thursday, 21st December, 2017

  • 05:07 PM - Nevvur mentioned Ovinomancer in post "My Character Is Always..." and related topics.
    Ovinomancer It remains to be determined how prevalent overland travel will feature as a meaningful obstacle in this campaign. Session 0 is coming up in January and it's something we'll look at. We're presumably doing a points of light, dark fantasy setting (my homebrew), so overland travel will inevitably come up. Whether it's something that would even benefit from a detailed system of roll automation is what I'm in the process of examining. Nothing is set in stone, but a sandbox or exploration themed game isn't what I had in mind. The presence of a ranger will definitely have an influence on how I approach travel as a meaningful obstacle, whatever the plot structure ends up being. Rangers are special little snowflakes.

Friday, 15th December, 2017


Thursday, 14th December, 2017

  • 03:18 PM - Sadras mentioned Ovinomancer in post Skyrim supplement for D&D 5e
    @Mistwell, @Sacrosanct and @Ovinomancer 1. Our group has an Obsidian Portal site for our campaigns, from time to time I as DM dress it up with pretty pics from the net, while the players poach pics for their characters. 2. Furthermore I might take entire excerpts from modules or campaign settings from WotC/TSR material and include them for reading purposes for our play group. 3. Lastly, our Obsidian Portal page is marked as public. Where are we falling afoul or at risk? I'm merely asking because I imagine hundreds of other groups out there are doing the same - wouldn't something like Obsidian Portal be at risk with all these copyright infringements?

Friday, 8th December, 2017

  • 09:35 PM - iserith mentioned Ovinomancer in post Players Self-Assigning Rolls
    your example is EXACTLY what i am pointing out... thank you for listing it so i can point out... In your example, the altar trap as presented is keyed on "does the player say they touch it". you see it as, and they often portray it as a binary option - either the Gm assumes and the player gets got or the GM waits to see if the player makes a key statement and then the player gets got. Compare that to a previous example of how i said i would use the SKILL OF THE CHARACTER as opposed to the WORDS OF THE PLAYER to adjudicate this same event. You seem to be forgetting all of the foreshadowing about how bad that altar is as suggested by Ovinomancer, even if redrick didn't include it in his actual play example. Remember what I said about reading people's posts with charity?
  • 05:20 PM - iserith mentioned Ovinomancer in post Players Self-Assigning Rolls
    ...et molds and vegepygmies, also the druid was once a vegepygmie, before being reincarnated) can make a Nature check to identify these critters. Also everyone can make me a Religion or Planes check to identify that weird mark they're all carrying." And then I told them some stuff about vegepygmies, russet mold, Zuggtmoy, and so on. I describe things as faithfully (and succinctly) as I can manage, telegraphing any specific dangers, and then ask the players "What do you do?" A player might then say he or she tries to recall what the strange mark on the monsters might be (to use your example) and then justifies that using some aspect of the character, be it background, personal characteristic, class feature, something that happened previously in the game, or whatever. From there I can decide if the attempt to recall the lore is certain (success or fail) or uncertain (roll). So it looks like the part where you establish that beforehand and say who can roll what I put on the players. Like Ovinomancer I am going to err on the side of giving the players lots of actionable information and don't gate anything essential behind "knowledge rolls." If you're paying attention to the description of the environment, you should be able to deduce that the vegepygmies regenerate, are afraid of fire, cold, and necrotic damage, or that suspicious spores swirl about in some areas. Recalling lore confirms deductions and adds non-essential (but interesting and potentially useful) information.

Wednesday, 6th December, 2017

  • 03:29 AM - Maxperson mentioned Ovinomancer in post Players Self-Assigning Rolls
    I'm apparently not the only one who notices that games where players asking to make or making unprompted rolls often have players failing to state a clear goal and approach. Regardless of whether there is causation, it appears to be a fairly common thing in our hobby, even in some popular vodcasts. Again, I'm only pointing that out as an observation, not a conclusion that players making unprompted rolls necessarily results in a curtailment of stating a goal and approach or vice versa. You can add me to that list. Even if a player rolls the die in advance, or just says, "I want to make an investigate check", I won't proceed without asking why and/or how they go about it. I found it as frustrating as Ovinomancer did. At this point my players rarely toss dice or just say they want to make a check. They've learned that they are going to have to describe their goal and approach anyway.

Tuesday, 5th December, 2017

  • 09:43 PM - pukunui mentioned Ovinomancer in post (OPTIMIZATION) THE NAMELESS KING ! THE WIZARD's NIGHTMARE! LAST BOSS
    Ovinomancer: There's not much point in continuing to ask the OP questions. He's been banned from his own thread.
  • 02:25 AM - robus mentioned Ovinomancer in post Players Self-Assigning Rolls
    Ovinomancer - that’s a good point. If all the players pre-roll then there’s going to be pressure to go with the player will the highest roll regardless of the narrative, and the DM might be called out as being against the players if they don’t go with the highest roll. It just seems like there’s too much opportunity for things to go poorly. And jeez it’s not like these checks are being called for all the time. It’s only when there’s a chance of failure that has consequences! Otherwise they just spend time until they succeed.

Tuesday, 28th November, 2017

  • 01:09 PM - pemerton mentioned Ovinomancer in post How much back story do you allow/expect at the start of the game?
    @Hobo, Ovinomancer is the one who referred to "most GM advice for player-driven games". And this isn't the D&D subforum. It's the general RP subforum. But here's some advice from a D&D book about player-driven RPGing which says nothing about GM-driven spotlight sharing and emphasises the correlation between player skill and contribution to the shape and direction of play; and which also denies a zero-sum conception of the results of player skill: First get in touch with all those who will be included in the adventure, or if all are not available, at least talk to the better players so that you will be able to set an objective for the adventure. Whether the purpose is so simple as to discover a flight of stairs to the next lowest unexplored level or so difficult as to find and destroy on altar to an alien god, some firm obiective should be established and then adhered to as strongly as possible. . . . Superior play makes the game more enjoyable for all participants, DM and players alike. It a...

Thursday, 23rd November, 2017

  • 02:23 AM - Desdichado mentioned Ovinomancer in post How much back story do you allow/expect at the start of the game?
    So... Ovinomancer has said repeatedly that you are on a Burning Wheel paradigm that has very limited applicability to D&D. And after spinning around in circles for several pages to essentially deny that and claim actual relevant experiences for your claims you finally come out and literally post some GMing advice from Burning Wheel? Is this the point where we can wow just wow yet? Ovinomancer, you've had more patience than you should. Yes, you've completely devastated the arguments, such as they were, but it turns out you weren't in an argument. You were merely the target for some kind of public aggravating performance art.

Wednesday, 22nd November, 2017

  • 10:20 PM - Lanefan mentioned Ovinomancer in post How much back story do you allow/expect at the start of the game?
    What a strange strawman. Of course all metaphors have limits. No one claimed otherwise. And, of course you can have shared spotlight, but PC C isn't very much involved in this scene, having no hooks with NPC X or hooks that engage PCs A or B in this scenario, and so he's out of the spotlight.There's a bunch of assumptions and implications weaving through here (and in other posts by other people, I'm not trying to pick on Ovinomancer but this post just happens to be the easiest to use as a jumping-off point) that are making this discussion into something it otherwise wouldn't be. First: that being in the spotlight is the main - or only - route to enjoyment of the game. Not at all true. Player C in this case could be getting great enjoyment and entertainment simply out of watching the show being put on by Players A and B, and the DM. And not just in this particular case, but most of the time during the game...that's mostly what keeps him coming back every week - the entertainment value of these guys. :) (I've been Player C on a few occasions, where week in and week out the best part of the game was the entertainment provided by other players and all I did some nights was laugh) Second: that there's this "spotlight" resource that the players (not characters) are actively and intentionally always competing for in a greedy sort of way. While it's true that a DM only has so much attention to go around, it's no...


No results to display...

Wednesday, 12th June, 2019

  • 01:17 AM - FrogReaver quoted Ovinomancer in post The Overkill Damage Fallacy
    However, in both cases, I think you've made an error in analysis. Each round should have the cumulative chance that the creature is killed in that round or in any previous round, not just the chance that the target is killed in that round. You're essentially ignoring all the cases where the killing is done already. But, let me drop some illustrations first. I did not. As already mentioned, chance to kill by round X doesn't help with computing average rounds to kill. This figure is the more important one for evaluating the 2 PC's. I account for the killing being done on round 1 in my probability for round 1. I account for the killing being done on round 2 in my probability for round 2. I am simply not interested in the chance the enemy is dead by round X. I'm not sure why you think looking at cumulative probabilities instead of exact value probabilities is better. You can see that the column marked % Kill the round shows the numbers you presented. The column marked % Kill Overall is ...
  • 12:49 AM - FrogReaver quoted Ovinomancer in post The Overkill Damage Fallacy
    Dammit! My thumb keeps hitting the laugh button. Honestly, this is embarrasing. Yeesss... but is this a useful question? I mean, further to the point that I'm pretty sure you can't sum the odds of "kill this round" and have it turn into "average rounds to kill." Only pretty sure because I haven't worked out if this is one of thise things where it happens to simplify out that way. I don't see it, but I could be missing something. I've already commented on this part. Please let me know if something with the calculation still doesn't make sense to you. But, back to "average rounds to first kill" being a useful question to illuminate overkill. I don't think it is, because it doesn't address overkill but instead shows that single big hit is swingier (ie flatter) than 2 little hits. Of course an example showing overkill wasn't being cared about in my OP. My argument was that a mechanic other than overkill exists and so there shouldn't be so much focus on overkill (at least until it can rea...
  • 12:40 AM - FrogReaver quoted Ovinomancer in post The Overkill Damage Fallacy
    Sorry, was meant to be XP. Um, not sure where you're going here. Weighted average of what? Depends on what question you're asking. I don't think "chance to kill this round only" does a good job of illuminating your premise. Actually, I don't think this entire exercise illuminates your title premise at all, although it is interesting and different from previous looks at damage per round. The OP stated: 1. Mechanic X exists (where mechanic X is that one attack PC's with equal DPR kill some enemies faster on average than those with multiple attacks) 2. There is the proof mechanic X exists (it was provided in the OP) 3. Because Mechanic X exists, overkill damage isn't the only thing to consider. 4. The fallacy is not that overkill damage exists or doesn't. It most certainly does. The fallacy is the focus on overkill damage.

Tuesday, 11th June, 2019

  • 01:48 PM - FrogReaver quoted Ovinomancer in post The Overkill Damage Fallacy
    Sorry, was meant to be XP. Um, not sure where you're going here. Weighted average of what? Depends on what question you're asking. I don't think "chance to kill this round only" does a good job of illuminating your premise. Actually, I don't think this entire exercise illuminates your title premise at all, although it is interesting and different from previous looks at damage per round. Weighted average of the round you are killing the enemy on. If im looking for that then I literally can’t use cumulative percentages as I need to know the exact chance I have of killing an enemy on exactly round X so I can use that value as my weight for round X on a phone so lengthy math discussion is hard. Hopefully that helps

Monday, 10th June, 2019

  • 12:08 AM - Maxperson quoted Ovinomancer in post Igniting an object
    I can't tell if you're intentionally misrepresenting my argument or if you genuinely failed to grasp it. Either way, I wasn't talking about type (although, even there, it's still abstract as Fire damage represents damage from heat, which can include such things as steam). I was talking about the value. 20 points of damage is instantly fatal to a character with 10 hitpoints and an annoyance to one with 150. Since damage value only has context with regard to hitpoints, which are abstract, damage value must also be abstract. You can't have an object value that's defined in terms of an abstract one. The attack is just as lethal to the guy with 150 as it is to the guy with 10. The guy with 150 just has a lot of skill and luck and got the heck out of the way of enough of it that a worst, it lit some of his stuff on fire.

Sunday, 9th June, 2019

  • 09:50 PM - Maxperson quoted Ovinomancer in post Igniting an object
    Well, then, I'm very happy your house rule works for you. In the meantime, the definition of flammable is not tied to spell level or damage value in game. In the real world, flammablity is easily demonstrable with the match test. If you want to add houserules to your game to get the feel you want, have at, but none of your arguments so far appear in the rules, which are the baseline I'm referring to. Wood and clothing appear on lists of flammable items. I am curious, though, what properties does damage have that's not related to hitpoints? I've looked through the rules but can only find that damage values are subtracted from hitpoints and that they have no other interactions in the rules outside of hitpoints. Yet, you've claimed that are their own thing and aren't tied to hitpoints. What page is that on? I said that damage is not abstract like hit points. You can't cast a fireball and do ice damage. You can't cast a fireball and do luck damage. You can't cast a fireball and to div...
  • 04:06 PM - Maxperson quoted Ovinomancer in post Igniting an object
    Does it? Describe a fireball. Is it a raging inferno of fire that sits in an area for six seconds, or is it a brief flash of high temperature? It really doesn't matter. The higher the temperature, the shorter the duration required to set things on fire. Describe the damage done to a character with 103 hp that is inside the blast of a 42 hp damage fireball. Do the same for a 30 hp character in the same fireball. Now, describe the damage to the iron anvil in the same fireball. To the heavy wooden door. To the ancient wall hangings. To the wooden crates. To the pile of papers. Again, this is a function of hit points, not damage. Hit points are abstract, not damage. 42 points of fire is 42 points of fire. You can't find a common thread to do this because it's all abstract. No. Just the hit points are abstract, not the damage. Fireballs do fire damage. The don't do luck damage. They don't do skill damage. The rules are very clear about that. Hit points are abstract, which is why ...
  • 07:43 AM - Maxperson quoted Ovinomancer in post Igniting an object
    The trigger isn't damage, though, it's the property of being "flammable." This has a meaning, and the match test is a reasonable way of explaning the meaning of "flammable." The triggers are both the spell and the flammable property, not just the flammable property. A flammable object all by itself doesn't burst into flame. The fire spell hitting an object that is not flammable does not ignite it on fire. It requires both triggers to be present. The match test might seem reasonable to you, but it's far too unrealistic and unreasonable for me. A match pales in comparison to a fireball, so it fails miserable to describe what might catch on fire due to a fireball. Besides, hitpoints have no meaning in and of themselves. 12 hp out of 13 is the sane, finctionally, as 13 hp out of 13. It's a metric that gives an approximation of power. Something that deals 1 point of damage is one tenth as strong as something that deals 10. The functionality you are referring to is required in o...
  • 01:02 AM - Maxperson quoted Ovinomancer in post Igniting an object
    Flammable means can be easily set on fire. I use the match test -- if a lit match touches the object, does it catch fire? Not held onto, but touches. If so, the item catches fire. Oil is flammable. Paper is flammable. Thatch roofs are generally not flammable (despite what movies show -- people tend not to make their houses firetraps). Wooden doors are not flammable. Curtains may be flammable. This makes total sense if the amount of initial fire damage is the equivalent of a match. If it's doing say 12 points of fire damage to the target, though, it's a hell of a lot hotter than a match and will catch correspondingly more items on fire in that instant.

Saturday, 8th June, 2019

  • 06:55 AM - Lanefan quoted Ovinomancer in post Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?
    Seriously. :| Okay, I suppose your point in the last few threads was: "[t]he thing is, those times where it doesn't matter.......don't matter." However, as there's times when it does matter, wouldn't it be best policy to treat these things - clarity of narration, inclusion of all relevant material, and good enough wordsmithery to hold the players' interest - as if they matter all the time and just get them right?
  • 05:35 AM - Maxperson quoted Ovinomancer in post Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?
    Seriously. :| Okay, I suppose your point in the last few threads was: "[t]he thing is, those times where it doesn't matter.......don't matter." This looks like perfect agreement with pemerton, so we're done here? Or, maybe, is there a lot more than a single line in your posts and the rest might have some context or expansion of the idea? I wouldn't want to strawman your argument by taking a single line out of of the larger argument you made and treat it as if it stands entirely on it's own. That would be a bad look. Way to deliberately ignore the important part of my post. You know, in your first response to me it actually sounded as if you might debate this one in good faith. I should have known better.
  • 04:35 AM - Maxperson quoted Ovinomancer in post Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?
    Right, but the argument wasn't skipping key details, it was, in fact, about non-key details not being those that can be elided or glossed. You presented scenarios where key details were left out as if it was countering this claim, when it was part of the claim that the focus should be on those details necessary for the character to engage the challenge. You argued against an argument not made. Yes, you countered a post about how players imagining unnecessary specifics in different ways isn't an issue with presenting how you imagined key, necessary details differently from your GM and how he was a jerk about it. Totally not the same thing. The argument that it's okay to imagine necessary, key, sufficient details differently was not made, but you've argued that one down very well. This is what he said. "Somewhat contra Lanefan, it often doesn't matter at all if the players think different things about the fiction." Where in there does it specify non-key details? It doesn't. He wa...

Friday, 7th June, 2019

  • 10:09 PM - Maxperson quoted Ovinomancer in post Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?
    I'd say lack of key detail, which is a different thing from specifics. Key detail. Insufficient detail. It's the same thing. Lacking a key detail is insufficient. The post you presented this to as a counter wasn't talking about lack of key detail, but uneccesary specifics. The example was of a jeweled sword where it being richly appointed is the key and not the specifics of the jewels. You presented a scenario that had missing key information as a counter to this. It's not. As I said, your confusion could have been rectified by unspecific detail such as being you know that the enemies were close enough to close and attack on their turn. How many feet that is would be the unnecessary specificity. It listed examples of unnecessary specifics, but it made the claim that players imaging different things is often not an issue. Then it gave limited examples where it wasn't an issue. I was countering by saying that it often is an issue. And then I gave limited examples where it was an ...
  • 08:49 PM - Umbran quoted Ovinomancer in post Players 'distressed' by gang-rape role-playing game
    Um... We have a rule against arguing moderation in-thread. Morrus is really quite specific on that point.
  • 05:06 PM - Maxperson quoted Ovinomancer in post Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?
    Your examples are not one that require specificity of detail but are, in fact, errors by the GM to present the information in terms of your character's interests. I'd say that your second example is one where inappropriate specificity caused the problem (if the rocks were too small to matter, why introduce them?). In both of your examples, your GM was at fault both in not providing neccessary information and in not cirrecting this oversight before punishing your character for them. The errors were from lack of sufficient detail. As for the rocks, the could very well have mattered. They would be a hazard to move quickly over or fight in. Further, your first example could have been solved with general information, like, "the monsters are close enough to close and attack you," and don't require specific distances in feet to clear up the issue. The latter will work, being sufficient, but is not necessary. Necessity is providing information relevant to character actions, which can be provi...

Wednesday, 5th June, 2019

  • 04:08 PM - TwoSix quoted Ovinomancer in post The highest sustained DPR build I could make
    Righto, then! Carry on. I shall keep calm and do so. :)
  • 12:46 AM - TwoSix quoted Ovinomancer in post The highest sustained DPR build I could make
    Just to quibble with your math, a 90% hit rate on 3d20 is needing 10+ to hit. Which may be what you meant. But the chance to crit on 3d20 is ~14%, not 27%. You take the odds of not rolling a 20 on 3d20 and subtract from 1. Thats' 1 - (19/20)^3 = 14.3%. You'd have to roll 5d20 to get to 27%. I think he's saying that he would have baleful curse to crit on 19's as well, but I'm not sure. Yea, the crit rate was based on the assumption of having Hexblade Curse up and having crit be on 19-20. 1-(18/20)^3 = 27.1%. I played a hexblade with elven accuracy for a fair stretch, so I got real familiar with the tri-advantage math. I generally assume about a 55-60% base chance hit rate, which would work out to be about 91%-93% hit rate with tri-vantage. Rounding to 90% covers a pretty wide attack vs AC range, so it's my default assumption for Elven Accuracy calculations if I don't want to do spreadsheets.
  • 12:21 AM - Cadmius Clairmonte quoted Ovinomancer in post The highest sustained DPR build I could make
    Just to quibble with your math, a 90% hit rate on 3d20 is needing 10+ to hit. Which may be what you meant. But the chance to crit on 3d20 is ~14%, not 27%. You take the odds of not rolling a 20 on 3d20 and subtract from 1. Thats' 1 - (19/20)^3 = 14.3%. You'd have to roll 5d20 to get to 27%. I think he's saying that he would have baleful curse to crit on 19's as well, but I'm not sure.

Tuesday, 4th June, 2019

  • 10:04 PM - Oliver Xu quoted Ovinomancer in post Sorcerer Vs Wizard And Why its Closer Than You Think
    No one ever thought of houserules before. [/snark] Look, yelling at people to change rules when the point of the discussion is to examine the rules as they are written is not constructive. You haven't stumbled one some new truth everyone else has missed. Of course, it isn't a new truth that I "yelled" at you people. It's just a common sense fix that you guys just refuse to use. :P Either way, it's surprising that this thread was revived. It just goes to show how deep-rooted this annoying conflict can go on, I suppose.
  • 05:01 PM - hawkeyefan quoted Ovinomancer in post Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?
    I take it back, Max -- do not explain fallacies, just keep using the titles. While that's a habit that indicates a lack of argumentative ability, better that than to remove doubt. I mean, while building your cases for the fallacies here, you completely missed the thrust of hawkeyefan's argument and actually helped him land it more solidly. That main thrust was at the gooey, shifting center of your argument where you keep saying the are GM specific functions but are very careful to not list them. You've mistaken sarcasm for fallacy. At least when you were just tossing fallacy names out one may have imagined you'd followed along. Now, we know you didn't. Sometimes I wonder if there's like a Sacha Baron Cohen kind of thing going on. At times, it seems the only explanation.


Ovinomancer's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites