View Profile: Maxperson - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Today, 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. ...
    79 replies | 1785 view(s)
    0 XP
  • OB1's Avatar
    Yesterday, 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
    197 replies | 4572 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:24 PM
    This.
    150 replies | 3297 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Yesterday, 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.
    79 replies | 1785 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Yesterday, 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...
    79 replies | 1785 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Yesterday, 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
    197 replies | 4572 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Yesterday, 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 | 784 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Yesterday, 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!"
    150 replies | 3297 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Yesterday, 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.
    150 replies | 3297 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Yesterday, 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.
    150 replies | 3297 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Yesterday, 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.
    150 replies | 3297 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Yesterday, 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 | 784 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:51 AM
    I picture the bite working as a vehicle for the necrotic damage. How do you picture it working?
    150 replies | 3297 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Yesterday, 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...
    150 replies | 3297 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
    197 replies | 4572 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
    197 replies | 4572 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...
    150 replies | 3297 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 | 784 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...
    150 replies | 3297 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....
    150 replies | 3297 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...
    150 replies | 3297 view(s)
    2 XP
  • OB1's Avatar
    Tuesday, 16th July, 2019, 06:16 PM
    Lol. That’s what I get for posting before coffee!
    197 replies | 4572 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.
    150 replies | 3297 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
    197 replies | 4572 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.
    150 replies | 3297 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 | 784 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.
    146 replies | 5340 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
    197 replies | 4572 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.
    150 replies | 3297 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.
    150 replies | 3297 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...
    150 replies | 3297 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
    197 replies | 4572 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.
    146 replies | 5340 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
    197 replies | 4572 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...
    150 replies | 3297 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.
    150 replies | 3297 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...
    150 replies | 3297 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.
    150 replies | 3297 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...
    683 replies | 18665 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.
    683 replies | 18665 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 06:34 PM
    That seems reasonable, too.
    14 replies | 556 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Sunday, 14th July, 2019, 06:32 PM
    That seems very reasonable to me.
    14 replies | 556 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.
    150 replies | 3297 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...
    683 replies | 18665 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...
    683 replies | 18665 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
    197 replies | 4572 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...
    683 replies | 18665 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,...
    683 replies | 18665 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...
    683 replies | 18665 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...
    683 replies | 18665 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.
    683 replies | 18665 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...
    683 replies | 18665 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...
    683 replies | 18665 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 | 837 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
    197 replies | 4572 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.
    683 replies | 18665 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...
    683 replies | 18665 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.
    683 replies | 18665 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. ...
    683 replies | 18665 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.
    683 replies | 18665 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 | 3077 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 | 5836 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 | 5836 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 01:24 PM
    :eek: You're right.
    224 replies | 5836 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 | 5836 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 | 5836 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 | 5836 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 | 5836 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
    197 replies | 4572 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 05:59 AM
    Sure, and the DM can just say all the PCs are dead, too. Being able to do something doesn't mean that it's playing by the social contract. There is an expectation that the DM is going to be fair and follow the way the game is laid out. Sure. Games can build such things in. I've already said that those games aren't for me. I didn't deny their existence. There are many RPGs were that...
    683 replies | 18665 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 05:14 AM
    Look through the Monster Manual and tell me how many mental/emotion control powers there are that don't give a save. D&D does demonstrate quite clearly that the DM is supposed to make these sorts of things resistible. And the comment on the number of saves is just odd. What does that have to do with anything we've been saying?
    683 replies | 18665 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 05:09 AM
    Yes it absolutely can happen if I don't want it do. I can approve all kinds of things I don't want to happen. For instance, even though I really don't want you to try and argue your incorrect position, I approve of your right to that kind of speech. I've not argued otherwise. If those sorts of games appeal to you, I'm truly glad that they exist for you to play. :) Again, I've...
    683 replies | 18665 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Thursday, 11th July, 2019, 04:49 AM
    You really can't just say, "Nah, this has no impact." or it's not core to the personality of the character. A challenge to the core will have an impact either way it goes
    683 replies | 18665 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Wednesday, 10th July, 2019, 01:25 PM
    Considering that on an internet forum you probably can't get a consensus on what consensus means, I doubt it. ;)
    232 replies | 9950 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Wednesday, 10th July, 2019, 01:18 PM
    In my experience, those aren't horses, and trying to get one to wear horseshoes is a very, very bad idea.
    197 replies | 4572 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Wednesday, 10th July, 2019, 01:16 PM
    Decanter of Endless Water 22 Deck of Illusions 15 Dimensional Shackles 20 Driftglobe 17 Dust of Disappearance 20 Dust of Dryness 17 Dust of Sneezing and Choking 18 Efreeti Bottle 22 Eversmoking Bottle 16 Figurine of Wondrous Power 26
    197 replies | 4572 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Wednesday, 10th July, 2019, 06:12 AM
    Cool, but you've moved the goalposts. The debate is between zero risk and risk, not more risk and less risk. That you've acknowledged that there is at least some risk with me deciding the outcomes is enough for me. Some risk is all I've argued.
    683 replies | 18665 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Wednesday, 10th July, 2019, 06:09 AM
    It isn't about "want." I may want to remain a paragon of knightly virtue, but if the circumstances warrant a fall, it's going to happen whether I want it to or not. I'm not going to play in bad faith and avoid something that is warranted, just because I don't want it to happen. There's more risk with the random method. There is still risk with you deciding things..........if you're...
    683 replies | 18665 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Wednesday, 10th July, 2019, 05:07 AM
    I have no control over what the DM does that might impact my character's character, though. As he challenges me, sooner or later things will happen that cause my character to deviate that I have no control over. But you have no control over if or when an orc attacks. Going outside is a risk, because you might be attacked and sooner or later, playing with swords causes someone to lose...
    683 replies | 18665 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Wednesday, 10th July, 2019, 03:09 AM
    I can't think of any of my concepts that survived from conception to the end of the campaign without changes, often significant ones. People evolve and so do my characters.
    683 replies | 18665 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Wednesday, 10th July, 2019, 02:59 AM
    Yeah. I understand that there are some significant differences, but there are a lot of similarities as well. I also don't think, in fact I know, that you don't have to know how much of a challenge the tower is. It's a name on a map and as soon as the PCs express interest in finding out, you can improv it, roll it, or determine what challenge level it is while they are doing their research or...
    683 replies | 18665 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Wednesday, 10th July, 2019, 02:55 AM
    Nah. You just somehow don't understand what it is that I do. You see, if my knight whose concept is a knightly paragon of virtue gets put into that situation, he may or may not succumb to the maiden's wiles. His character is indeed at risk, as if he does succumb, his concept is dead or dying. Not only that, but if he succumbs, I then have to struggle with he reacts to his fall. Does he do...
    683 replies | 18665 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 02:32 PM
    I never said that there was no risk or real failure. Don't put your assumptions onto me like that. There are consequences for almost everything. If you don't understand something, ask me. Spurning a maiden's love can also bit them in the ass, as can pissing off her father, not completing the quest or many other things that happen with what I am saying. You need to stop assuming that...
    683 replies | 18665 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 02:26 PM
    Sure, it's a complication, just like finding a dead body in your PC's room is a complication. I was just pointing out that it wasn't the test of character he was portraying it as. Nobody can detail out a whole world. It will just be outlines of stuff for the most part with a few things detailed out. Most of the time the party chooses where it wants to go and the sand(details) is filled...
    683 replies | 18665 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 02:10 PM
    Daern's Instant Fortress 7 Decanter of Endless Water 20 Deck of Illusions 15 Dimensional Shackles 20 Driftglobe 16 Dust of Disappearance 22 Dust of Dryness 18 Dust of Sneezing and Choking 18 Efreeti Bottle 21 Eversmoking Bottle 18
    197 replies | 4572 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 02:08 PM
    My concept is always at risk. I don't need a mechanic for that. Maybe others do. I don't.
    683 replies | 18665 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 01:46 PM
    Which is fully accomplished by, "The beautiful maiden winks at you, clearly favoring you with her affections." I don't need you to melt my PCs heart in order to put me in a position where I have to decide between possible love and the quest. Swearing a vow doesn't make my PC immune to love, so we will learn something about my character this way as well. I'm also not seeing how in your...
    683 replies | 18665 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 01:36 PM
    You don't NEED an mechanic for that sort of risk, and in my experience mechanics detract from it. The drama comes from me being put in the hard choice and deciding how my character reacts to the hard choice, not from a boring die roll or DM deciding if I'm good or bad this time around. I don't play perfect characters, because 1) perfect characters are boring, and 2) perfection doesn't exist in...
    683 replies | 18665 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 01:25 PM
    Er. It didn't miss the point of the OP, because it wasn't about the OP. The discussion has moved on in some parts of the thread. That's how threads work.
    683 replies | 18665 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Maxperson's Avatar
    Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, 01:21 PM
    If it's left to a die roll or the DM's decision, there is no real test of character. The test comes from the player in the role of the PC being caught in a situation which tests his PC's character. He and the others at the table are only really going to learn what the PC is made of if the player makes the decision. If it's left to the die roll or DM to decide, the drama virtually vanishes. ...
    683 replies | 18665 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
9,388
Posts Per Day
1.73
Last Post
2e, the most lethal edition? Today 07:10 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
0
General Information
Last Activity
Today 07:19 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

Friday, 28th June, 2019


Thursday, 27th June, 2019


Wednesday, 26th June, 2019


Tuesday, 25th June, 2019




Tuesday, 19th March, 2019

  • 01:08 AM - pemerton mentioned Maxperson in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    No edition restricts the addition of background after play has started.I think this comment can be generalised: Maxperson's assertions about how PC knowledge, PC background etc are to be handled may be true accounts of how he likes to play the game, but find little support in D&D rules texts, esepecially 4e. The purpose of backgrounds is informational about the PC, not to gain mechanical advantages during game play. Sure, there will be the occasional mechanical advantage such as information about some sort of monster or other, but by and large the background is just fluff. Even when I bring in a portion of it, making that aspect of the background matter and being better for play, it will generally be fluff and carry no mechanical value at all. For example, a player in my game had his PC befriend a hermit. I might one day have that hermit one day track his PC down and ask him to help with some bandits that have taken up residence near the hermit's remote location, making it difficult for him to live. The purpose of backgrounds is informational, yes, but I would say more importantly that it's also...

Monday, 18th March, 2019

  • 12:37 PM - pemerton mentioned Maxperson in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    Earlier you were suggesting that if the player (but not the PC) had the requisite knowledge then there wouldn't even be a check; that the knowledge would be automatic.Sorry, this is incoherent: it can't be the case both that something is automatically known to the PC, and that it is known to the player but not the PC. So I don't know what you're trying to say here. if you're using player knowledge over character knowledge then he's right: you're role-playing yourself rather than your PC.The point that I, hawkeyefan and others are making is that there is no reaosn to doubt that it is character knowledge. If the player imputes the knowledge to the character, then the player is using character knowledge. Maxperson is asserting that the rules of the game forbid the player from imputing such knowledge to a character, while asserting at the same time that there is no problem with imputing to the character knowledge of how to search for traps, look for secret doors, etc. My claim, in response, is that this distinction is arbitrary and without foundation except as a local table convention. Were it me, a PC with a peasant background would very likely have a penalty on such a knowledge check, while a PC with an engineering background or any sort of Rogue/Thief training would have a bonus or even not require a check at all (potential bonuses would be looked at first and if any existed then any penalties would go away).Knowledge checks don't come into it. In the AD&D, B/X other D&D rules, a player doesn't need to make a knowledge check in order to declare that his/her PC searches for secret doors, or that s/he is tapping the floor looking for pressure plates. My point is that it is no more "metaga...

Saturday, 16th March, 2019

  • 05:50 AM - pemerton mentioned Maxperson in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    ...e player is reasoning what story can I tell about my character to license the use of fire to attack this troll? That doesn't seem like roleplaying at all, because it's not first-person in-character reasoning, but rather third-person how can I satisfy the expectations of the GM and table reasoning. It actually reminds me of the following remark by Eero Tuovinen: nstead of only having to worry about expressing his character and making decisions for him, the player is thrust into a position of [i]authorship: he has to make decisions that are not predicated on the best interests of his character, but on the best interests of the story itself. . . . I find that the riddle of roleplaying is answered thusly: it is more fun to play a roleplaying game than write a novel because the game by the virtue of its system allows you to take on a variety of roles that are inherently more entertaining than that of pure authorship. This is the alienation that I mentioned about in response to Maxperson: the method that you describe, which seems like a version of what Maxperson is also putting forward, requires the player to subordinate playing as one's character and pursuing the character's interests to what does my table regard as a sufficient basis for a character to recognise the vulnerability of a troll to fire. To me, the second thing seems quite unappealing, even insipid.

Friday, 15th March, 2019

  • 12:59 PM - Aldarc mentioned Maxperson in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    Which at the very least would include the standard definition that I use, so it's wrong to say that it isn't metagaming.Okay. However, I would not say that a player inputing their knowledge of trolls into their characters is metagaming anymore than a player inputting their knowledge about apple pie to thermodynamics in their characters entails metagaming. Trolls are part of the world that the characters inhabit. And if it seems reasonable, then a player should have sufficient autonomy over their character to declare passing knowledge of troll weaknesses. Again, these players also have the same option to roleplay ignorance, if they feel it fits their characters. Again, Maxperson, if you have not done so already, I highly recommend reading Angry DM's article on metagaming which discusses the issue of troll weakness: Dear GMs: Metagaming is YOUR Fault. There is also this lovely blog post by a different author: Metagaming is Good, which talks about embracing player knowledge of troll weaknesses as an opportunity for players to establish new fiction and characterization surrounding their characters. However, I am sure that your buttocks will clench shut once you read his statement "Realism is boring anyways" in bold. ;) If it does, then you are playing in the wrong game and should go find one that better suits your needs.Of course, and many have done so. This is why some people dislike games like Fate. I have to accept that regardless of how immersed my players are in roleplaying their characters using Fate, some people will have their immersion broken by some of its mechanics. And I have seen and experienced players who told me that they felt alienated fr...

Thursday, 14th March, 2019

  • 05:26 PM - Sadras mentioned Maxperson in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    But the point is that you can method roleplay that your characters are cognizant of troll vulnerabilities. The idea that they must method roleplay from a (DM) predetermined position of ignorance or be accused of "cheating" is the point of contention. Imagine that we were students in a college course and the class professor presumed that we should all be ignorant about a subject matter, no matter how obscure that they may regard it, and they subsequently penalized us for having and exercising prior knowledge of the material. Why should my choices be restricted to going through the motions of feigning ignorance (largely for the sake of the professor's ego) or be penalized for having acquired prior knowledge in my experiences? And yet this is the scenario that we are facing. I'm sure you were aware my response was largely tongue-and-cheek, but you make an interesting point. I will attempt to play devil's advocate here, but I'm not all convinced of this position. I think @Lanefan or @Maxperson might probably do a better job defending this. In 5e, when one plays true to their character, one may be incentivised with an Inspiration Point. i.e. the penalty might be offset by a mechanical advantage that may be used in the fiction. I don't know if that is possible in earlier editions (3.x and earlier, including BECMI). Practically (in play) after the first round of attacks and only after some have hit (this is important), the DM could/should give the players a chance to roll an Intelligence check to figure out something with regards to the beast's vulnerability or they could just Say Yes and provide the information since the gotcha moment of the puzzle has been passed.
  • 03:14 PM - pemerton mentioned Maxperson in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    or continually attempt actions or activities their characters would have no knowledge of."Using fire to attack a troll is not an action that a character would have no knowledge of. Heck, the class table in the AD&D PHB even lists whether or not each class can use flaming oil (all can except monks). I'm telling you how the game was actually played, in the skilled play paradigm, at the time Gygax was writing his rules. It was taken for granted that players improved their knowledge of the game over time. That was an aspect of what skilled play meant. In that respect, it was a form of wargaming. Lanefan, upthread, following the logic of your (that is, Maxperson's) preferences, said that it woudl be good roleplaying to let your PC be killed by a troll rather than rely on your knowledge that a troll is vulnerable to fire. That's the opposite of skilled play as Gygax describes it. Playing the game your and Lanefan's way will not mean that the PCs of more experienced players are more successful as adventurers, because - if the game is played your and Lanefan's way - then an experienced player will deliberately not draw upon his/her experience in playing his/her PC. What you and Lanefan are advocating is an approach to play that I would say had its first express system support in RuenQuest or Chivalry & Sorcery, in the late 70s. No doubt people were playing D&D that way in that time also, but in doing so they were disregarding Gygax's advice, not following it.

Wednesday, 13th March, 2019

  • 11:33 PM - pemerton mentioned Maxperson in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    Well, assuming I am running a game where (1) there are trolls, (2) trolls and their weaknesses are not common knowledge to whatever civilization that the PCs are part of, and (3) the party hasn't previously run into trolls and learned all about them, then... First, any PCs with the appropriate skill can roll to see if the recognize the troll. If they roll well, then I tell them they know what they are dealing with, what the weaknesses are, etc. If they fail the skill roll, then I let them know they see "Large green humanoids" that they cannot identify. It is up to the PCs what happens next. I rarely ambush my players, so there is a good chance that if they are running into a new monster, they will have options to avoid or retreat. Maybe they decide to go back to town and research it. But, assuming they have somehow got themselves into a combat situation, then after a few rounds it will be clear that the creature they are battling has incredible regenerative capabilities. What happens then,...
  • 11:32 PM - pemerton mentioned Maxperson in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    ..., the question is "how much is allowed?" rather than "is any allowed?" <snip> There are plenty of ways to allow metagaming that are acceptable and which can enhance the game rather than take away from it.D&D has its origins in wargaming. When I replay a waragme, I'm expected to use the skill and information I acquired the first time I played it. That's how I get better. When D&D was invented, players were expected to use the skill and information they acquired the first time the played. That was how players got better. That's part of what Gygax had in mind when he advocated "skilled play". This is why early D&D is characterised by so much new content introduction (new monsters, new traps, etc), and sharing of these items among referees. Referees needed a constant supply of new puzzles to keep challenging their players. (And the idea that this has anything in common with cheating at a module is ludicrous. The only person who has trouble distinguishing the two cases is Maxperson.) The idea that a player who has skill would, in the course of playing the game, pretend not to have it, is one that post-dates the origins of D&D. It's certainly not the only way to play D&D, and frankly to me it seems rather degeneate - no one in this thread has even explained how it would work. If the PC already has the knowledge because, for instance, the player has the knowledge and is acting on it, then obviously no check is required and the monster knowledge check rules do not apply.If you house rule the bolded portion in, sure. The skill itself is intended to be used to determine PC knowledge when there is no in game reason for the PC to know the information They are also devices for telling a knowledgeable player playing an ignorant character when the player knowledge may be used (success on the skill check) and when it may not (failure on said check).The two of you are just making this up. I"ve quoted the rule. The rule says nothing about when a check is or isn't r...
  • 03:22 PM - Aldarc mentioned Maxperson in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    ...ed and we are forced to repeat ourselves in explaining the basics all over again even after y'all claim to get it? You may understand it, but hopefully you can appreciate how we are often led to believe that y'all don't. :erm: I know, for example, that the discussion of "fail forward" will inevitably come up again in some thread. And when it does, certain people who I know have been in conversations where "fail forward" is explained at great length by people in this thread will likely contribute their same misunderstandings about it. Which will result in the usual group attempting to correct their understanding, only for this person to just go back to square one again either in the same conversation or in a future one. So if you have knowledge and understanding of these differences, then please demonstrate it at the outset rather than forcing us to retread old ground... again. But if these differences between approaches and systems were actually understood and appreciated, Maxperson, would someone be asking a question that deliberately seeks to suggest that there is no difference? :confused:

Tuesday, 12th March, 2019

  • 02:32 PM - Numidius mentioned Maxperson in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    A TPK is about to occurr. One PC might give resolutive help, but dares not because metagaming. Players and Gm pause for a moment... what happens then? I'm sincerely curious on how Maxperson would approach it
  • 09:53 AM - pemerton mentioned Maxperson in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    Maxperson, did you read the bits of the rules that I bolded: the monster knowledge checks apply when a check is made to determine a PC's knowledge. If the PC already has the knowledge because, for instance, the player has the knowledge and is acting on it, then obviously no check is required and the monster knowledge check rules do not apply. The point being, therefore, that hawkeyefan's example - of a player narrating his/her PC having been told a tale about trolls by an adventuring uncle, thereby rationalising in the fiction how it is that the PC (like the player) knows that fire is needed to kill trolls - is completely consistent with the 4e rules for player and PC knowledge about monsters.

Sunday, 10th March, 2019

  • 03:17 AM - Asgorath mentioned Maxperson in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    This example is wrong. The person had already taken that attack action he just hadn't finished. Please show me the text in the PHB that says the Attack action is separate from the attack(s) it grants. All I see is this: "With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack." and: "Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn." So, if you haven't made an attack, you haven't taken the Attack action. If you don't take the Attack action on your turn, how do you have the Shield Master bonus action? That's the part I don't follow. I could understand this interpretation if the Attack action said something like "you can make one melee or ranged attack until the end of your turn", as that explicitly lists a duration of the effect (much like the Disengage action). It doesn't say that, it says you make one or more attacks, which brings us back to the point Maxperson was making about the Attack action being inseparable from the attacks it grants. If this is not correct, please show me the words in the PHB that explains how this really works. Otherwise, it seems like you're just adding things that aren't in the rules.

Saturday, 9th March, 2019

  • 03:33 PM - pemerton mentioned Maxperson in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    ...is discernible within, or pertains to, the content of the fiction itself. Surprise is generally not considered a negative emotion so I'm ok with hard no's which build on the exploration and puzzle feature. Again it is all a matter of taste. if I was playing in a game where a signficant number of my attempts to change the fiction got reframed by the GM as opportunities to provide me with the outcomes of exploration - ie to tell me more about the gameworld and fiction as they conceive of it - then that wouldn't be fine and I'd be out of there quick smart.Bold emphasis mine. When you say significant number, Max has every right to throw in jerk DM.I honestly don't understand how you can assert the two things I've quoted just above. If it's a matter of taste - which is what I said in the OP of this thread - then how can someone be a jerk just because they have different tastes from mine? From the way in which you post about them I am pretty sure that, for me, the games you and Maxperson run would fall foul of my "significant number" constraint. But presumably neither of you thinks that you are a jerk.
  • 09:39 AM - pemerton mentioned Maxperson in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    ...en there's nothing the GM can really do about it. The question of what rules a group of people is going to use to play a game is something that only the group can answer. A GM can always say 'no' to something she doesn't want to run or doesn't want in the game.And the same is true of players. There is nothing here but symmetry. I pull out the smackdown hammer if-when PCs try to get involved in macro-economics and trade and stocks and futures and buy-low-sell-high and compound interest rather than adventuring (which one of my players in particular would looooove to do on the meta-level): I've flat-out said a long time ago that if they want to do this crap then they'll have to find someone else to DM itRight. And if some other Victorian is offering to GM a trade-and-compound-interest game and all the players in the neighbourhood say If you want to run that crap then you'll have tofind someone else to play it then that GM won't get to play that particular game. As I said to Maxperson, this is all just social negotiation where every participant is formally equal. The players cannot force the DM to accept their wishes. They have no power to do so.And the GM can't force the players to accept his/her wishes. S/he has no power to do so. The DM has a house rule whether he has players or not. He has the house. He has the game. The rules of the game are changed. It won't do him much good without players, but the house rule exists.This is abusrd sophistry. But if we're going to go down this path, then the player has his/her house rule too. That palyer has a game with that rule. It's just that no one is playing or refereeing it. So then Player May I is a thing? If the DM doesn't have the authority, because the players can do as they wish, then it's Player May I, not Mother May I.I don't even know what you're talking about here. This sub-topic is a discusion of settling the rules of play, not resolving actions. But "Mother may I" is a label applied to an app...
  • 01:47 AM - hawkeyefan mentioned Maxperson in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    Maxperson I am wondering, setting aside the whole “Mother May I” label and also the idea that someone can pick up a copy of Shadowrun and house rule it till it’s Monopoly, would you describe D&D as a DM driven game? If so, why? If not, why not? And what would be an example of a GM Driven game in your opinion?

Friday, 8th March, 2019

  • 01:35 AM - Aldarc mentioned Maxperson in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    ... is a player issue, then why is this issue of "foul play" entirely absent in the player's manual where a player, who would obviously need to know of its illegality as part of play, could find it? All that said, I'm of a similar mind as the Angry GM when it comes to metagaming. Metagaming is more often than not a symptom that the social contract already broke down between players and the GM, and it's not always the player's fault: "Dear GMs: Metagaming is YOUR Fault." BTW, Max, I am still awaiting your alternative term for Mother-May-I that you think would be more suitable to describe the practice. If you don't like the term "practice," for reasons you have already provided, then substitute "practice" with "this particular aspect of dysfunctional play that jerk DMs do." You have definitely had more than a second of thought to come up with one by this point. ;) Edit: So you could just call it "GM decides"? I would think that would be a lot more neutral terminology.Dear Maxperson: This is an example of a person providing an alternative term. We can of course debate the merits of this alternative term, but they have nevertheless proposed one, and that should be lauded. I was wondering if Ovinomancer was saying that the GM saying "No, Roll to hit" would be Denial of "I Kill the Orc" and thus "Mother May I". (Frankly I'm still wondering).GM: "Let's roll to find out." It's not as if the GMing principle is called "Say yes or it's Mother-May-I." Please remember that a critical part of SYORTD lies in the second part of the phrase: "or roll the dice."

Thursday, 7th March, 2019

  • 12:12 PM - Numidius mentioned Maxperson in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    Right - and I'm sure that you're familiar with Vincent Baker's discussion of this in his designer notes for DitV.I had precisely DitV in mind. --- Weapon stat in BW: Power (damage/critical hit bonus), Add (dice added to location/damage), VA (versus armor), WS (weapon speed), Lenght (weapons are compared in a chart for bonus/malus against each other) In TB weapons are described in terms of how they affect your actions in Kill, Drive Off and Capture conflicts. Each is listed with the bonus or penalty dice for Attack, Defend, Feint and Manouver. Plus Special feature (eg: bypasses shield benefit), and Encumbrance value/location where carried. In TB ammo is not tracked, it merely takes up an inventory slot and can be lost through a twist. Maxperson Lanefan ;)

Wednesday, 6th March, 2019

  • 03:00 PM - Aldarc mentioned Maxperson in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    Max isn't, either, or, at least, he hasn't been able to articulate it clearly.Thankfully he can just say that it's on a spectrum, which allows him to obfuscate terms and move goal posts as needed. Then he can throw in a few of his usual logical fallacy buzzwords, such as accusing you of making a false dichotomy about realism, allowing him to further evade the actual argument in the discussion. Edit: This is all to say, that while I do think that you, Maxperson likely do have your heart in the right place and are a good DM for your table, you can be an aggrevatingly frustrating person to talk to sometimes. ;) Someone mentioned it earlier, it might have been Bedrockgames, where D&D needs to be able to appeal to a wider market, so for those:I'll just be "that guy" and say it, but I don't care about what D&D does. I don't need D&D to be all and end all of RPG experiences. I don't use a D&D as a metric for what I am looking for in a game. Bedrockgames, I think that you are looking for far more offense than is intended with pemerton, and you should probably learn to chill out, because your "counteroffenses" are often unnecessarily disproportionate to what was said, conveyed, or intended. It tends to escalate things. I would at least suggest taking a different tact, because it's clearly not working much for anyone. If you need a good example to follow, I personally think that hawkeyefan is an exemplary poster who know knows how to res...
  • 01:28 PM - pemerton mentioned Maxperson in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    you seem to be questioning the feasibility of posters who express a desire for realism to achieve any level of realismAre you confusing me with Ovinomancer? Not only do I not question the feasibility of achieving some degree of realism, I assert that most of my RPGing has more of it than most of Maxperson's! I think the most interesting domains of realism in a RPG are in the domains of human relations and social and cultural phenomena - because these are also the most interesting domains of realism in fiction generally. There's a form of realism that I don't think is well-suited to RPGing - namely, the fact that most people's lives are (without editing) narratively uninteresting - but I don't think many people, in their RPGing, actually try to reproduce an unedited ilfe. My reason for asserting this is the same as my reason for asserting that very few people have ever actually watched all 5+ hours of Andy Warhol's Sleep.
  • 12:23 PM - Sadras mentioned Maxperson in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    ...record/s or one doesn't is not an indication of what is more real or not. However having said that, I do agree realism can lie on a spectrum, so @Lanefan's table which attempts to account for equipment being damaged due to AoE attacks and environment damage (water, falling)...etc does seem to lean to towards a sounder internal consistency. I might use/allow equipment to be damaged as a possible stake, bargaining chip or even damage replacement. As an example: Player failed their roll for the character's attempt to leap onto beast's back. As DM I might offer Success with Complication. They succeeded, using their masterwork shortsword to grip into the beast's flesh - and hanging on, but the blade broke from the shaft in the struggle. So they still succeeded, but now they have lost their masterwork weapon. The player is free to refuse the fiction offered and just accept the standard fail. The above is certainly a real possibility for the fiction, but that might never happen in say @Maxperson's game depending on the system and homebrew rules he may use. That does not mean his game is any less real than mine though.


No results to display...

Sunday, 7th July, 2019

  • 03:58 PM - pemerton quoted Maxperson in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    "The woman winks at you and melts your heart" has just dictated exactly how the PC responds to the wink.Can you tell us more about exactly what the response is that is dictated?
  • 10:01 AM - stav1369 quoted Maxperson in post No Magic Shops!
    Yes, you can house rule them away. Adventures are not rules. Now, sometimes they have a small section of new rules, but magic items shops have not been included in a rules section in any adventure to date. Um, yes. New rule books can alter rules. Adventures are not rules, though, and the inclusion of magic item shops in those adventures does not contradict any rule. If an adventure includes a magic shop, that's the DM who created that adventure opting to include a magic shop per the page 135 DMG rule. It does not change that DMG rule, nor does it require me to opt into the shop. I can use the same rule he did and just nix the shop. Except not. It just means that the DM looked at page 135 of the DMG and used that rule to place a shop at his discretion. His discretion to engage that rule does not create a new rule. I kind of disagree about official modules/campaigns not being rules (b/c they are created by official developers which translates to Intention of rules in DMG PHB XTGE ...
  • 05:03 AM - Ovinomancer quoted Maxperson in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    If my character is a sucker for a pretty face, I would ignore the wink and declare another action only if there were a valid reason for it. Perhaps I found out during the course of play that 6 of her last 7 husbands died mysteriously and the 7th was never found. If the DM doesn't have an idea on why I am not being influenced, then it's not out of line to question it that way. At that point I'd let him know the reason why it's not having the effect it would ordinarily have. So, not a flaw if it might hurt you.
  • 04:04 AM - hawkeyefan quoted Maxperson in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    If my character is a sucker for a pretty face, I would ignore the wink and declare another action only if there were a valid reason for it. Perhaps I found out during the course of play that 6 of her last 7 husbands died mysteriously and the 7th was never found. If the DM doesn't have an idea on why I am not being influenced, then it's not out of line to question it that way. At that point I'd let him know the reason why it's not having the effect it would ordinarily have. So would a valid reason never be "my character was able to overcome his urge to give in to the maiden"? I mean, that seems a more likely and potentially valid reason than the crazy example you've provided. If it's possible for the character to not give in, but it's entirely up to the player if they can do so, it seems a bit flawed.
  • 03:54 AM - hawkeyefan quoted Maxperson in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    Of course he can challenge it. That's what, "She winks at you." is. A challenge to that flaw. Now it's up to me to roleplay how my PC engages that challenge via his flaw. Neither. It's up to the player how to respond when it's introduced, though. That's what I meant by it's up to the player if it matters. I agree that they could have gone much further with this. However, as it currently stands, it has as much meaning as you give it. We often bring them up ourselves whenever we see moments that apply. If I'm playing a short tempered barbarian, I'm going to roleplay the short temper on a regular basis. We generally forget inspiration anyway, so these things are just roleplayed without any other reward than having fun roleplaying them. As a DM, though, I do give extra RP for that sort of thing, and even more when the appropriate moment is detrimental to the PC/Party, as it's harder to play up those flaws at those moments. I think Inspiration is forgotten by many groups, based o...
  • 03:51 AM - pemerton quoted Maxperson in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    With the wink forcing my PC to act a certain way, it removes every other way to roleplay and only offers up one opportunity, instead of many. It takes away opportunities. Unless you feel that roleplaying means you always get to decide exactly how your character acts at all times. But of so, then why bother with any mechanics at all? To resolve things that are in doubt.What's in doubt? That's not an a priori category. It's a function of genre conceits, table expectations, system design, probably other stuff too. A RPG could be designed where every time I get to decide whether or not the NPC influences me. Or not. It could be designed where every time I get to decide whether or not I dodge the bullets. Or not. Just as D&D has an armour class, and RQ has a parry/dodge roll, so a system could have a "harden my heart" roll - The Dying Earth uses a version of this; so does Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic. These design decisions go to the aesthetics of the play experience (eg a system ...
  • 03:44 AM - pemerton quoted Maxperson in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    This is just flat out wrong. There is no power inherent to a wink that allows the wink to override the PC. None. Nil. Nyet. Zero. Zilch. Nada. They are very different.I don't even know what this means. I'm talking about events in the fiction. In the fiction, there is no such thing as "overriding the PC". There is just one human affectig another. This is a real thing that happens in the real world all the time, so I have no trouble imagining a fantasy wold in which it happens. Galadriel melts Gimli's heart. Aragorn melts Eomer's heart. Frodo almost melts Gollum's heart. Etc. This is a recurrent them in classic fantasy stories.
  • 03:36 AM - Tony Vargas quoted Maxperson in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    For game purposes, it's up to me to decide whether or not my PC has an atypical emotional response. Only if the game gives you that option instead of providing a resolution system (or as part of it.) For example, there was a resolution mechanic for seduction - and quite a lot of other things that might play on emotions (3 of 9 stats were social, one of those was Manipulation), but you could also take a Merit, Blaise, that immunized you from a lot of them, even supernatural ones. Sure, but to me that extra functionality is functionally useless, Irrelevant. This would be an abuse of DM authority in a game like 5e No such thing, in a game like 5e: it simply has faith in the DM. It might mean you're a bad fit for that hypothetical DMs hypothetical campaign, which is totally legit.
  • 01:17 AM - hawkeyefan quoted Maxperson in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    As the player, I know how the PC will react to the wink. I think about the situation, the immediate history between the winker and my PC. I consider other factors like lack of sleep or other possible mitigating factors. And then I come up with how my PC will react, and that is in fact how he will react. If I think there are multiple valid ways that he could react, I will sometimes make a personal roll. If the DM just flat out decides that my PCs heart is warmed by the wink, he has overridden the PCs proper reaction, unless of course I have also determined that to be the proper reaction and would have roleplayed that anyway. The DM isn't in a position to know what the proper reaction for my PC is, so more often than not he will get it wrong. I said let’s say mechanics are involved, not that the GM just decides how the PC reacts. Maybe the maiden makes a Persuasion check or a Consort roll or a Diplomacy action....whatever mechanic may be relevant for the game. Let’s say the GM rolls well......
  • 01:03 AM - hawkeyefan quoted Maxperson in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    Sure, but if my PC is a sucker for a pretty face, then I've set that up in advance and let the DM and players know about it. That sort of character flaw is up to me to decide on, not the DM. And that goes for all of the other RPGs that I've played. If you’ve set it up in advance and let the DM know about it, then why can’t he challenge the character with that flaw? I mean, it’s literally a part of the 5E character sheet. Same as Strength and Armor Class and all the other things you decide about your character. Yet the DM can challenge those things (meaning put the character into situations that test those traits) and no one thinks anything of it. But list an actual flaw on the character sheet and then expect that to only be introduced by the player? Or that only the player decides if this weakness matters? It’s a missed opportunity on the part of 5E. Instead of doing something meaningful with the Traits/Ideals/Bonds/Flaws they tied it to Inspiration...the most ironically named game mec...
  • 01:00 AM - Tony Vargas quoted Maxperson in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    Frankly, it doesn't matter what the NPC fully represents. The only part that matters is what my PC can perceive. In this case a wink. Everything else unknown to me is irrelevant Your PC could hypothetically perceive more than the DMs description gets across to you. And there could be less perceptible, less readily articulated, factors that go into influencing his emotional response. I mean, we don't always understand the sources of our emotional responses, do we? unless it's magic, mind control or some other special power that could actually override what my PC is going to do. When there are conflicting vision of how a PC reacts, the player wins(unless playing a game where that doesn't happen). Unless the game in question gives final authority to the player of the PC, it'll go to a resolution system, or, in the absence thereof, to the more usual final arbiter: the GM. Not more functionality. Different functionality. More. Scope if fairly quantifiable. Whether a system i...

Saturday, 6th July, 2019

  • 11:14 PM - Tony Vargas quoted Maxperson in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    Of course not, but I'm the only one qualified to make that determination for my PC on a case-by-case basis.. The DM doesn't have the inside track to my PC the way that I do. OTOH, you may not fully apreciate what the NPC represents. When there are conflicting visions of, or other sources of uncertainty about, the fiction, complete/functional games provide mechanics to resolve them. D&D mostly does so for magic, and given it's history & place in the hobby, that prejudice has become pervasive. But, it's not absolute, and some games do try to deliver more functionality. For instance, storyteller notoriously introduced a dramatic system (resolution mechanic) for seduction. Hero Systems has a mind control power that needn't be supernatural in nature. FATE certainly goes there. Etc...
  • 10:42 PM - Ovinomancer quoted Maxperson in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    Me in direct response to you: "D&D has nothing to do with this. Here are at least a half dozen other RPGs that I've played that are the same way. You and Hawkeyfan: "So it's all D&D with you.'' C'mon guys, really? 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" associated with it. That's pretty locked in -- you can't even see that "magic" isn't doing any work there. I get it, you've played the game so long and had that be part of it that you've built up a set of rationalizations to excuse it from examination. It's just "magic," so of course it can take authority away from the player. And, because it's "magic," it's different from any ot...
  • 08:18 PM - hawkeyefan quoted Maxperson in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    This is just flat out wrong. There is no power inherent to a wink that allows the wink to override the PC. None. Nil. Nyet. Zero. Zilch. Nada. They are very different. What does “override the PC” mean? The PCs will? Their libido? The player’s desire to not face a specific kind of challenge? This is a genuine question. What is being “overridden”? Let’s assume some kind of mechanics are at play and it’s not a case of a GM dictating results, but let’s also assume it has nothing to do with magic in the fiction.
  • 08:08 PM - hawkeyefan quoted Maxperson in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    No it doesn't. Without it I have the opportunity to roleplay the wink as not affecting my PC or as melting his heart. I have two opportunities on how to roleplay(more than two really). With the wink forcing my PC to act a certain way, it removes every other way to roleplay and only offers up one opportunity, instead of many. It takes away opportunities. Unless you feel that roleplaying means you always get to decide exactly how your character acts at all times. But of so, then why bother with any mechanics at all?{/quote] To resolve things that are in doubt. Right. And sometimes, how people will behave can be in doubt. As for taking away options, I don’t think that’s really the case, but that can also be remedied by allowing degrees of success.
  • 08:04 PM - hawkeyefan quoted Maxperson in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    No, because charm is an accepted part of the game. I know going into the game that there are in-fiction mechanics such as charm, dominate, command, etc., to assert control over my PC. A wink is not one of those and shouldn't be. While a wink may not be one of those for a given game (D&D), it may be for others. Should or should it not be is another question. Why not? Haven’t we all known people who don’t always act in their best interests because there’s a person who can always get under their skin, or because they’re a sucker for a pretty face, or any other number of things? Sure, these things can be roleplayed without mechanical rules in place to promote them, but having such rules doesn’t deny roleplaying. It promotes it. I mean, take a character who is never swayed by anyone’s influence ever never unless there’s magic at play. Then take a character who may be influenced from time to time. Now tell me which character’s player will actually have to roleplay more often. I already sa...
  • 07:33 PM - Umbran quoted Maxperson in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    There is no power inherent to a wink that allows the wink to override the PC. None. Nil. Nyet. Zero. Zilch. Nada. They are very different. Do you think that human beings are under their own conscious control at all times? Were you under the impression that attraction to people is somehow governed by conscious will? There is plenty of power in the simplest of human interactions. If you really want to try to argue that, with someone who knows psychology, you probably lose. That, however, isn't really the point, so you shouldn't argue on that basis. There's a stronger argument: There are agreed upon areas of agency. This violates the agreement you have at your table. Period. Full stop. Done. This should not be a discussion about what forms of power are plausible. This should be about which person at the table has agency to do what, and when. This is about the social contract of play. Keep it there, and you can't lose the argument.
  • 07:05 PM - Satyrn quoted Maxperson in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    No it doesn't. Without it I have the opportunity to roleplay the wink as not affecting my PC or as melting his heart. I have two opportunities on how to roleplay(more than two really). With the wink forcing my PC to act a certain way, it removes every other way to roleplay and only offers up one opportunity, instead of many. It takes away opportunities. Unless you feel that roleplaying means you always get to decide exactly how your character acts at all times. But of so, then why bother with any mechanics at all? To resolve things that are in doubt. Aye. I do not want my DM telling me my PC is smitten by the maiden's wink. It's my character, my decision whether that's the case. Ideally the DM should tell me that's the maiden's goal for the wink so I can be better informed and choose to buy in to what the DM is selling. Also Aye: Playing D&D, the mechanics are there to resolve an action when the outcome is doubt. I might decide to ask the DM to roll some dice if I don't know how my cha...
  • 06:45 PM - Tony Vargas quoted Maxperson in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    This is just flat out wrong. There is no power inherent to a wink that allows the wink to override the PC. None. Nil. Nyet. Zero. Zilch. Nada. They are very different. The difference between subtle social queues overriding judgement & rational decision making and magic doing so, is that magic doesn't exist. We've all experienced doing things we knew were bad ideas at the time and later regretted bitterly, because we were manipulated into it, or psychologically vulnerable in some way. It's just part of being human. In fantasy magic does exist, can seize control over a mind- and is often overcome by more powerful forces, like courage, faith, or love. Why would a DM ever say “you lose 50 HP for no reason muhuhahahah!”? . I think the villain laugh is your answer. ;) Seriously though, hp loss can be used, arbitrarily, by the DM as a stick to shove a misbehaving player back in line, or punish inappropriate RP. It's crude code for "I'll throw you out of the game," but I've...
  • 05:15 PM - pemerton quoted Maxperson in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    In fiction is fine. Out of fiction is not fine. All you mentioned above are in fiction acts. Those are all fine.But having someone wink at you is also an infiction act. I don't understand what distiinction you think you're pointing to here. An in game reason that allows the DM to control my PC? Hardly. Absent some sort of mind control, I get to decide if the maiden's wink melts my heart. No, because charm is an accepted part of the game. I know going into the game that there are in-fiction mechanics such as charm, dominate, command, etc., to assert control over my PC. A wink is not one of those and shouldn't be.These are just bare assertions of preference. As Ovinomancer already noted. I already said that there are some games with out of fiction mechanics, that allows the DM to assert control over my PC via something a wink, and that I wouldn't want to play one of those.It's not "out of fiction". The wink occurs in the fiction. The melting of your PC's heart happens in the fi...


Maxperson's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites