View Profile: Maxperson - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Today, 01:48 AM
    Sure, but the DMG rule no more or less optional than the PHB rule. The DMG does not state you die if you are at 0 and then are hit for 1 more point of damage. The only rule in the DMG about it is that you die at -10.
    132 replies | 3025 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Today, 01:29 AM
    You still haven't proven that a rule not listed as optional was specifically an optional rule. All the two different non-optional rules from the PHB and DMG prove is that between the year the PHB was release and the DMG came out, Gygax had second thoughts about dying at 0 and changed the rule.
    132 replies | 3025 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Today, 01:17 AM
    Yep. The rule was only for "any creature." That includes PCs dude. I guess it wouldn't apply to rocks. Um, no. First, it's not an option. It's in the combat section, not some mythical "optional rule" section. Specifically, it's in the section talking about hit points and damage. It explains what happens when you drop to 0 hit points. What happens? You fall unconscious. Then it...
    132 replies | 3025 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:27 PM
    This is the 1e rule from page 82 of the 1e DMG. "When any creature is brought to 0 hit poinis (optionally as low as -3 hit points if from the same blow which brought the total to 0), it is unconscious. In each of the next succeeding rounds 1 additional (negative) point will be lost until -10 is reached and the creature dies." Going to -10 wasn't an option. It was the 1e rule. The up to -3...
    132 replies | 3025 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:19 PM
    The necrotic effect does not end instantly. Only the damage ends instantly. If the effect also ended, there could be no reduction in maximum hit points. There must be some sort of ongoing necrotic effect that reduces the maximum hit points and keeps them reduced. That ongoing effect is also what kills the PC at 0 maximum hit points.
    172 replies | 4171 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:28 PM
    But there is a rule about 0 max hit points AND necrotic damage FROM a vampire. You interpret that rule differently than we do. That's all. Let the rules lawyer go and just accept that it can be interpreted differently. Aha! This is the problem. The rule isn't code and was never intended to be. That's why they use natural language as the benchmark, not code.
    172 replies | 4171 view(s)
    0 XP
  • OB1's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:15 PM
    Decanter of Endless Water 21 Dimensional Shackles 19 Driftglobe 5 Dust of Dryness 16 Efreeti Bottle 20 Figurine of Wondrous Power 20+1=21 Folding Boat 18 Heward's Handy Haversack 18-2=16 Horn of Valhalla 24
    225 replies | 5363 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:25 PM
    Decanter of Endless Water 21 Dimensional Shackles 19 Driftglobe 5 Dust of Dryness 16 Efreeti Bottle 20 Figurine of Wondrous Power 20 Folding Boat 18 Heward's Handy Haversack 18 Horn of Valhalla 24
    225 replies | 5363 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:41 PM
    Only when the rules can be interpreted multiple ways like the situation we are discussing. This is a False Equivalence. The first example has no ongoing condition. The second does, so the two examples are treated differently. Fortunately for us, it doesn't matter what it is to you. Your opinion on the matter doesn't stop what you are doing from being rules lawyering semantics. ...
    172 replies | 4171 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:41 AM
    Yep. Both ways are valid interpretations. You aren't going to convince those who think that semantical rules lawyering somehow constitutes absolute correctness and the other side is wrong, though.
    172 replies | 4171 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:41 AM
    I think this is one of those perception is greater than reality moments, and wives just SEEM to be 10'. Whatever you do, though, please don't tell my wife I said that. :eek:
    132 replies | 3025 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:18 AM
    I think one of the things you guys are forgetting when comparing save or die spells/effects/etc. vs. saves and other "lethal rules" is that in 1e and 2e you very often died before any of that came into play. Rolling for hit points at 1st level meant that you often had PC deaths and TPKs in the first encounter you came across as most hits would knock out even a fighter who didn't get a lucky hit...
    132 replies | 3025 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:54 AM
    I would be more inclined to cap the amount of XP you can get from a treasure haul, whether that's at 1 level, half a level or whatever. I think one of the joys of D&D is finding a large horde, especially when defeating a foe like an ancient dragon.
    84 replies | 5337 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Friday, 19th July, 2019, 09:33 PM
    20 to 1 in order to fix dragons would make orc experience average about 17, rather than 100, and I'm not sure the players would appreciate my changing the exp ratio for each monster. Relax dude. I just said I wasn't sure about it. That doesn't even come close to "slamming the whole concept." I liked gold for exp during 1e, since that was the only way to get to any reasonable level.
    84 replies | 5337 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Friday, 19th July, 2019, 09:19 PM
    You can go farther by expressing it as an alternative. This is from the NPC section a bit farther on. When creating general NPCs... "General Characters: Roll 3d6 for each ability as usual, but use average scoring by considering any 1 as a 3 and any 6 as a 4." You create general NPCs not by rolling 3d6 for each ability, but rather by rolling 3d6 as usual, since 3d6 for each ability is the...
    132 replies | 3025 view(s)
    0 XP
  • OB1's Avatar
    Friday, 19th July, 2019, 06:43 PM
    Decanter of Endless Water 22 Dimensional Shackles 19 Driftglobe 4 Dust of Dryness 16 Efreeti Bottle 22 Figurine of Wondrous Power 19+1=20 Folding Boat 21 Heward's Handy Haversack 20-2=18 Horn of Valhalla 27
    225 replies | 5363 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Friday, 19th July, 2019, 02:27 PM
    He mentions 3d6 BEFORE talking about the alternatives. That's clearly the default, given that 1e evolved from Basic. Correct. Gygax's words about 3d6 PRIOR to giving the alternatives establish 3d6 as the baseline. Look. I get it. 3d6 did suck and we almost always used the 4d6 alternative. That didn't change what the default was, though.
    132 replies | 3025 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Friday, 19th July, 2019, 01:45 PM
    I'm not sure I like the idea of XP for gold. An ancient red dragon is worth 36,500 XP, but it's horde will average around 720,000+ gold(in coin, gems and art), plus magic items. That's waaaaaay too much XP to hand out, so you're going to end up with a bunch of piss poor dragons(and other monsters) if you want to have any kind of leveling balance. Finding the large horde is one of the major...
    84 replies | 5337 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Friday, 19th July, 2019, 01:28 PM
    Now I'm imagining an efreeti and whipped cream. It's to early for this man. Not cool. Not cool at all. :blush:
    225 replies | 5363 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Friday, 19th July, 2019, 01:25 PM
    Decanter of Endless Water 22 Dimensional Shackles 20 Driftglobe 3 Dust of Dryness 16 Efreeti Bottle 22 Figurine of Wondrous Power 21 Folding Boat 20 Heward's Handy Haversack 22 Horn of Valhalla 27
    225 replies | 5363 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Friday, 19th July, 2019, 01:20 PM
    This is semantics. They are two different ways of saying essentially the same thing. There's a reason that rules lawyers often get kicked out of groups. Arguing semantics is a big part of it.
    172 replies | 4171 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Friday, 19th July, 2019, 07:10 AM
    You are in fact wrong. It seems you don't understand what alternative means. By definition, an alternative is not the default. It's an ALTERNATIVE to the default. I'm sure you saw how the sentence right before method I is mentioned, it explicitly says method I is an alternative. It also seems like you and @Jer are confused by Gygax recommending that you try an alternative to the default. ...
    132 replies | 3025 view(s)
    0 XP
  • OB1's Avatar
    Thursday, 18th July, 2019, 05:26 PM
    Decanter of Endless Water 21 Dimensional Shackles 20 Driftglobe 5 Dust of Disappearance 4-2=2 Dust of Dryness 16 Efreeti Bottle 23 Figurine of Wondrous Power 22+1=23 Folding Boat 23 Heward's Handy Haversack 21 Horn of Valhalla 25
    225 replies | 5363 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Thursday, 18th July, 2019, 02:24 PM
    This.
    172 replies | 4171 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Thursday, 18th July, 2019, 01:28 PM
    Now, as to which edition was deadliest. I had many more characters die in 1e than in 2e, and many more die in 2e than any following edition. I'm not sure if there were other rules which allowed 2e to be more survivable than 1e, but that was my experience.
    132 replies | 3025 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Thursday, 18th July, 2019, 01:25 PM
    No. That's incorrect. The PHB directs you to the DMG which says this... "While it is possible to generate some fairly playable characters by rolling 3d6, there is often an extended period of attempts at finding a suitable one due to quirks of the dice. Furthermore, these rather marginal characters tend to have short life expectancy - which tends to discourage new players, as does having to...
    132 replies | 3025 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Thursday, 18th July, 2019, 01:12 PM
    Decanter of Endless Water 23 Deck of Illusions 0 - Death is an illusion. Dimensional Shackles 20 Driftglobe 6 Dust of Disappearance 6 Dust of Dryness 16 Efreeti Bottle 22 Figurine of Wondrous Power 24 Folding Boat 21 Heward's Handy Haversack 23
    225 replies | 5363 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Thursday, 18th July, 2019, 01:10 PM
    The thing is, if you are limiting it to the number of spell slots per day, prepped in advance, and the spells go away when cast, you've re-created Vancian ;) I don't think that allowing the hanging throughout the day is enough to escape that. The key difference between Amber magic and Vancian magic is that Amber magic is almost limitless as long as you take time to hang spells.
    25 replies | 849 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Thursday, 18th July, 2019, 02:52 AM
    Only because they didn't consider this corner case. The reduces portion is not really relevant as it is only there to let us know that 0 max hit points from the necrotic damage causes instant death. All the conditions for death are still present. You can "rules lawyer" the technicality all you want. I'm going to go with RAI. Right after your, "Does not!"
    172 replies | 4171 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Thursday, 18th July, 2019, 02:44 AM
    Sure. If it wasn't ongoing, there could be no spawn. It has to persist after death or there would be nothing to cause a spawn to come back. Which is fine. I can see where you could interpret that way. I just don't myself. 5e is full of effects and abilities than can be, and are, interpreted multiple ways.
    172 replies | 4171 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Thursday, 18th July, 2019, 02:41 AM
    I don't need to change any rule. The rule is that if at 0 max hit points due to being drained by the vampire's necrotic damage, you die. You can(and have) interpreted the rule differently. Your alternative interpretation doesn't mean I have to alter the rule at all.
    172 replies | 4171 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Thursday, 18th July, 2019, 02:39 AM
    Someone needs to tell Blue that he can't "Bet that you will respond to just this and ignore the rest" and then block me. LOL. The bet doesn't work if I can't respond.
    172 replies | 4171 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Thursday, 18th July, 2019, 01:57 AM
    Merlin often put it off because it was a hassle. He wasn't the most focused wizard out there. That and he had bot Frakir and Ghost to help him out of trouble.
    25 replies | 849 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Thursday, 18th July, 2019, 01:51 AM
    I picture the bite working as a vehicle for the necrotic damage. How do you picture it working?
    172 replies | 4171 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Thursday, 18th July, 2019, 01:50 AM
    So you're saying that the raised PC doesn't have a max hit points of 0 that was caused by the necrotic damage reducing it to 0? This is an obvious corner case man. They didn't consider this. This is a pretty blatant False Equivalence. Being drained to an amount of max hit points greater than 0 and then dying is completely different from dying when max hit points reaches 0. Of...
    172 replies | 4171 view(s)
    0 XP
  • OB1's Avatar
    Wednesday, 17th July, 2019, 03:06 PM
    Decanter of Endless Water 24 Deck of Illusions 8 Dimensional Shackles 19 Driftglobe 5 Dust of Disappearance 8 Dust of Dryness 17-2=15 Efreeti Bottle 22 Figurine of Wondrous Power 25+1=26 Folding Boat 26 Heward's Handy Haversack 22
    225 replies | 5363 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Wednesday, 17th July, 2019, 01:30 PM
    Decanter of Endless Water 24 Deck of Illusions 7 Dimensional Shackles 19 Driftglobe 5 Dust of Disappearance 10 Dust of Dryness 17 Efreeti Bottle 22 Figurine of Wondrous Power 25 Folding Boat 25 Heward's Handy Haversack 24
    225 replies | 5363 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Wednesday, 17th July, 2019, 01:12 PM
    Everything you regain after a long rest is a benefit of that long rest. The reason you don't see things like spells, vampire bite recovery, etc. listed in the long rest section is that they are specific benefits, not general ones, and get added to the general rule if they apply to you. Spellcasting is mentioned in the general resting section above long and short rest, though. "Heroic though...
    172 replies | 4171 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Wednesday, 17th July, 2019, 06:00 AM
    If I remember correctly, raw power also took a lot more power to accomplish the same thing a refined spell could accomplish. So you hung a fireball, or used much more power to just destroy an area the size of a fireball.
    25 replies | 849 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Wednesday, 17th July, 2019, 01:58 AM
    And you die if you have 0 hit points due to the vampire bite. Clearly the long rest portion of the bite section wasn't intended for PCs who are at 0 max hit points, but for those who are drained and remain alive. You are in a grey area, so you really can't treat it as normal with regards to resting. You can certainly rule it that way for your table, but those who are viewing it as a benefit...
    172 replies | 4171 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Wednesday, 17th July, 2019, 01:52 AM
    There is no general. The 0 hit point max is also a specific rule. This is a False Dichotomy. It's not one or the other of those two options, especially since the effect of having max hit points due to the necrotic damage is still present, which we all know causes death. That's a third option right there that is more likely than either of the other two. And this is fine....
    172 replies | 4171 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Wednesday, 17th July, 2019, 01:49 AM
    Yes it is the condition. You are trying to make two things into one, and that doesn't work. The vehicle for the death is a separate item. Being bitten doesn't cause death. It's just the vehicle for the necrotic damage. The one and only condition for death is to have your hit point maximum hit 0 due to the necrotic damage. Look at it like this. If I inject you with a deadly poison, the...
    172 replies | 4171 view(s)
    2 XP
  • OB1's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 06:16 PM
    Lol. Thatís what I get for posting before coffee!
    225 replies | 5363 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 02:21 PM
    Sure, but we also know about draining and when something is drained to death, what is drained doesn't come back. Bringing a vampire/wight drained corpse back to life still leaves you at 0 max hit points due to the draining, which is the condition necessary for instant death.
    172 replies | 4171 view(s)
    0 XP
  • OB1's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 02:05 PM
    Decanter of Endless Water 25 Deck of Illusions 9 Dimensional Shackles 19 Driftglobe 7 Dust of Disappearance 12 Dust of Dryness 17 Efreeti Bottle 22 Eversmoking Bottle 4-2=0 Figurine of Wondrous Power 25+1=26 Folding Boat 24
    225 replies | 5363 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 01:44 PM
    On the other hand, if something says, "When all your walls are turned to jell-o, the house collapses.", it is expected to be ongoing. Nobody is going to think that the next day the walls on the collapsed house are no longer jell-o. You are going to have to fix those walls before the house can be rebuilt.
    172 replies | 4171 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 01:30 PM
    The spells don't go away until they are cast. Well, in the books they eventually go stale, but that takes weeks at least, possibly months. A high level wizard would not need to spend hours daily unless they ran themselves out of spells. Also, in the books there didn't appear to be any limit to the number you could hang as long as you spent the time to do it, but of course that wouldn't work...
    25 replies | 849 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 01:18 PM
    Probably not, but the Pixie penchant for wood gave us the Pixie Stick.
    156 replies | 6397 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 01:11 PM
    Decanter of Endless Water 25 Deck of Illusions 9 Dimensional Shackles 19 Driftglobe 7 Dust of Disappearance 12 Dust of Dryness 17 Efreeti Bottle 22 Eversmoking Bottle 4 Figurine of Wondrous Power 25 Folding Boat 24
    225 replies | 5363 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 01:09 PM
    You seem to have missed the part early in the thread where it appears like corpses are intended to count as creatures. You can remove curse on an object, but not cure diseases, yet Raise Dead states you need to cure the corpse of magical diseases before raising. Just cast greater restoration or something on the corpse before it comes back to life.
    172 replies | 4171 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 01:39 AM
    In this case neither is general, though. The specific beats general section lists both monster abilities and spells as examples of specific rules. Both the vampire drain and raise spell are specific rules, and there's no rule about what happens when two specific rules collide. It's clearly a DM call on this one.
    172 replies | 4171 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 01:34 AM
    The blood portion was pretty irrelevant, though, which I mentioned in a prior post. The max hit points hitting zero and dying is the important part. Whether from a wight or from a vampire, the effect is the effect. That said, the OP is very clear that it was death by Vampire. No wight was mentioned. I agree that it works. Then, because the hit point maximum is 0 and death happens at...
    172 replies | 4171 view(s)
    1 XP
  • OB1's Avatar
    Monday, 15th July, 2019, 03:25 PM
    Decanter of Endless Water 24 Deck of Illusions 10 Dimensional Shackles 21 Driftglobe 7 Dust of Disappearance 14 Dust of Dryness 16 Dust of Sneezing and Choking 5-2=3 Efreeti Bottle 22 Eversmoking Bottle 10 Figurine of Wondrous Power 25+1=26
    225 replies | 5363 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Monday, 15th July, 2019, 02:17 PM
    Fine. I want my $0 back, and I'm charging 100% interest daily.
    156 replies | 6397 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Monday, 15th July, 2019, 01:26 PM
    Decanter of Endless Water 24 Deck of Illusions 12 Dimensional Shackles 21 Driftglobe 7 Dust of Disappearance 14 Dust of Dryness 16 Dust of Sneezing and Choking 7 Efreeti Bottle 22 Eversmoking Bottle 9 Figurine of Wondrous Power 25
    225 replies | 5363 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Monday, 15th July, 2019, 01:13 PM
    The mechanic, "Dies when max hit points are 0 from the vampire bite." remains, though. The blood loss was just mentioned, because it's a freaking vampire that just drained you via a bite. It's pretty obvious that no blood is why the PC died from that mechanic. You would only survive if the DM believes that the Raise Dead spell restores the hit point maximum to normal. Me, I don't see the...
    172 replies | 4171 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Monday, 15th July, 2019, 06:34 AM
    As I pointed out, RAW states that temporary hit points do not stabilize people or restore consciousness, so they wouldn't work in this case. The victim would just die again. Aid might work since it raises the hit point maximum for 8 hours, which would allow him to both survive and take a long rest. At least as long as the DM doesn't rule that the victim dies again before the spell can be cast.
    172 replies | 4171 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Monday, 15th July, 2019, 05:05 AM
    Coma isn't a condition, so I would think it would be death. They still meet all the necessary conditions to die. Drained to 0 max hit points by the bite. I can see that and I wouldn't argue such a ruling in a game. I'm just not sure if I would go that way or not as DM. I definitely would not allow temporary hit points to work. They specify that they don't stop unconsciousness or...
    172 replies | 4171 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Monday, 15th July, 2019, 03:31 AM
    The rule is, though, that you die at 0 max hit points from the blood loss of the vampire bite. That 0 max hit points is still in effect the moment the Raise Dead is cast. The PC would just die again.
    172 replies | 4171 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Monday, 15th July, 2019, 03:11 AM
    Okay. Again, I was talking in the context social interactions, since that's what pretty much the entire thread has been about. None of those examples is a social interaction. The social aspect of a PC is inextricably intertwined with the player. You can't separate the two in order to challenge the PC, but not the player. It used to be the case that you could choose to fail saves. 5e...
    727 replies | 20388 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Monday, 15th July, 2019, 02:59 AM
    At was an attack and uncalled for. If you don't have a constructive response to my arguments, don't mention or respond to me.
    727 replies | 20388 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 06:34 PM
    That seems reasonable, too.
    14 replies | 571 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 06:32 PM
    That seems very reasonable to me.
    14 replies | 571 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 06:15 PM
    My first thought was corpse seems like it should be an object, not a creature, so Greater Restoration wouldn't work. However, when I read Raise Dead, it mentioned needing to cure magical diseases on the target prior to being raised, so it does seem like a corpse can be the target of such spells.
    172 replies | 4171 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 05:15 PM
    This is where you go very wrong. Before the hard decision, I did not know X about my character. Until I made the decision, X was still unknown to me. After the decision, X is now known to me. That's a discovery about the character, which makes it something I learned. How many times over the years after someone ends up in a unique situation and makes a hard decision, have we heard, "So...
    727 replies | 20388 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 04:28 PM
    Regardless of whether or not it was "semantics," and it wasn't, the two definitions of challenge are still of great importance to this thread. The claim that a challenge can't happen unless there is a win/loss scenario going on is outright false. You can in fact have a challenge of the difficult choice where there is no win/loss possibility. :yawn: Your Ad Hominems bore me. Either respond...
    727 replies | 20388 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 03:57 PM
    Decanter of Endless Water 22 Deck of Illusions 14 Dimensional Shackles 20 Driftglobe 9 Dust of Disappearance 16 Dust of Dryness 15 Dust of Sneezing and Choking 10 Efreeti Bottle 22 Eversmoking Bottle 12 Figurine of Wondrous Power 23
    225 replies | 5363 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 03:54 PM
    Nor is it one unless you falsely accuse me of semantics and engage in an Ad Hominem attack against me like this one. Semantics is not different ways to define something. It's saying the same thing in a different way, which I did not do. The distinctly different definitions of challenge do not end up at the same place. They are different kinds of challenges. Take your false semantics...
    727 replies | 20388 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 03:45 PM
    All of those ARE valid responses and within the social contract depending what it is that the supper suggester is suggesting. If for example, he's suggesting that the paladin murder his own sister, that suggesting is going to fail no matter how persuasive the NPC(barring magic of course). It could also result in being ignored, combat or something else entirely. Without an actual scenario,...
    727 replies | 20388 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 03:34 PM
    By one limited definition of challenge, sure. By other definitions of challenge that's simply wrong. You can in fact be challenged without a win/lose scenario happening. verb verb: challenge; 3rd person present: challenges; past tense: challenged; past participle: challenged; gerund or present participle: challenging 1. invite (someone) to engage in a contest. "he challenged one...
    727 replies | 20388 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 01:32 PM
    This is what I have been saying. Something happens outside of the control of the player that can have a profound effect on the PC. Now the hard choice is happening. In this example, there is one difference from what I have been talking about, and one possible difference. The difference is the multiple scene aspect. I agree with that actually. Generally(not always) it will take multiple...
    727 replies | 20388 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 02:43 AM
    I said that in the context of the social challenge, though. Socially, I don't believe it is possible. That depends. If the PC is going to take a shot and the NPC goes for a steal or block, then it would be an opposed challenge in my opinion. You could term it a mini-challenge if you want, but it's still a contest.
    727 replies | 20388 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 02:21 AM
    But all that shared fiction is in the minds of the players and DM. Only the sheet, dice, etc. are independent of that. It might be possible to challenge the character purely mechanically, but not socially. The social construct of the character is entirely mental, and entirety of the character's personality is inside the player of that PC. Others can interact with the character in the shared...
    727 replies | 20388 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Saturday, 13th July, 2019, 02:06 AM
    The character is really just a sheet of paper. It's the player inhabiting the idea of the character that gives it life. That's why I don't understand this idea that you can challenge the character socially, without challenging the player. When Umbran said that I was switching the challenge from the character to the player, I had a vision of Leslie Nielson in an interrogation room with a...
    727 replies | 20388 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 02:05 PM
    There is always One Katana to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.
    24 replies | 853 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 01:19 PM
    Decanter of Endless Water 24 Deck of Illusions 11 Dimensional Shackles 20 Driftglobe 15 Dust of Disappearance 20 Dust of Dryness 17 Dust of Sneezing and Choking 13 Efreeti Bottle 22 Eversmoking Bottle 14 Figurine of Wondrous Power 21
    225 replies | 5363 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 01:06 PM
    By making the hard choice obviously. I you can't fail to pick a choice, but none of the choices may be what you want, so there is no success. Challenge has more than one definition and not of them are binary. Trying to limit a challenge to success or failure is a False Dichotomy.
    727 replies | 20388 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 07:20 AM
    I've seen this mentioned twice now. I ask "why" all the time. Not in an effort to police the action, but to understand the action. If the player is getting from A to C and I don't understand how the PC got there, I'm going to ask why. The follow-up explanation sometimes helps me narrate the response properly or better. I also award bonus XP based on good roleplaying, and a lack of...
    727 replies | 20388 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 07:14 AM
    It's probably a good thing for me, then, that success/fail challenges are just one type of challenge and I can indeed be challenged in ways that are not success/fail.
    727 replies | 20388 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Friday, 12th July, 2019, 07:07 AM
    I'm not changing anything. I AM the character, including its core. When I am in a roleplaying challenge, I'm viewing it from the point of view of my character and making a decision that my character would. The challenge is to the core of the character. I'm just making the decision, because I'm the one that best knows the circumstances and the PC himself. This isn't the same, though. ...
    727 replies | 20388 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 06:39 PM
    That's simply untrue. I have been in a position where I can make the decision and I have been plenty challenged. I am frequently significantly challenged by situations that come up in game. Which way do I go with my character? It's not certain until the decision is made, which occurs after the challenge. The result of that challenge may be in my total control, but the challenge is there.
    727 replies | 20388 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 02:13 PM
    I don't often get the chance to play other games, so when I do get that chance, I jump on it. The chance of pace is refreshing and I get to see how other games do things.
    88 replies | 3163 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 02:03 PM
    I agree. When you live in a world where you know for a certainty that the other religions are as real as yours, you are less likely to to ignore them. It's easy in the real world for someone to just discount the others as false and focus on the one true way.
    224 replies | 5900 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 01:42 PM
    Pics of monsters you've killed or it didn't happen buddy! I think I'll pass on that. I'm secure in my knowledge. :p
    224 replies | 5900 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 01:24 PM
    :eek: You're right.
    224 replies | 5900 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 01:23 PM
    Sure, but that applies to most of the things that he does have proficiency in. I've had fighters use one and only one type of weapon from level 1-20(not in 5e yet, but the 5e is no different), but he got better in all of them. The same with some of the skills. There's no reason he should get better in those things with proficiency that he's not practicing at all just by virtue of having...
    224 replies | 5900 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 01:18 PM
    I've known a number of Rabbis and Preachers who not only studied other religions, but enjoyed meeting with leaders of other religions and engaging them in discussions. It's really interesting to hear them talk about it.
    224 replies | 5900 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 01:15 PM
    Joe is a barbarian. Haven't you ever read Chalker?
    224 replies | 5900 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 01:11 PM
    Because you're still 1st level. ;) On on even a less serious note, I'm better today at dodging fireballs and lightning bolts than I was 27 years ago.
    224 replies | 5900 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 01:06 PM
    Decanter of Endless Water 21 Deck of Illusions 15 Dimensional Shackles 20 Driftglobe 16 Dust of Disappearance 20 Dust of Dryness 18 Dust of Sneezing and Choking 14 Efreeti Bottle 22 Eversmoking Bottle 15 Figurine of Wondrous Power 24
    225 replies | 5363 view(s)
    0 XP
More Activity
About Maxperson

Basic Information

Date of Birth
April 19, 1970 (49)
About Maxperson
Location:
Los Angeles, CA
Disable sharing sidebar?:
No
Sex:
Male

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
9,407
Posts Per Day
1.73
Last Post
2e, the most lethal edition? Today 01:48 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
0
General Information
Last Activity
Today 01:48 AM
Join Date
Friday, 3rd September, 2004
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0

1 Friend

  1. OB1 OB1 is offline

    Member

    OB1
Showing Friends 1 to 1 of 1
Page 1 of 11 12345678910 ... LastLast

Saturday, 20th July, 2019


Friday, 19th July, 2019


Thursday, 18th July, 2019



Page 1 of 11 12345678910 ... LastLast
Page 1 of 27 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Monday, 15th July, 2019

  • 10:02 AM - pemerton mentioned Maxperson in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    ...of knowledge in this way: you can't get more out of knowledge than you put in. To discover something about my character requires something external to take place. I've given examples in this thread. So have others. It doesn't have to be done through random number generation. There are other resolution systems possible. But it does require some way of establishing salient elements of the fiction other than via decision-making by the player of the PC. To my mind this is actually not a radical thesis about RPGing, given that this type of game has relied on resolution mechanics, including random number generation, to establish external constraints on player choices and interpretation of the fiction from the outset. D&D is (though not necessarily should be) the baseline assumption. If we can't argue from a base of some sort, then there is no argument.By my count, there are only three recurrent posters in this thread who make D&D the baseline assumption: Lanefan, FrogReaver and Maxperson. I'm not interested in talking primarily about D&D. It's not a system I'm playing at the moment, and I doubt think that focusing on it is going to shed any particular light on the questions raised in the OP or subsequently in the thread. If you think that there is some aspect of D&D mechanics or play that will help address those questions, then by all means post it.
  • 08:21 AM - Hussar mentioned Maxperson in post The Evolution of Tieflings in D&D: Interviews with Zeb Cook and Colin McComb
    Nope its art expressing a dislike for something or is that not allowed now?? /snip "I'm with stupid" and a picture of a 4e tiefling that looks like it's just whaled a bag full of weed is "expressing a dislike"? Your protestations would ring a lot less hollow if you actually made even the slightest effort to be objective. But, the fact that not only does that image get a pass, but, it actually gets approved by you pretty much says it all. I mean, seriously, if you replaced that 4e tiefling with some sad, fat neckbeard in a I Heart Gygax t-shirt, you'd blow a gasket about how insulting that is. But, this? Oh, this is just "expressing a dislike". Just sad. But, yeah, Maxperson, you're 100% right. The best way to deal with this sort of thing is just to refuse to respond to it.

Sunday, 14th July, 2019

  • 01:33 PM - Ovinomancer mentioned Maxperson in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    ...person. Then the players take the NPC's specific argument and the persuasion skill roll and filter that through the character they are playing and come to a conclusion of how to have their PC react. In this situation what is gained from actually requiring a persuasion contest with binding results for the PC in order to determine if he was persuaded? 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 above are good outcomes to your example because it's that person engine deciding, and they're the best deciderers. But, I'm absolutely certain that the above is not what you meant. Instead, you have a list of unspoken additional requirements. Maxperson's social contract probably shows up, in that you're expected to play within the social contract. Here, this would be that the players should accept the proposition and the roll and use the table's understanding (read GM's) of how their character acts to figure out a path that doesn't violate these things while still accomplishing something the player wants. But, this is all just a hidden set of controls on the game that you're ignoring -- it doesn't actually work how you describe, there's a huge number of unspoken limits in place. So, you argument boils down to "why speak the limits out loud." Lots of reasons. Everyone understands them, for one. Everyone can agree to them, for two. And, on the gripping hand, the GM is also held to them, something that isn't usually true in D&D. But, that's not to say that the above is bad. It's not, else the majority of gamers are bad. It isn't the best way, though, it's just the D&D way, and, even there, you're find plenty of arguments on ...

Saturday, 13th July, 2019

  • 02:32 AM - FrogReaver mentioned Maxperson in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    Maxperson You said: " You cannot challenge a character without simultaneously challenging the player. " Fog of war style challenges will challenge both the character and the player. These are the challenges I propose as the most fun. I believe there also contests like a game of basketball, a game of athletic ability and skill, that is very challenging (aka difficult to win) provided the opposing team is about equal to you. A game of basketball is typically going to need to be resolved purely by mechanical randomization in an RPG. In this instance your character can be challenged while the player is not. That's not a particualarly interesting or fun challenge for the player but I think it's probably best to classify this as a challenge. I still don't think a single sword swing or single basketball shot should be called a challenge though.

Thursday, 11th July, 2019

  • 03:41 AM - pemerton mentioned Maxperson in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    ..., clack, clack! Oh, look. This time he's an ass, maybe next time he'll be noble. *yawn*The second bit here suggest to me that you're not familiar with the play of any of the non-D&D games that Aldarc, Umbran, Ovinomancer and I have referenced - Fate, Pendrgaon, Prince Valiant, MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic, Bunring Wheel, etc. And the first bit is odd, because the way you find out whether a D&D character is tough enough to beat Orcus in a fight is (among other things) to roll some dice. Of course D&D combat is not nothing but die rolls. But nor is a skill challenge, or a Duel of Wits, or whatever other mechanic a system might use to find out whether or not your PC is steely-hearted enough to resist the maiden's wink. Consulting rules makes zero difference here. It's just a question of whether or not you trust the GM to set up the game to be fun. Adding a veneer of rules on top is just a comfort blanket for gamers who really like rulesI certainly find it interesting that FrogReaver and Maxperson are fine with the maiden melting a PC's heart of the GM has written down (i) that the maiden has such a special ability and (ii) it allows a saving throw. Given that there's no rule in D&D that limits the special abilities a GM can place on a creature or NPC, and no rules that limit the number of saves s/he can call for, this seems like a strange view to take - what you call a comfort blanket or even a fetish. You're insisting that there can be no consequences for character unless the player agrees. This just means that character is never at risk. I'm asking to you imagine what happens if it is -- what kind of game is that, how does that work, what can be accomplished? There's nothing wrong with not grappling with these questions, or grappling and finding them lacking, but you've straightjacketed yourself into a narrow view of games by insisting it should not be.This post in particular has some nice accounts of what is involved in putting a character at risk. In his discussion o...

Tuesday, 9th July, 2019

  • 01:04 PM - Ovinomancer mentioned Maxperson in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    ...there simply as boundaries so that my character conception doesn't get broken mid game. It's not about protecting my PC from anything. It's about protecting me as the player. There's a great difference there. 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 character concept and then immediately say that understanding the mechanics prevents your character concept from being "broken." You're saying exactly what I'm saying, only you think I'm saying something else. You're looking at mechanics as a way to determine what character concepts won't be challenged by those mechanics. As you say, you're looking to protect yourself from disappointment in not achieving the character you want to have. Or, at least, that your character concept won't ever change even if it might die. This is definitely looking at the game from the point of view of trusting the mechanics to protect your characterization. Maxperson's posts scream this -- you cannot alter my character at all except to harm/kill it, unless magic. This is an idea of an inviolable character, one that is static but played in a game where things are fluid (zero to hero for D&D). I'm saying that this is a poor way of considering the game -- you're putting on a straightjacket from the start. You might decide to play this way after consideration -- I still love playing and running 5e, for example, and it codifies inviolable character concepts (at least from the DM side). But, I don't codify how to play according to this, I just use this when I play a game because that's how that game plays. If I didn't want to play that way, I'd play a different game (and do). Understanding that the rules serve the game and not the other way around is huge, and I'm hoping you can make the step out to where character is at risk -- not just the life of the character, or its things, but the very nature of the character itself. This can happen rega...

Monday, 8th July, 2019

  • 12:14 AM - Hussar mentioned Maxperson in post No Magic Shops!
    Not sure I buy that Maxperson, since the last two modules I bought - Dragon Heist and Ghosts of Saltmarsh include rather lengthy rules additions. GoS contains all the rules needed for running naval combat, for example. So, it's not like modules are not a source of mechanics. Traditionally, as well, in D&D, modules have often served as the source for new mechanics or for adjustments of existing mechanics. But, it does kinda fly in the face of "D&D doesn't have magic shops" when several D&D modules published by WotC HAS magic shops. And, let's not forget, that buying magic items is now a downtime activity, as per Xanathar's. So, again, it's not like the concept is foreign to the game or limited to modules.

Saturday, 6th July, 2019

  • 07:16 PM - Ovinomancer mentioned Maxperson in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    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 and is also not confusing authority/choice with roleplaying -- in fact, this difference is the point of the OP, in part.

Tuesday, 2nd July, 2019

  • 01:45 PM - Aldarc mentioned Maxperson in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    [/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR]Those games function by having players be GMs(even if they don't call them GMs specifically). The players step out of the duties that players have in RPGs and assume the duties that GMs have in RPGS when needed, effectively making people both a GM and a player, depending on what they are doing at the time. They aren't really games with no GM.It's probably not wise to resume this past debate, Maxperson, especially in a thread that has managed fairly well with keeping on topic. It's okay to disagree without comment. ;)

Monday, 1st July, 2019

  • 04:04 PM - lowkey13 mentioned Maxperson in post Why the Druid Metal Restriction is Poorly Implemented
    Itís exasperating when not only do you ignore what everyone has cited for you out of the books, but youíre ignoring your own material youíre citing. Whatís the point in continuing? @Maxperson For example, you seem to forget the things pointed out to you when you refer back to 1e, everything from the basics (like how proficiency worked) to the more advanced, like how the rule/fluff mechanics worked together. Once again, we will use the MU as an example. Why can't a MU wear armor? Because- "Furthermore, they can wear no armor and have few weapons they can use, for martial training is so foreign to magic-use as to make the two almost mutually exclusive." That's right- MUs can't wear armor because they lack .... martial training. So, what happens if you have dual-classed, human F/MU? "The character may mix functions freely and still gain experience, although restrictions regarding armor, shield, and/or weapon apply with regard to operations particular to one or both classes. ... [Using the example of a fighter/magic user,] furthermore, the character can now carry (but not wear) armor and weapons not normally usable by magic-users, and resort to their use if the need aris...

Wednesday, 26th June, 2019

  • 02:53 PM - Aldarc mentioned Maxperson in post If you could put D&D into any other non middle ages genre, what would it be?
    Much like Maxperson, I like Bronze Age, early Iron Age, and Antiquity, but I think that most setting writers have a shallow historical grasp of these time periods beyond their aesthetics.* ("Look, here's a guy dressed like a Spartan hoplite fighting a minotaur!") And that's always disappointing to me. The same is probably true for D&D's relation to the Middle Ages. And other settings/systems do a better job emulating these other historical societies. Harn or even Pendragon will probably be better choices for Middle Age questing. RuneQuest takes a Bronze Age worldview of the mythos and turns it into a cosmic reality. So I would probably, instead, prefer if D&D explored its own sense of D&D-style fantasy. As such, I would like to see another setting like Dawnforge from the 3e era. Dawnforge was a setting about a world prior to the world that D&D frequently presumes: essentially D&D's "prequel setting." It presents a time before the drow became drow. It presents a world where there are no clerics but the...

Thursday, 20th June, 2019

  • 01:37 PM - Hussar mentioned Maxperson in post Why are we okay with violence in RPGs?
    Maxperson, you realize you have it backwards right? The tournaments came first THEN AD&D. AD&D was an attempt to codify what was happening at tournaments. That's why tournament play is actually mentioned more than a few times in the AD&D DMG. Look, we get it. You played AD&D with 3 people. Great. Can you not understand that that wasn't typical of the time? Tournament tables were MUCH larger than that. Heck, my home game was anywhere from 6-13 players for many, many years. You'd think that if most of the games were only 3 players, then they'd market the modules for 3 players. Seems kind of strange to baseline the game at 3 players and then produce absolutely nothing for that baseline.

Wednesday, 19th June, 2019

  • 04:29 AM - Hussar mentioned Maxperson in post Why are we okay with violence in RPGs?
    Whoops double post. My bad.
  • 04:28 AM - Hussar mentioned Maxperson in post Why are we okay with violence in RPGs?
    ...f holding or four. It's not as if most of that didn't come from gems, jewelry and platinum anyway. One of the largest bags of holding could hold 150k of the 250k with 1000 pounds left over. Death? Energy Drain? Save or die sucked and was all over the place with poison, and energy drain was hell. It had no save and you never got back all of your experience, even if you were lucky enough to be drained within a day of someone who could cast restoration. And you started encountering a lot of energy drain undead well before the party could cast restoration itself, assuming your cleric wasn't also drained. Sure, if it just hung out on the ground ready to duke it out. Played intelligently, that dragon would destroy a 9th level party. I also like how you made it a party of 6-9 NPCs, rather than the typical 4. Double the party size and you double the monsters. So 8 PCs against a pair or three of ancient red dragons. See this is why I have such a hard time taking you seriously Maxperson. You obviously never played adnd. 6-9 pcs was the standard group. Four pcs is a 3e thing.

Monday, 17th June, 2019

  • 03:43 AM - Oofta mentioned Maxperson in post Chaotic Good Is The Most Popular Alignment!
    Maxperson, you do understand that sometimes misunderstandings happen, right? My scenario was that the slave could realistically be freed and the way your response was phrased it sounded like the LG PC would not free them. That the only way to free the slaves was to overthrow the government and change the law. That until the law was changed, slavery should go unopposed. LG: Slavery is unjust and the tyrannical government enslaving the people should be overthrown. New just laws against slavery should be instated. While overthrowing the government may or may not be the LG thing to do*, in many cases it won't be possible. Freeing the slaves was possible. Forums are not always a great place to discuss topics, but when I say "I have no idea what you're saying" that's an admission on my part that, well, I have no idea what you're saying. Perhaps you should clarify before you start accusing people of constructing a strawman. *As much as my LG PC may hate the tyrannical government they may not ...

Wednesday, 12th June, 2019

  • 07:40 PM - uzirath mentioned Maxperson in post Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?
    ...I had the opportunity to do a two-year folklore study of RPGs. (This was amazing. Still pinching myself.) I referred in my last post to the "torture" of typing up transcripts. That was a big part of the project. I ended up with hundreds of hours of recordings of live D&D games. As I analyzed that data, it was surprising to me that some of the most compelling games (from the perspective of the players at the table) did not depend on strong rhetoric, great writing, lots of GM prep, etc. At the time, I wasn't primarily focusing on that element and didn't even have a vocabulary for talking about it (this thread is a couple decades late), but it stuck with me. To the extent you do not enjoy longer narration, that's fine! That's a preference! But ... and I'm going to say this one more time ... just because someone prefers Hemingway over Henry Miller doesn't mean that they are both effective at what they do. Follow me? Yes. I agree with you. My post was in response to the idea that Maxperson's maxim, "How you say something is very often more important than what you are saying," applies universally to all forms of communication. I think the statement is more applicable to communication styles that require the words to stand on their own. Written communication, especially, benefits from a better presentation because there are no conversational elements, no facial expressions, no gestures, no ability to interrupt and ask questions, etc. Speeches and theatrical performances create a similar separation of performer and audience, though communication can be achieved through things other than words. The playing of an RPG, at least when you're around a traditional tabletop, is more like a conversation, which is judged by different criteria. Not saying there ain't overlap. Not saying that a great voice actor can't add a lot to a game (personally, I like that stuff). Not saying that some groups might not play quite differently. But I'm largely sold on the premise that if I'm help...

Sunday, 9th June, 2019

  • 05:41 AM - pemerton mentioned Maxperson in post Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?
    But Iím beginning to see why weíre all having a hard time coming to a consensus....itís because we actually seem to have one, itís just that what I see as pretty basic communication, youíre viewing as carefully wrought wordplay.I don't agree that there's a consensus: I can't really tell what Maxperson thinks, but Imaro and Hussar have made claims about the need for entertaining/evocative narration that I think clearly contradict the position I asserted in the OP. But one complicating fact pertains to vocabularly: eg I wouldn't regard cadaverous as a word to describe a Githyanki as especially remarkable or a-conversational, but Hussar probably would, and maybe Bedrockgames also. What counts as every day vocabularly among a group of RPGers is pretty highly variable and contingent on a range of factors (social background/status, educational levels, occupation, etc). I'm a humanities/social sciene academic (philosophy and law) and many of the people I talk to on a regular basis (ie the people I work with, my students, etc) are lilkewise, or are aspiring to be. So I think my every day vocaublary is probably richer than the New York Times. This is why I have brought it back to what are we aiming for? What counts as success, as good RPGing? What should a GM focus on? And I'm sayin...
  • 05:33 AM - pemerton mentioned Maxperson in post Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?
    Iím sure mine and pemertonís ideas donít exactly match, no. But thatís fine. I donít entirely agree with his premise, but I understand it, and I think he has a point. But Iím only speaking for myself. I would tend to think of "rictus grin" as falling on the literary side of things, as does Hussar. As I've posted, it does no harm if it doesn't impede (what I regard as) the real point of play. It has a face like a skull might do just as well. I personally can't remember how I've described githyanki in the past - I suspect I'm more likely to have shown a picture, such as the one on the front of the Fiend Folio. More generally, and feeding this into the current Maxperson - Ovinomancer interaction, I think that the role of description in RPGing is easily overestimated. It prioritises immersive imagination orver protagonistic inhabitation. Whereas the latter is the distinctive virtue of RPGs as games that are about producing a shared fiction. All this said, I think you've fully understood my points in this thread, seem to agree at least to some extent, and have made many helpful posts into it for which I thank you.

Saturday, 8th June, 2019

  • 09:02 AM - pemerton mentioned Maxperson in post Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?
    ...ith their evocative and engaging performances. To put it more genreally, you have said that RPG participants should keep in mind the literary quality of their narration, and aim at it being good. Of course you recognise that success will probably be mixed. That is what I'm disagreeing with when I say that RPGing is not a literary endeavour, that it doesn't aim at literary virtues, that situation and the call to action, rather than beauty or wordcraft, is central. I can cash this out by reference to rulebooks if you like. The 2nd ed AD&D PHB says that a player should try to bring his/her PC to life by entertaining portrayal and characterisation eg does s/he smell? does s/he belch? does s/he finger her prayer beads in moments of indecision? Unlesss I've badly misunderstood you, you agree with this. Whereas my claim is that that advice is at best tangential, and at worst actively bad, if we want excellent, exciting, engaging, RPGing. Or an example that came up in this thread. Maxperson said that a RPG gets better if the GM narrates the dust from the opening of the secret door, adding to the "depth and feel of the game". A lot of GM advice manuals say simiar things. Whereas, as I posted upthread, my advice to a GM on how to add to the depth and feel of the game would be very different: work on your situations, and your consequences, and let the narrative details take care of themselves.

Friday, 7th June, 2019

  • 10:29 PM - Lanefan mentioned Maxperson in post Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?
    ...ore unharmed. Which very neatly gets you out of having to describe much detail at all, as the mechanics can cover all sorts of things at once. Mechanics like this are a cop-out, I think - instead of just calling for Brawn tests (low granularity of detail) I'd far rather be told the actual situation and then asked what my character specifically does about it (higher granulartity of detail). 'How shallow?' is a very relevant detail - if it's 4' deep then the Humans can likely walk on the bottom but the Hobbits and Gnomes are going to have to swim or be carried. How long and-or beamy the ship is gives - for those the least bit familiar with anything maritime - a quick idea about how much room there is on board, about how the ship is likely to behave in rough weather, and about how fast it is or isn't likely to go; and simply saying "you're on a solidly-built 70-foot three-master, narrow beam for its length, two decks and a hold, and probably deep draft" takes maybe five seconds. Maxperson lists some examples where differences in imagination between DM and player have caused grief, and that's exactly the sort of thing I don't want to see happen. When the DM says the field is strewn with large rocks I-as-player shouldn't have to ask how big they are. I've had characters die due to just this sort of thing - in one instance I remember clearly even though I asked for more clarification several times the DM's description still didn't put his picture of the scene into my mind but instead left me seeing a different one; I based my actions around my-as-player's perception of the scene and my character was dead within the round. For the colourful Bard, as the colourful part is obviously intended to be significant I'd probably ask the player to note on the character sheet a few details of what pieces of clothing are usually what colours, just so it's locked in in case it ever becomes relevant later. ("we need a distress flag and that bright red tunic will do nicely - give it ...


Page 1 of 27 1234567891011 ... LastLast
No results to display...

Sunday, 21st July, 2019

  • 04:43 AM - GreyLord quoted Maxperson in post 2e, the most lethal edition?
    Yep. The rule was only for "any creature." That includes PCs dude. I guess it wouldn't apply to rocks. Um, no. First, it's not an option. It's in the combat section, not some mythical "optional rule" section. Specifically, it's in the section talking about hit points and damage. It explains what happens when you drop to 0 hit points. What happens? You fall unconscious. Then it explains what happens when you go past 0. What happens? You lose 1 hit point per round until -10. The ONE AND ONLY OPTION it speaks about is that the DM can extend unconsciousness to up to -3 hit points if one blow takes you to that range. Don't have a stroke man. We get that there are two rules that both apply to all creatures, including PCs during combat. The non-optional rule that happens when you drop to zero(and possibly down to -3) and the non-optional rule that says you don't die until -10 hit points. Show me where it says that it was optional. My 1e DMG doesn't say optional any...
  • 04:33 AM - Hriston quoted Maxperson in post Death and 0 Max HP
    The necrotic effect does not end instantly. Only the damage ends instantly. If the effect also ended, there could be no reduction in maximum hit points. There must be some sort of ongoing necrotic effect that reduces the maximum hit points and keeps them reduced. That ongoing effect is also what kills the PC at 0 maximum hit points. On a hit, the targetís hit point maximum is reduced instantly. If that reduces the targetís hit point maximum to 0, the target dies instantly. No effect is required for a creatureís maximum hit points to stay the same. Thatís what happens normally. An effect is only required to change the value of a creatureís maximum hit points, and once changed, they will stay the same until some further effect takes place, such as the effect of finishing a long rest on a creature that has had its maximum hit points reduced by a vampireís bite, or the effect of a greater restoration spell.
  • 04:32 AM - GreyLord quoted Maxperson in post 2e, the most lethal edition?
    You still haven't proven that a rule not listed as optional was specifically an optional rule. All the two different non-optional rules from the PHB and DMG prove is that between the year the PHB was release and the DMG came out, Gygax had second thoughts about dying at 0 and changed the rule. Just because your own personal interpretation made 40 years after the fact wasn't how it was ruled, played, or even STATED in the DMG doesn't make your ideas true...nor do the others who never seemed to actually seen how it was officially ruled. In addition, as I said, the official rule for it is actually in the PHB (the one the players actually were supposed to have read, the DMG was for DM's eyes only. As far as players read, the official rules are in the PHB, with things that go contrary to it as a DM's option for DM's eyes only). If you don't like the OFFICIAL rules of the PHB (page 105) that's your own call. However, trying to say 2e was more deadly than 1e is more of your own personal int...
  • 02:25 AM - Tony Vargas quoted Maxperson in post 2e, the most lethal edition?
    The DMG does not state you die if you are at 0 and then are hit for 1 more point of damage. The only rule in the DMG about it is that you die at -10.It's not the most clearly-stated rule ever (even by 1e standards), but, yeah, that's the only way to parse the rule that allows the optional -3 'single blow' phrasing to make any sense. TBH, it /doesn't/ make a lot of sense, no matter how you try to parse it. Every group I ever saw use the -10 rule, allowed that you dropped unconscious if reduced to anything from 0 to -9, then bled at 1/round, until dying at -10 (some even left you alive at -10, I guess because they liked round numbers). If you got hit in the meantime, as long as it didn't knock you below -10 it just accelerated the bleed-out. Not to make the game less deadly, not to be 'realistic,' just because it was remotely intuitive and you could remember it. But, strictly by the book (which, even though it's hard to even tell what that is, and no one may have ever actually played ...
  • 01:31 AM - Tony Vargas quoted Maxperson in post 2e, the most lethal edition?
    First, it's not an option. It's in the combat section, not some mythical "optional rule" section.The whole DMG is essentially optional rules. (really, the whole game is, but don't admit it to the players) Specifically, it's in the section talking about hit points and damage. It explains what happens when you drop to 0 hit points. What happens? You fall unconscious. nb: that's to /exactly/ 0 hit point. If you drop to -1 or fewer you die. Then it explains what happens when you go past 0. What happens? You lose 1 hit point per round until -10. That's what happens while you're unconscious, after having been reduced to exactly 0. You lose 1 hp per round, going from 0, to -1, etc, down through -9, then die when you reach -10. If you don't take any more damage from an outside source. It's not super-clear what happens if you get hit again when at negatives from bleeding. However, judging from the optional rule, below, if you get hit, again, after reaching exactly 0, well, even if it...
  • 12:23 AM - GreyLord quoted Maxperson in post 2e, the most lethal edition?
    This is the 1e rule from page 82 of the 1e DMG. "When any creature is brought to 0 hit poinis (optionally as low as -3 hit points if from the same blow which brought the total to 0), it is unconscious. In each of the next succeeding rounds 1 additional (negative) point will be lost until -10 is reached and the creature dies." Going to -10 wasn't an option. It was the 1e rule. The up to -3 option you mentioned was to allow the DM to simply make the PC unconscious at up to -3, which would then not require the loss of further hit points towards -10. Going to -10 was ONLY for those that the 0 Hit Point rule applied to. IT was NOT for anyone else. The Zero Hit Point rule applied to those...(as you can plainly read above) when any creature is brought to 0 Hit points. It CLARIFIES THAT AN OPTION could be that this could be as low as -3 Hitpoints if from the same blow. If you don't use that option, any creature that falls below 0 hitpoints from a blow is dead. That is why this i...

Saturday, 20th July, 2019

  • 11:00 PM - Garthanos quoted Maxperson in post 2e, the most lethal edition?
    This is the 1e rule from page 82 of the 1e DMG. "When any creature is brought to 0 hit poinis (optionally as low as -3 hit points if from the same blow which brought the total to 0), it is unconscious. In each of the next succeeding rounds 1 additional (negative) point will be lost until -10 is reached and the creature dies." Going to -10 wasn't an option. It was the 1e rule. The up to -3 option you mentioned was to allow the DM to simply make the PC unconscious at up to -3, which would then not require the loss of further hit points towards -10. That is how we interpreted it. From zero to optionally negative 3 nobody had to worry about you if you managed to drop negative farther than that it was a dying process although easily stopped. We still died horribad easy but that rule did make it less absolute than what I saw in the old Blue Book D&D

Friday, 19th July, 2019

  • 11:57 PM - Monayuris quoted Maxperson in post XP for gold 5th Edition campaign
    I'm not sure I like the idea of XP for gold. An ancient red dragon is worth 36,500 XP, but it's horde will average around 720,000+ gold(in coin, gems and art), plus magic items. That's waaaaaay too much XP to hand out, so you're going to end up with a bunch of piss poor dragons(and other monsters) if you want to have any kind of leveling balance. Finding the large horde is one of the major ways to have fun in D&D. This doesnít bother me. The rules usually include a caveat that you can only ever gain one level of experience for a given session. So a lot of that XP will be wasted. if a party manages to overcome an ancient dragon, they would deserve to gain a level. However, the treasure tables in 5E arenít designed for XP for gold, so there may be some oddities at the higher end of the spectrum. Blog of Holding did some interesting analysis of this. I think the final of it suggested to use the XP value of the creatures to define the size of its hoard.
  • 04:24 PM - billd91 quoted Maxperson in post 2e, the most lethal edition?
    He mentions 3d6 BEFORE talking about the alternatives. That's clearly the default, given that 1e evolved from Basic. Telling DMs to not use it is about as far from expressing it as a default as I can imagine.
  • 04:10 PM - Sacrosanct quoted Maxperson in post 2e, the most lethal edition?
    He mentions 3d6 BEFORE talking about the alternatives. That's clearly the default, given that 1e evolved from Basic. . He says, specifically, "While it is possible to generate some fairly playable characters by rolling 3d6, there is often an..." Nowhere does it say the method is 3d6 in order. it just says "by rolling 3d6". If a player had the PHB, which says refer to the DMG, and they had the DMG, how would they know 3d6 in order is the default? Nowhere does it say that? roll 3d6 how? In order? Out of order? Roll only 3d6 and use the result for each ability score? That sentence doesn't tell you. What it does tell you is that you shouldn't use it. There are only 4 methods give to players in how to generate stats in 1e, and Method I is roll 4d6 drop lowest. Show me in 1e where it states the words "3d6 in order" is the default method. *Edit* Also, 1e didn't evolve from basic. 1e and basic both evolved from OD&D on separate lines.
  • 03:26 PM - CapnZapp quoted Maxperson in post XP for gold 5th Edition campaign
    I'm not sure I like the idea of XP for gold. An ancient red dragon is worth 36,500 XP, but it's horde will average around 720,000+ gold(in coin, gems and art), plus magic items. That's waaaaaay too much XP to hand out, so you're going to end up with a bunch of piss poor dragons(and other monsters) if you want to have any kind of leveling balance. Finding the large horde is one of the major ways to have fun in D&D. But now you're assuming a 1:1 XP to GP ratio. You can change that, you know. If you dislike the overall idea that's one thing (and nobody's forcing ya), but don't slam the whole concept over a detail (and a fairly extreme at that; tier IV dragon treasures isn't exactly an average data point...)
  • 02:49 PM - Jer quoted Maxperson in post 2e, the most lethal edition?
    He mentions 3d6 BEFORE talking about the alternatives. That's clearly the default, given that 1e evolved from Basic. Correct. Gygax's words about 3d6 PRIOR to giving the alternatives establish 3d6 as the baseline. Look. I get it. 3d6 did suck and we almost always used the 4d6 alternative. That didn't change what the default was, though. You are presuming that Gygax's writing is like what we see in modern rulebooks. it isn't - Gygax's writing is not the methodical writing of a modern game designer writing a rules manual. Gygax had his own style of writing which is in many places - including this one - much more like a person making an academic argument about the rules you should follow than a person just laying down the rules. If he had wanted it to be the default why would he include an entire paragraph of argument of why it's a terrible choice? It's just not logical that he would lay out an argument about why 3d6 down the line was bad if that's how he's expecting you t...
  • 02:34 PM - jaelis quoted Maxperson in post Death and 0 Max HP
    This is semantics. They are two different ways of saying essentially the same thing. That ... is one of the main things semantics is about? Deciding whether two phrases mean the same thing. So yes, I agree with the first statement. But if you reject semantics, what basis do you have for the second? There's a reason that rules lawyers often get kicked out of groups. Arguing semantics is a big part of it. Rules lawyering at the gaming table is rude. Discussing semantics on a forum is something you are welcome to take or leave, as you like.
  • 02:18 PM - billd91 quoted Maxperson in post 2e, the most lethal edition?
    You are in fact wrong. It seems you don't understand what alternative means. By definition, an alternative is not the default. It's an ALTERNATIVE to the default. I'm sure you saw how the sentence right before method I is mentioned, it explicitly says method I is an alternative. It also seems like you and @Jer are confused by Gygax recommending that you try an alternative to the default. Suggesting an alternative to the default, because the default will often result in PC death does not change the default from 3d6 to another method. It just means that he doesn't like the default. There is literally no method in 1e described or implied as default. The PH says that the DM will tell players how to generate the scores and the DMG right out advocates NOT doing just 3d6 six times, presenting 4 other methods. The word alternative doesn't need to mean that it is an alternative to a fictional default 3d6 in order. Rather, they are alternates of each other and no single one of them is given pr...
  • 01:43 PM - jasper quoted Maxperson in post Survivor Magic Items (Misc. D-H)- THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!
    Now I'm imagining an efreeti and whipped cream. It's to early for this man. Not cool. Not cool at all. :blush: Hey we all know efreeti are HOT!
  • 03:30 AM - KentDT quoted Maxperson in post Vancian to Zelaznian magic
    The thing is, if you are limiting it to the number of spell slots per day, prepped in advance, and the spells go away when cast, you've re-created Vancian ;) I don't think that allowing the hanging throughout the day is enough to escape that. The key difference between Amber magic and Vancian magic is that Amber magic is almost limitless as long as you take time to hang spells. Yep. It's a feature, not a bug. I never really minded Vancian magic but I did want a better in-world explanation for how it worked. I like how now the game has other options for using arcane magic (sorcerer and warlock, of course) with different levels of flexibility. I like their in-world explanation of how their magic works. For wizards, I wanted a little more flexibility than prepare once, cast, lose it, have to prepare again (ie straight Vancian). So, I added flexibility with; every spell can be a ritual but actually casting counts against your daily slots you can prepare or hang a spell anytime when you have t...

Thursday, 18th July, 2019

  • 03:10 PM - Sacrosanct quoted Maxperson in post 2e, the most lethal edition?
    No. That's incorrect. The PHB directs you to the DMG which says this... "While it is possible to generate some fairly playable characters by rolling 3d6, there is often an extended period of attempts at finding a suitable one due to quirks of the dice. Furthermore, these rather marginal characters tend to have short life expectancy - which tends to discourage new players, as does having to make do with some character of a race and/or class which he or she really can't or won't identify with. Character generation, then, is a serious matter, and it is recommended that the following systems be used. Four alternatives are offered for player characters:" So we see that 3d6 is the default and the four alternatives that immediately follow include alternative method I, which is 4d6 drop the lowest. I said method I in 1e was 4d6 drop lowest. I am in fact correct. Since you quoted the DMG, Iím sure you saw the very next sentence was how it labels method I as 4d6. Not method II or V, but the ver...
  • 02:37 PM - Jer quoted Maxperson in post 2e, the most lethal edition?
    No. That's incorrect. The PHB directs you to the DMG which says this... "While it is possible to generate some fairly playable characters by rolling 3d6[/B], there is often an extended period of attempts at finding a suitable one due to quirks of the dice. Furthermore, these rather marginal characters tend to have short life expectancy - which tends to discourage new players, as does having to make do with some character of a race and/or class which he or she really can't or won't identify with. Character generation, then, is a serious matter, and it is recommended that the following systems be used. Four alternatives are offered for player characters:" So we see that 3d6 is the default and the four alternatives that immediately follow include alternative method I, which is 4d6 drop the lowest. Excuse me, but no it doesn't. The important part is the part that I bolded. He's specifically saying right there that rolling 3d6 is awful and he recommends that you don't do it. None of the...
  • 12:46 PM - Oofta quoted Maxperson in post Death and 0 Max HP
    Only because they didn't consider this corner case. The reduces portion is not really relevant as it is only there to let us know that 0 max hit points from the necrotic damage causes instant death. All the conditions for death are still present. You can "rules lawyer" the technicality all you want. I'm going to go with RAI. As a DM you can change or ignore rules all you want. So in your game you get to decide when part of a rule is relevant or not. It does make it easier if you can just ignore things that don't match your conclusion. Have a good one.
  • 06:28 AM - KentDT quoted Maxperson in post Vancian to Zelaznian magic
    The spells don't go away until they are cast. Well, in the books they eventually go stale, but that takes weeks at least, possibly months. A high level wizard would not need to spend hours daily unless they ran themselves out of spells. Also, in the books there didn't appear to be any limit to the number you could hang as long as you spent the time to do it, but of course that wouldn't work for D&D. For D&D the trade off would be in requiring the wizard to choose spells in advance, but allowing more spells to be cast daily. If you use your one counterspell in a combat, just take some time after the combat and hang another one. It also opens the door for feats or class abilities to allow quick hanging of spells a limited number of times per day, or signature spells that you could always hang quickly. It's an interesting idea, but it might be too powerful to add that many extra spells to the wizard's daily allotment. Yes, Iím thinking donít add any spells to the daily allotment-the wizard...


Maxperson's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites