View Profile: billd91 - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
  • billd91's Avatar
    Today, 06:17 AM
    I notice it doesnít say anything about seeking out combat. What you highlighted could easily be expected behavior at the point combat has been rendered unavoidable. Or, you know, the stuff that isnít adventuring (which includes other stuff like doping out riddles and traps, exploring, etc. Youíre way too hung up on ďkilling and lootingĒ. You should get that looked at...
    177 replies | 4839 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Friday, 14th June, 2019, 09:11 PM
    I'm not entirely sure they're outdated thinking. D&D's success may derive significantly from its brand, but the class/level paradigm is easy to grasp for new players and casual players. The requirements of point buy systems are a barrier to casual interaction with the game. To put forth an anecdote, when I ran Mutants and Masterminds for my group, a group in which the least experienced player has...
    99 replies | 3988 view(s)
    2 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Friday, 14th June, 2019, 08:54 PM
    2e: Settings - some of the best stuff done for 2e was in the setting work - particularly Al-Qadim and Kara-Tur, but also the art concepts for Planescape (though I hated the annoying patois in which some of the writing appeared). 3e: Somewhat related to mechanics - but I was impressed at how well some of the newer mechanics enabled me to handle special elements of AD&D modules better than the...
    51 replies | 1448 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Friday, 14th June, 2019, 01:13 PM
    Individual level advancement started to be seriously problematic with 3e. In AD&D, advancement was less regular in general for things like the to-hit tables and saves, plus monster vs party balancing was less granular. The game tolerated having PCs at varying levels in the same party better. 3e and 4e both regularized advancement and had more precision in encounter design (4e more than 3e, in...
    177 replies | 4839 view(s)
    2 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 09:59 PM
    It's fantasy - I don't mind it at all. It helps serve as a means of distinguishing them from humans. Without some elements of it, it's all just a numbers game whether you play a dwarf or an elf. And that, to me, is backwards. If I want to play a dwarf, it means I want what that entails - the bonuses and the penalties and not just to make a more min-maxed character. And I'd also like it to mean...
    77 replies | 2686 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 07:41 PM
    Well, yeah, you veer into making evaluations of the person involved, you go past critiquing the game and into the personal sphere that's against the rules around here. Keep it away from that and things should be fine.
    64 replies | 2139 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 07:36 PM
    You don't even have to drill negative consequences into them. Kids bite, for example, because they don't yet have the means to express themselves in any other way. As they develop communication skills, toddler violence goes way down.
    177 replies | 4839 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 01:22 AM
    Almost 4e. Played through the demo scenario and was so frustrated by that final encounter that I was about ready to completely pack it in. In the end, we gave it 9 months because 2 of the players really wanted to give it a go. But I never liked it. In the end, once one of those 2 player had gotten fed up with it, we dropped it to go back to 3e. Several other games were kind of Meh experiences...
    59 replies | 3695 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Wednesday, 12th June, 2019, 01:09 AM
    Traveller: New Era - If you thought Classic Traveller and MegaTraveller were too militarized, you ain't seen nothing yet. Traveller 5 - the big black tome - don't... just don't. Total waste of $75 for the worst organized, most propeller-headed RPG book I've ever seen Dogs in the Vineyard - totally put off by the game's inherent milieu Vampire - largely the same as DitV
    64 replies | 2139 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Tuesday, 11th June, 2019, 05:02 PM
    Honestly, I've enjoyed the lore of 5e for the most part. I think the extra effort they went through to understand their likely market this time paid off. Most enjoyable Monster Manual in years.
    77 replies | 2686 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Tuesday, 11th June, 2019, 04:23 PM
    Online campaigns have almost certainly colored a number of firings in the computer game (online and console) game world. Alison Rapp, Jessica Price, Peter Fries. I don't think you have to find a case of an innocent GM being targeted to be wary of social media campaigns and the impact they can have on real people's lives. Fact is - the tool can be put to evil uses as well as good (depending on...
    419 replies | 16626 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Tuesday, 11th June, 2019, 02:48 PM
    Indeed. And given the fact that the GM in question doesn't seem to be learning any lesson from the ban, then that punishment fits that infraction. The process there is functioning reasonably appropriately, even if it got started indirectly. And I think the overall community is strengthened by knowledge of cases in which these processes work. Doesn't stop me from worrying about some of various...
    419 replies | 16626 view(s)
    1 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Tuesday, 11th June, 2019, 02:11 PM
    As long as we're going to refer back to John Dodd's statement - he also pointed out that 12 of the more than 20 people who contacted him about the incident had misidentified the GM in question. Hence his exhortion to determine and work with reliable information rather than internet rumor. This is why the mob process is risky - it's hard to avoid playing a game of telephone as the story moves...
    419 replies | 16626 view(s)
    1 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Tuesday, 11th June, 2019, 01:54 PM
    That's partly my point - there's no redress, no proportionality you can extract from the mob. The Central Park 5 were able to obtain some redress because there are mechanisms in place that can allow for that (though even the appellate courts had failed them), specifically, there was some entity they could legitimately sue. We'll see if Frog God Games is successful in the suit they've filed.
    419 replies | 16626 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Tuesday, 11th June, 2019, 04:31 AM
    It may not be the gaming community, but there's always the Central Park 5 (recently in the news again thanks to documentaries). We certainly don't want the mob mentality and fake news to reach that point too often. Within the community, I'd have a hard time saying the Satanic Panic of the 1980s wasn't driven by mob mentality. Think of the kind of power it would have via social media. I know...
    419 replies | 16626 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 06:31 PM
    Psst. Check the date on that article.
    165 replies | 10366 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 06:30 PM
    Whenever I read people comparing the complexity of the two editions (2nd and 3rd), I usually find how many people forget the complexity 2e had to offer. For example, there may have been multiple ACs in 3e, but there were caveats with AC in 2e as well. Did you use a shield? If so, your AC depended on facing and position as well as how many attacks were directed at you from the directions covered...
    166 replies | 5318 view(s)
    1 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Monday, 10th June, 2019, 03:23 AM
    Yeah, but it kept the PCs from using their Force points to defend themselves because they could no longer use one to gain a bonus on their saves. In the end, it felt like a net loss for the system, particularly with respect to the setting and the heroic/Jedi ethos of using the Force for defense in preference to attack.
    166 replies | 5318 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Friday, 7th June, 2019, 09:40 PM
    billd91 replied to OotS 1166
    First class ticket to Valhalla, baby!
    2 replies | 220 view(s)
    1 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Friday, 7th June, 2019, 07:56 PM
    But the words also mean the bonus you use against that AC because it's telling you your "to hit" bonus adjusted for that AC. So, I remain unconvinced that your interpretation is what the designer intended. I would agree that's what most people did, particularly when they jettisoned using weapon vs AC type entirely as too cumbersome (and punitive) to be worth it. But use on the ground and intent...
    166 replies | 5318 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Friday, 7th June, 2019, 06:06 PM
    I'm not entirely convinced it's about knowing what target number you had to roll to hit that AC - rather, those columns in the weapon table are AC types in the 1e PH. A player could record their net modifier against each of those AC types. The basic D&D character sheet is clearly different since it doesn't tie those boxes to specific weapons, but since I think that came out after the goldenrod...
    166 replies | 5318 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Friday, 7th June, 2019, 04:39 PM
    Simple - it denies the potential for rehabilitation. Used to be that was a liberal value, but now in the extreme shaming culture that has erupted with social media - that's all chucked out the window in favor of the mob's pound of flesh. And as a liberal, the excessiveness, lack of nuance, and rigid unforgiving attitudes that I see piss me off. Shaming and sanctions have their place, enough to...
    419 replies | 16626 view(s)
    1 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Friday, 7th June, 2019, 05:08 AM
    I generally subtracted my die roll from my character's THAC0 to get what AC he hit. Other players I knew tried the same with varying results thanks to the conceptual challenges lots of people have dealing with negative numbers. So I don't know exactly where your misunderstanding is coming from... but the main issue here is the DM wasn't telling us what our target was. We were telling him what...
    166 replies | 5318 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Friday, 7th June, 2019, 05:01 AM
    I think a lot of it comes down to the psychology. D&D's ACs and THAC0 were proud nails. They didn't make much intuitive sense - they just were and mastering them was a cultural marker that gamers of a certain type (mainly the ones who mastered it) valued.
    166 replies | 5318 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Friday, 7th June, 2019, 04:53 AM
    Maybe not, but just try to explain it. I was enough of a math geek that I got it. But try to explain it to someone who's new and deal with questions like: "So... I add up the +1s, +2s etc and then subtract them from my AC but I add the defensive modifier from my Dexterity to my AC? ...Is adding good or is subtracting? This is stupid." Yeah, that sucked. The armor class system was full of PITA.
    166 replies | 5318 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Friday, 7th June, 2019, 04:48 AM
    I'm pretty sure you're catching DannyA's drift and enjoyment of the irony.
    419 replies | 16626 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Thursday, 6th June, 2019, 11:52 PM
    Why would you know your target number before you roll with THAC0? Is the DM telling you your opponent's AC?
    166 replies | 5318 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Thursday, 6th June, 2019, 06:26 PM
    Algebraically, maybe not. But from a practical perspective, it is more difficult because there are always going to be people having more difficulty with negative numbers than dealing entirely with positive numbers. It has a bad reputation, compared to turning the AC values around in 3e, because it served as a barrier to people understanding and using it. From a usability perspective, there is...
    166 replies | 5318 view(s)
    4 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Thursday, 6th June, 2019, 06:16 PM
    You know, people are bitching about that a lot, but it's not connected with the behavior at UKGE at all. Plus, while the kickstarter is years late - it's actually still generating updates and content, which is doing better than others in the industry (Ken Whitman, I'm looking at you). Frankly, I get tired of the raging complaints lodged by people about Kickstarters. There are people who...
    419 replies | 16626 view(s)
    2 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Thursday, 6th June, 2019, 05:19 AM
    Smells fishy to me. If the GM was going for an Inbetweeners kind of vibe in which the PCs start in a compromising position and hijinks ensue, he didn't get off to a good start. My guess, even if he did intend for the PCs to have sore asses because of the squirts, he probably just described them waking up naked in a van with sore asses and left it to the players to infer what that signified. I...
    419 replies | 16626 view(s)
    2 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 02:38 PM
    I've judged some AL at GameholeCon and the standard for DMs is, more or less, willing to show up. So, yes, it's a pretty low bar. That said, the module I ran (and had to run pretty fast since the time slots last year were only 2 hours), was actually pretty good. Most groups were able to achieve a reasonable 2 of 3 objectives and it seemed like everyone was having a reasonable amount of fun and...
    26 replies | 1053 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Tuesday, 4th June, 2019, 06:55 AM
    Using just pregens is pretty much old school AD&D Open and RPGA tournament territory. But once they started running "Living" campaigns, they found them to be really popular - Living City, Living Greyhawk, Pathfinder Society, and now Adventurer's League. For a lot of people, developing the character as they level up is part of the fun. But, yes, it can lead to challenges in fitting the table or...
    26 replies | 1053 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Saturday, 1st June, 2019, 11:30 PM
    Ultimately, in case like this, if you've communicated with your players about the type of game you want to run and they still come up with a set of freaks that won't fit in, and won't adjust to fit, then clearly you're at an impasse and that game isn't going to work. But that doesn't mean that the better approach is to design the game simply around what the players want to play if that isn't...
    106 replies | 3322 view(s)
    2 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Saturday, 1st June, 2019, 04:52 AM
    There may be a lot of different directions TSR material was going in the 2e era, but I think its core is a lot less of a hodgepodge of semi-disconnected ideas than 1e was.
    162 replies | 6289 view(s)
    1 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Friday, 31st May, 2019, 02:22 PM
    That's what a lot of people assume, but it's not actually true. The "Hovering at Death's Door" rule was explicitly an optional rule presented in the DMG. The PH says the character dies at 0 hit points. Most people may have used it, but it's not in the core assumption and I find it interesting that the game stepped toward more lethal territory in 2e than 1e in this respect.
    162 replies | 6289 view(s)
    1 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Thursday, 30th May, 2019, 10:52 PM
    There was some power there, but the trick was in successfully casting. It was highly interruptable in 2e to a degree not easily matched in subsequent editions. Initiative, action declaration, and casting time played a significant role in this, though it could be fairly complex at times. Stoneskin may have been a fairly useful counter to that, but it was ablated away by attacks directed at the...
    162 replies | 6289 view(s)
    3 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Thursday, 30th May, 2019, 06:35 PM
    Game designer Alejandro (Alex) Melchor has passed away. According to facebook page Roll for Alex, where they were doing some fundraising for medical expenses, he suffered a stroke. He had quite a few writing and design credits with Mongoose and Green Ronin over the years.
    165 replies | 10366 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Wednesday, 29th May, 2019, 04:37 PM
    There's still a lot of dislike of 4e out there, and not just on the boards. Most D&D players I know on a personal level aren't fans either. But, as has been pointed out, this is a current-edition D&D-oriented board with an active group of serious 4e fans that it has had since 4e debuted. It's not that representative of gamers at large because it involves a lot of self-selection bias in its...
    288 replies | 9925 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Mark CMG's Avatar
    Sunday, 26th May, 2019, 05:07 PM
    Wisconsin lost a legend today . . . https://www.packers.com/news/packers-legend-bart-starr-dies-at-85
    165 replies | 10366 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Mark CMG's Avatar
    Wednesday, 22nd May, 2019, 04:42 AM
    Steven Creech has passed. https://www.hshfuneralhome.com/notices/Steven-Creech https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/help-steve-creech-author-and-game-designer#/
    165 replies | 10366 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Tuesday, 21st May, 2019, 03:46 PM
    Does it matter if it was directed at Sacrosanct or not? Lobbing bombs at people not the game is the core of the edition war.
    288 replies | 9925 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Tuesday, 21st May, 2019, 01:49 PM
    ENWorld has a pretty active group of 4e fans. How that compares with the broader D&D community is anybody's guess. Exactly how representative the boards are of the broader community is always a question due to selection bias, so don't assume any poll is indicative of the broader gaming community.
    288 replies | 9925 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Monday, 20th May, 2019, 03:09 AM
    Lots of selective memory in this post.
    288 replies | 9925 view(s)
    1 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Sunday, 19th May, 2019, 09:50 PM
    The terms of the poll don't allow you to infer that, even from the answers there. The poll is about favorite edition and says nothing about what an individual participant's second favorite is. That said, given the polarizing nature of 4e on the boards, if someone ran a poll about least favorite edition, I think 4e would have a very strong showing.
    288 replies | 9925 view(s)
    3 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Sunday, 19th May, 2019, 05:08 PM
    Since it's the edition that's so different, I suspect that for people who feel it's their favorite, the distinction is extremely clear and unambiguous. Meanwhile, we've got a substantial number of people reporting difficulty between choosing between 2e and 3e, some probably reporting on the 2e answer, some on 3e but really kind of existing in a shadow in between the two choices.
    288 replies | 9925 view(s)
    0 XP
  • billd91's Avatar
    Sunday, 19th May, 2019, 05:04 PM
    It's a very tough question between 2e and 3e/PF. I think 3e/PF just barely holds an edge but I really do feel it's some of the additions made by PF that push the 3e family over that crest.
    288 replies | 9925 view(s)
    0 XP
No More Results
About billd91

Basic Information

Date of Birth
December 31
About billd91
Location:
Verona, WI
Disable sharing sidebar?:
Yes
Sex:
Male
Age Group:
Over 40
Social Networking

If you can be contacted on social networks, feel free to mention it here.

Twitter:
billdunn91

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
10,708
Posts Per Day
1.70
Last Post
Why are we okay with violence in RPGs? Today 06:17 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
2
General Information
Last Activity
Today 02:42 PM
Join Date
Wednesday, 6th March, 2002
Home Page
http://billsflix.blogspot.com/
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
3

4 Friends

  1. knasser knasser is offline

    Member

    knasser
  2. Mark CMG Mark CMG is offline

    Member

    Mark CMG
  3. MintMMs MintMMs is offline

    Member

    MintMMs
  4. Tovec Tovec is offline

    Member

    Tovec
Showing Friends 1 to 4 of 4
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Saturday, 15th June, 2019


Friday, 14th June, 2019


Tuesday, 11th June, 2019


Saturday, 8th June, 2019


Friday, 7th June, 2019


Thursday, 6th June, 2019



Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Friday, 14th June, 2019

  • 09:13 PM - Lanefan mentioned billd91 in post Why are we okay with violence in RPGs?
    Sure, XPs has its 'negatives' too, although not everyone sees all of that as bad. Having read many of @Lanefan's posts about the table he and his group run, I'd say they're ok with much of it. They easily run disproportionate leveled characters at their table with no worries, and have a lot of fun doing so. The higher-leveled characters shielding the newbies, with character death being a certainty.:DIn fairness, I think Lylandra was referring to newbie players rather than characters. But yes, and back to the theme of system flexibility, 0-1-2e are far more flexible as regards in-party level variance than either 3e or 4e are; 5e has trended back towards this flexibility which is excellent. (EDIT: billd91 got to this ahead of me, upthread) And that brings up another issue I have with milestone levelling - lower level characters can never "catch up". Also, how does one ever introduce items or events that give an individual character a level - or take one away? What happens if a character gets a wish and wishes to go up a level - does the whole party get dragged along for the ride? In a long-term campaign things like this will happen, and level variance is thus inevitable unless the DM does some very arbitrary forcing of things.

Tuesday, 11th June, 2019

  • 02:38 PM - lowkey13 mentioned billd91 in post Players 'distressed' by gang-rape role-playing game
    ...as nothing I could have done with this, no way I could have seen, but it still happened on my watch and I feel responsible for it. We are all responsible, these are our shows, our people, we are all responsibleÖ We do not stand for behaviour like this, and Iím glad it made the national news, because anyone looking can see that not only did it happen, but that it was stamped on hard and that the community does not stand for it. A short while back, I did an interview with ENworld, the content of which can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMKilVWLdtQ with my comments on Harrassment policies being found around the 1:13 mark. This was how things were back then, they are still my comments now, we did what I said we would, and we did it fast. So, there was a quick (and thorough) investigation. The charges were not disputed. The Convention immediately removed him, but did not otherwise release his name. The person doing the investigation cautioned about social media (h/t billd91 !!!) What is there not be certain about? This is all at the link that @Riley37 provided to you.

Friday, 7th June, 2019

  • 07:58 PM - Ovinomancer mentioned billd91 in post Players 'distressed' by gang-rape role-playing game
    Um... he was using liberal in the classical sense, not in the modern American polemic sense. I know because I'm usually nowhere near billd91 politically, but understand his point about liberal values. It's Enlightenment liberal, not politics liberal.

Thursday, 6th June, 2019

  • 08:18 AM - Hussar mentioned billd91 in post Players 'distressed' by gang-rape role-playing game
    Smells fishy to me. If the GM was going for an Inbetweeners kind of vibe in which the PCs start in a compromising position and hijinks ensue, he didn't get off to a good start. My guess, even if he did intend for the PCs to have sore asses because of the squirts, he probably just described them waking up naked in a van with sore asses and left it to the players to infer what that signified. I wouldn't be surprised if he did so deliberately knowing that players might interpret it as being anally raped. While a show like the Inbetweeners might be able to play some of that off with humor (particularly around a character like Jay), it isn't going to work for your average con game. And obviously so. Yeah, I pretty much have to go with billd91 here. His explanation leaves a lot more questions than answers, and, frankly, I'm having a pretty hard time believing that a player would be that disturbed by a depiction of rape that it was a simple "misunderstanding" and that he had no idea, not a single clue that anything was awry. IOW, he's trying to paint the player as fabricating the whole thing just for attention. I'm really not buying it.

Friday, 29th March, 2019

  • 02:12 AM - 77IM mentioned billd91 in post Unsatisfied with the D&D 5e skill system
    ...cine, maybe Nature. Conversely, :):):):)ing PERCEPTION is rolled like every 5 minutes. Skills like Athletics and Arcana and Persuasion fall somewhere in the middle. Then there are oddballs like Stealth, which can be tremendously useful for certain characters and seldom used by others. Obviously, this varies somewhat by table and DMing style. Some DMs put a lot of effort into finding uses for all skills. But I don't think it's a stretch to say that in general the current skills are not really balanced. I'm not saying that this is a problem -- I personally find the skill list "balanced enough" that it's not worth house-ruling. But, twofalls, if you are going to expand the skill list in some way, this is something you should keep in mind. Splitting up a skill like Acrobatics into Climbing, Swimming, Running and Jumping sounds good, but now each of those skills is much less attractive than the consolidated Athletics. And even though I rag on Perception as overpowered, I agree with billd91 that you shouldn't split it up, because it becomes too confusing which one to use. (The fact that it is rolled frequently makes simplicity really important.) One potential solution here is to have skills cost different amount of "points." So maybe you have Nature proficiency cost 1 point, Climbing costs 2 points, Acrobatics costs 4 points, and Perception costs 8 points, or something like that. Give everybody 4 points per skill they used to have -- so 8 points for backgrounds, 8 points for most classes but 12 for bards/rangers and 16 for rogues, 8 bonus points for half-elves, etc. This way players who pick a really great skill like Perception have to pay for it, while the low cost would allow players to pick up tons of "flavorful" but minor skills like Nature, Animal Handling, Planar Lore, Riding, Ancient History, Modern History, etc. A related idea is to have skills and fractional skills. So maybe you can buy Athletics for 6 points, or you can buy Athletics/Climbing for 2 points, At...

Monday, 18th February, 2019


Wednesday, 6th February, 2019

  • 11:15 AM - Sadras mentioned billd91 in post Introducing Complications Without Forcing Players to Play the "Mother May I?" Game
    To me that just suggests bad mechanics! I don't see how. Ah yes. The Mother-May-I One-True Wayist manifesto. I'm not the one ascribing another style with a pejorative but hey we all see what we want to. Can a player use any skill check/ability to get the shard back? If not, why not? I have bolded the bits which, to me, suggest that the player's success in persuading the giant to return the shard was conditional on the GM's opinion about what makes for good or bad fiction (here expressed in terms of reasonable cause of action for the frost giant). You're suggesting it is better that the GM cannot roleplay the NPCs he/she introduces into the game world, and when I mean roleplay, I mean free of any mechanics (i.e. die rolls). I admit I find that odd. Could the FG in your game talk the PC out of wanting the shard returned i.e. the FG makes a diplomacy/persuade roll? Also like @billd91 mentioned in the other thread, isn't the DM ascribing a lower or higher DC to a roll reflecting his/her opinion on what makes good or bad fiction? EDIT: MMI kicks in if there is 0% or less chance of success on the player's action declaration, but 1% possible success or higher is ok? I think that is the sort of thing the OP is trying to avoid when using the phrase "without forcing players to play the "Mother may I" game". Ah, you mean without forcing players to provide further details for their action declarations so as DMs we can adjudicate the likely chance of success. Such Bad DMs. :) Eric: I try get my shard back from the Frost Giant without starting a fight. DM: How do you go about that, she has already placed it back in her hair? Eric: I use diplomacy, I'm proficient. DM: Cool, what do you say to her? Eric: Well, I ask nicely, smile a lot and bow often? DM: Is there something specific that you say? Eric: Nah, I have a +7 on my Diplomacy roll. My character is rea...

Tuesday, 22nd January, 2019

  • 07:13 PM - Ralif Redhammer mentioned billd91 in post Would you invite this player?
    Iíve learned the hard way that good friends donít always make for good people to game with. I put up with a lot of nonsense from friends at the gaming table, until I didnít. But I suppose it depends on how much youíre willing to manage the potential difficulties. A lot of what you described could in theory be easily resolved. Stuff like, if he tries to steal from other PCS, ďIím sorry, but PCs arenít allowed to steal from the party and other PCs in my games;Ē and, for the spotlight hogging ďOkay, weíll get to you when your turn comes around, but PC#2 is currently doing something.Ē It is a gamble, but as billd91 said, we all had to start somewhere as players, probably somewhere near the bottom. (and good friend)

Tuesday, 23rd October, 2018

  • 09:28 AM - Hussar mentioned billd91 in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    I have found the opposite to be true, actually. Rerolling initiative every round has generally been to the party's benefit, despite some "exciting" moments. It creates unpredictability, which the player characters (being more versatile) can take advantage of better than typical NPCs. This has been true of a party level 5 - 7, and a party 11 - 13. I might be the case that rerolling init made the lowest levels more difficult, I haven't tried that. As billd91 said, anything that increases randomness benefits the DM's side of the equation. The players have to get lucky every time. The monsters only have to get lucky once. Sure, it might benefit the PC's and it likely will. But, when it helps the other side, which should also happen fairly frequently, it can radically up the difficulty of an encounter. As far as realism goes, well, that's not a consideration for me. I accept that D&D combat is largely abstract, so, trying to make it more realistic is, to me, just not something I really want to deal with. If I did, I'd wind up rewriting the entire combat section to the point where I might as well play a game that actually has realistic combat. :D

Saturday, 20th October, 2018

  • 09:51 PM - Ovinomancer mentioned billd91 in post 5E's "Missed Opportunities?"
    ...than a +1. If you need a 2 you have a 95% to succeed normally, and 95% + 5% * 95% = 99.75%, agains slightly less than +1. This is the minimum. If you need an 11, you have a 50% normally, and a 50% + 50% * 50% = 75% with advantage. That's the equivalent of +5. This is the maximum. Your +/-6 to +/-7 is outside the range of what is possible. That mean it is likely not the average. You may want to double check you math. One common mistake I've seen is working out to roll 2d20 and subtract the higher fromt he lower. That's really comparing advantage (best for 2d20) with disadvantage (worst of 2d20). It's clear if you work it out as percentages what it can be for every target. Man, these arguments hurt me because there's this weird thing where everyone tries to map a normal distribution onto a flat distribution via +/-. It's wrong in a technical way. But, I'm an engineer, so that's probably just my bag. That said, the above is the right wrong way to do it Retreater, billd91. The "bonus" that advantage applies differs depending on what the target number on the d20 is for success. It's greatest in the middle, where it increases the chance of success by 25%, and weaker on the ends where it's bit less than a 5% bump. If you need to roll a 20, advantage helps by almost doubling your chances from 1/20 to 19/400, but if you need an 11, advantage increases your chances from 10/20 to 15/20. If you need a 2, advantage bumps you from a 19/20 to 399/400.

Tuesday, 16th October, 2018

  • 10:06 AM - pemerton mentioned billd91 in post What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?
    ...is is insistent on the point doesn't answer the point. The idea of the DL-style game is that at least the players provide a bit of colour and a few minor decision points. But if the GM is also establishing the most important bits of PC colour, telling me what decisions are and are not appropriate for a worshipper of XYZ, etc - well, what's left for the player to do? ut no one's offered a reason why a player playing a cleric or warlock whose god/patron is happy with what s/he does, or playing a motorcycle-riding vampire, would wreck the game.I was under the impression the god/patron was not happy (being played by the DM).But that's exactly my point. If the player's preference that the whole god/patron thing be "backgrounded" was respected then the god/patron would be happy. But for whatever reason the GM is inserting his/her own preference to decide that the god/patron is not happy. For what reason? If the GM thinks the player is just a wrecker - which eg was the implication of billd91's reference upthread to "murder-hoboing" - then as Aldarc has said, that's a social problem that can be resolved by a sensible conversation among participants. It's not an aspect of game play at all. But if the issue is not that the PC is wrecking things - eg if the PC was playing a wizard or a fighter or whatever no one would have any issues - then why is the GM needing to insert his/her conception of what the patron/god wants in favour of the player's conception of the same? How is that improving the experience? Telling me that we're not talking about story-now play doesn't help - even within the follow-the-GM's-trail paradigm, I dont understand what this is supposed to be adding to the play experience. In fact when the PC played a warlock in my game and chose a darker patron, I asked him what he wanted me to explore, how much had he developed the patron and how much input he wanted from me.That seems to imply that you are interested in identifying and respecting the player's ...

Sunday, 14th October, 2018

  • 05:26 AM - Maxperson mentioned billd91 in post What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?
    But, who's forcing the DM to do anything here? If anything, I'm giving less work for the DM. The DM no longer has to worry about what to do, if anything, with this patron. The player is not interested in playing that out. Why would you, as a DM, knowing that the player isn't interested, bring it into the game? Again, who is it for? It's not for the player. It's not for the other players. So, the only person it's for is you, the DM. You want to bring it into the game purely for your own enjoyment, knowing that the player doesn't want it. Are you deliberately misunderstanding billd91, or do you genuinely not understand that if the DM wants a game where he controls the NPCs, he's forced to play a game he doesn't want to play if players can force him not to play the patron? We're talking about one small change to one character that isn't going to affect ANYTHING. If it's not going to affect anything, the player shouldn't have a problem with the DM playing the patron.
  • 04:26 AM - Hussar mentioned billd91 in post What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?
    ...t of play) and those orc children escaped. And, after the third, fourth, tenth time, most groups are just going to take it as read anyway. This is the point I keep coming back to. We already Background tons of stuff in play because it's not terribly interesting. How many groups actually, consistently, track spell components? How many groups worry about paying the monthly living expenses? So on and so forth. Sure, you might do it from time to time, but, realistically, it just fades back and becomes a non-issue. Do you seriously destroy a wizard's spell book every time he falls in water? Or gets fireballed or whatnot? Naw, you just take it as read and move on because it's too much of a PITA. Here, we have examples that only really affect one player and the DM. The rest of the group couldn't likely give a toss about it. Do you seriously care how we hide the Druid's animal companion every single time? The funny thing about this conversation is that some posters, like billd91 and 5ekyu are framing it as a powergaming thing. But, look at that warlock's patron. There's two sides to that. Sure, if you have an active patron, then the patron might ask the PC to do something. But, it also works the other way. There's times when the PC can and should be able to call upon his or her patron for help - be it information, or contacting other NPC's or whatnot. By backgrounding, the player loses that side of things as well. Sure, the DM can't force behavior from the player, but, by the same token, the player cannot expect to get anything as well.
  • 12:25 AM - Hussar mentioned billd91 in post What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?
    At this point its pretty obvious you just want to keep inventing things to claim others have said... as i have never said anything that the GM can "force" your character to take certain actions. this was explained in great detail one or more times since you keep mixing and mashing the Gm and the patron. Nor have i said anything about forcing the paladin to take certain actions. That you choose to keep trying to portray it that way is very highly illustrative - so, thanks. wow, you agree with billd91 in the post before this, but, tell me I'm inventing things. :erm: What exactly, then, do you mean that I must accept the consequences of choosing a class if you aren't going to force anything?

Tuesday, 2nd October, 2018

  • 06:52 AM - pemerton mentioned billd91 in post Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals
    It's much more than 10 outcomes! Say there are 5 people, we need a contest between each, first, and then... the pain begins... Say this is what happens A beats B A beats C A loses to D A loses to E Seems like A is in the middle of the pack, but... D loses to C E loses to B No idea where this is going, but now we need to resolve... everyone against everyone...I think the assumption that billd91 has made is probably the same as the one that Hriston has made explicit: each participant makes only one check, which is compared vs the check of all the other participants. So if A beats B but loses to E, that means that E beats B, which precludes the contradictory situation you are concerned about. The thing I don't get in this discussion is: how do you and Maxperson handle an attempt by three people to be the first to grab the ring? You couldn't do it the way you've described (independent binary checks) because of the risk of contradiction. So presumably you'd do it . . . just the same as initiative is done! (Except for having some differerent approach to handlling ties.)

Monday, 18th June, 2018

  • 03:01 AM - pemerton mentioned billd91 in post Flipping the Table: Did Removing Miniatures Save D&D?
    Lanefan, billd91 - Tony Vargas's reply makes the point that needs to be made aboout "realism" in a hit point paradigm. As far as narration of hp loss and zero hp is concerned - if you're narrating hp loss, and dropping to zero hp, in surgical detail, and then having your suspension of disbelief disrupted by the recovery that the game rules provide for, well, I would suggest changing your narration! As I posted upthread, as a former RM player/GM, and someone who was pretty familiar with the drfit from AD&D to RM, RQ etc in the 80s/early 90s, it remains very strange to see posters arguing for AC-&-hp combat on "realism" grounds, and to be distinguishing AD&D or 3E from 4e on that basis. Also, someone upthread (maybe Sadras) mentioned tinkering - the most trivial tinkering possible to a RPG is to change the short and extended rest durations in 4e or 5e. (I don't know how common it is with 5e; based on dicsussions on teese boards it was extremely common with 4e.)

Sunday, 17th June, 2018

  • 09:31 AM - Lanefan mentioned billd91 in post Flipping the Table: Did Removing Miniatures Save D&D?
    (1) It's not "more reallistic". It's different, but it's not realistic. billd91 already covered this one, so...what he said. (2) What makes you think a 4e PC who swoons in combat, and then recovers to fight on, has "had the livin' tar beaten out of him/her"? Maybe you're into nonsense narration, but I'm not. Even in the most gamist and-or disconnected versions of what hit points represent in any edition that I've seen posted in those arguments, a common theme is that going to (or below, pre-4e) 0 h.p. means you've taken enough of a beating that if left untended you're quite possibly going to die. The rules of all editions also have it that going to or below 0 is auto-death (0e), is auto-death* if not treated or cured quite soon (1e-2e-3e), or presents a significant risk of death if not treated or cured quite soon (4e-5e). These deaths aren't being caused by fainting. So to suggest someone repeatedly going to or below 0 within a short time "has had the livin' tar beaten out of him/her" is "nonsense narration" falls well below your usual standard, sir; and...

Thursday, 31st May, 2018

  • 01:42 AM - pemerton mentioned billd91 in post Flipping the Table: Did Removing Miniatures Save D&D?
    I don't think its the minis themselves so much as a heavy rule dependence on the spatial reality of the game. The early edition rules about space and positioning were easily handwaved. Not so much with 3e or 4e.That's what I said! But the biggest thing requiring almost pinpoint positioning of melee combatants was weapon reach - could you reach your intended foe or not? Not everyone cared too much about this, but in 1e RAW it's a thing.Rounds in AD&D are 1 minute, movement rates as 10s of feet per minute, and there are no rules for actually positioning in melee - only for getting cut down when you try to disengage from it! So while weapon reach can matter (eg in establishing first strike in a charging situation; for establishing how many soldiers can work together or fight one another in a confined space; etc) I don't actually see how you need minis/tokesn to track the ways in which it matters. (And I see that billd91 has made much the same point.)

Wednesday, 2nd May, 2018

  • 11:18 AM - pemerton mentioned billd91 in post Game Mechanics And Player Agency
    If we are also using the dice to make the decisions, then why are we bothering to include players?Casting lots to resolve a disagreement among a group is not a thing that I or my group (or Luke Crane) invented. And using dice to establish parameters for choice, as part of playing a game, is not a new thing either. And in the context of RPGing, it's actually pretty standard. I know you're not talking only about this particular aspect of social mechanics, but that was the context in which Hussar made his post that you responded to. it looks like windmills and not real positions you're tilting againstYou must have missed billd91's 5-point reiteration of his reasons for agreeing with Lanefan that the technique I described is "worse than awful". And Lanefan's reiteration of his contention about the technique I described, although on different grounds from billd91's.

Tuesday, 1st May, 2018

  • 01:35 AM - pemerton mentioned billd91 in post Game Mechanics And Player Agency
    I think you're arguing against something no one is claiming, though. Is there a specific post or poster you had in mind? I may have missed it.Yes there is. I posted some examples - reported by others (Luke Crane) and reported by me, from the play of my own campaigns - where social resolution mechanics were used to settle disputes between players (and thus PCs) about what to do next. Lanefan and billd91 posted saying that what I described was awful - Lanefan doesn't like using mechanics to settle an argument at the table; and billd91 claimed it was a signficant abridgement of player agency. My view is that players agreeing to toss a coin doesn't abridge their agency; and that - by pretty strict analogy - players agreeing to be bound by the outcome of a resolution process doesn't either. The difference is that one requires specific roleplaying, the other does not. I can react to an in-game coin flip however I choose. (Anger, reneging on the agreement, relief, etc.) But apparently there are restrictions on how I am supposed to react to somebody else's Persuade roll. "You can react however you want, as long as you are persuaded."I'm not 100% sure what you have in mind here. I was replying to a post by billd91, which was in turn a response to a particular post of mine, about using a mechanical system to resolve an argument between players about what to do next. Here is a re...


Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
No results to display...

Monday, 17th June, 2019

  • 08:03 AM - Hussar quoted billd91 in post Why are we okay with violence in RPGs?
    I notice it doesnít say anything about seeking out combat. What you highlighted could easily be expected behavior at the point combat has been rendered unavoidable. Or, you know, the stuff that isnít adventuring (which includes other stuff like doping out riddles and traps, exploring, etc. Youíre way too hung up on ďkilling and lootingĒ. You should get that looked at... Ok, ok. I surrender. 1e players were renowned throughout the hobby, throughout all the history of RPG's as the greatest, most wonderful roleplayers of all time who never once picked up a d20 unless they absolutely had to and solved nearly every single encounter through spectacular exposition and wonderous words of wisdom. Now, with the revisionist history out of the way, can we get back to reality where D&D=hack and slash was pretty much common knowledge, even back in the day. I mean, good grief, look at the flack Dragonlance gets for trying to inject a story into the game. Heck, among the AD&D crowd, storyga...

Sunday, 16th June, 2019

  • 12:16 AM - Jay Verkuilen quoted billd91 in post Chaotic Good Is The Most Popular Alignment!
    The players who make CN into a problem are simply problem players. Theyíre going to try to be problematic whether they have CN on the sheet or NG, CG, LG, etc. One of my basic rules: don't play a jerk, play someone who will play well with others because this is a team effort. It doesn't have to be all hugs and kum-ba-ya, but the group has the right to eject you if you don't want to play along. I agree overall about the issue of jerks, but in my experience it's often not so cut and dried. I know certain character types can bring out the worst in some people. These players may be totally fine with one kind of character but become really problematic with others. I can think of a few good examples from my own personal experience, but a classic one is a character that really doesn't "play nice" with the rest of the group can be quite difficult. People can also be going through bad times in their lives (relationship stress, divorce, unemployment, etc.) and act out. Furthermore, there can be so...

Saturday, 15th June, 2019

  • 06:59 PM - Oofta quoted billd91 in post Chaotic Good Is The Most Popular Alignment!
    The players who make CN into a problem are simply problem players. Theyíre going to try to be problematic whether they have CN on the sheet or NG, CG, LG, etc. Get rid of the problem players, you get rid of the CN problem. One of my basic rules: don't play a jerk, play someone who will play well with others because this is a team effort. It doesn't have to be all hugs and kum-ba-ya, but the group has the right to eject you if you don't want to play along.
  • 04:19 AM - Hussar quoted billd91 in post Chaotic Good Is The Most Popular Alignment!
    Not really, no. You don't have to be unreliable in any way to be chaotic - rather, the motivations are personally driven rather than based on some kind of external or social expectation. I might expect the PC to speak up for those motivations in discussions, in contrast to group or external expectations, but still be able to 100% fulfill their obligations if they agree to them and still be chaotic neutral. Observable behavior isn't the sole determinant of alignment, particularly the lawful vs chaotic part. Is an action chaotic or lawful? Who the hell knows... unless we know WHY the character did it. Law and chaos are fundamentally different from good and evil because they involve motivation to a far stronger degree. Did the PC choose not to murder someone because murder is illegal and breaks social norms? Or did they choose not to murder someone because it's a nice day and they feel good? Either way, someone didn't get murdered, but the mere fact that someone didn't get murdered tells me...

Friday, 14th June, 2019

  • 03:49 PM - Elfcrusher quoted billd91 in post Why are we okay with violence in RPGs?
    3e and 4e both regularized advancement and had more precision in encounter design (4e more than 3e, in this factor). Characters who lagged more than about a level were put, relatively speaking, at more of a disadvantage. Ultimately, the tighter the design, the more it makes sense to advance them all as a group than as individuals. One thing I really appreciate in games is the extent to which they support/tolerate mixed levels.
  • 02:16 PM - Sadras quoted billd91 in post Why are we okay with violence in RPGs?
    Individual level advancement started to be seriously problematic with 3e. In AD&D, advancement was less regular in general for things like the to-hit tables and saves, plus monster vs party balancing was less granular. The game tolerated having PCs at varying levels in the same party better. 3e and 4e both regularized advancement and had more precision in encounter design (4e more than 3e, in this factor). Characters who lagged more than about a level were put, relatively speaking, at more of a disadvantage. Ultimately, the tighter the design, the more it makes sense to advance them all as a group than as individuals. Good point! Never thought about it before from this perspective. Thanks.

Wednesday, 12th June, 2019

  • 09:40 PM - Celebrim quoted billd91 in post Why are we okay with violence in RPGs?
    You don't even have to drill negative consequences into them. Kids bite, for example, because they don't yet have the means to express themselves in any other way. As they develop communication skills, toddler violence goes way down. That may be true in part, but part of the negative consequence that gets drilled into small children is other small children bonking them in the nose or biting them back in response. That said, I don't remember a notable drop in violence between myself and my playmates, classmates, and even friends until we were about 15. There were plenty of explosive fights in elementary and middle school, sometimes between two kids that really didn't get along, or a bully and a victim, but sometimes between otherwise close comrades. Then, often as not, things would be smoothed over either immediately or a day or two later. Adjacent to this background, there were a group of older persons where the boundaries on violence never got set. The guy who sat in front of ...
  • 08:24 PM - Elfcrusher quoted billd91 in post Why are we okay with violence in RPGs?
    You don't even have to drill negative consequences into them. Kids bite, for example, because they don't yet have the means to express themselves in any other way. As they develop communication skills, toddler violence goes way down. Faulkner's "The Unvanquished" is really about exactly this question.
  • 03:03 AM - Celebrim quoted billd91 in post Systems You'd Never Play after Reading Them
    Dogs in the Vineyard - totally put off by the game's inherent milieu I nearly put DitV on my list as well, but I didn't because the OP specifically said "systems you'd never play". And the thing is, I can think of some games I might want to play where I'd use the system, even though I am, as you are, inherently turned off by the game's built in setting. For example, I would definitely consider running a Star Trek game with DitV's rule set or something close to it, or really any sort of game where the primary conflict was conversational, and fisticuffs, and combat were upping the stakes. DitV is one of the few Indy games that seems to me to be well designed. And I'm going to stop there, because there are a ton of games I could add to my list, but I was afraid I would start a firestorm of controversy by writing negative reviews of them.

Tuesday, 11th June, 2019

  • 02:56 PM - Riley37 quoted billd91 in post Players 'distressed' by gang-rape role-playing game
    As long as we're going to refer back to John Dodd's statement - he also pointed out that 12 of the more than 20 people who contacted him about the incident had misidentified the GM in question. Hence his exhortion to determine and work with reliable information rather than internet rumor. IMO this makes BRG's refusal to accept John Dodd's assessment, even less understandable. How can BRG maintain "I don't know", how can BRG cast doubt on Dodd's decision, even after reading Dodd's account of his process? I have a speculative answer to that question, and it's not pretty. It's also been raised, as a general point rather than as a specific accusation against BRG, earlier in this thread. it's hard to avoid playing a game of telephone as the story moves around, farther and farther from the parties who were directly involved. You say it's hard. I say it requires some effort. We can sort out the primary sources from the secondary sources. We can distinguish between the secondary sources which re...
  • 02:24 PM - lowkey13 quoted billd91 in post Players 'distressed' by gang-rape role-playing game
    That's partly my point - there's no redress, no proportionality you can extract from the mob. The Central Park 5 were able to obtain some redress because there are mechanisms in place that can allow for that (though even the appellate courts had failed them), specifically, there was some entity they could legitimately sue. We'll see if Frog God Games is successful in the suit they've filed. (emphasis supplied) So, to refresh everyone's recollection ... the sentences were vacated AFTER the sentences were served. Up to thirteen years, in an adult facility, for a crime that was never committed. So this is really the point that needs to keep getting stressed. And I know I mentioned it before, and I understand that you aren't making it, because I know that you make your comments in good faith, but- It's the due process canard. The government (here, the State of NY) can take away your liberty. They can put you away, for years. This isn't just taking away your job, or making you feel bad, or un...
  • 06:40 AM - Riley37 quoted billd91 in post Players 'distressed' by gang-rape role-playing game
    But it also derailed a Guardians of the Galaxy sequel for a while by convincing Disney to fire James Gunn (at least for a while). Meanwhile, people like Anita Sarkeesian and Felicia Day get doxxed. Whether it's more important to hold James Gunn accountable for his actions, or whether it's more important that GoG 3 get produced ASAP, is a matter of opinion. Gunn took the opportunity to step up, admit that he'd acted (in his past) without proper regard for consequences to others, and establish that he was not *continuing* to act that way. Is that moral example, to the SFF community and to humanity at large, worth a delay of a year or two, on the third movie in a series? I say, yes it is. The delay is unfortunate for those who die during the interval, and thus will never get to see GoG3... but sometimes the needs of the many override the needs of the few. (The consequence for Gunn, was that he hopped over to Marvel and wrote "Suicide Squad 2". He's also said that the experience was, in the long ...

Monday, 10th June, 2019

  • 06:37 PM - Ryujin quoted billd91 in post IN REMEMBRANCE--2019 AD
    Psst. Check the date on that article. Not the first time I've been caught like that. I blame lack of sleep. ... and a general inability to keep up with pop culture, on my part.
  • 05:46 AM - Tony Vargas quoted billd91 in post Let's Talk About THAC0
    Yeah, but it kept the PCs from using their Force points to defend themselves because they could no longer use one to gain a bonus on their saves. Could they use it for a bonus to AC, before, too? Seems like Jedi do a lot of dodging and blocking.
  • 02:35 AM - mythago quoted billd91 in post Players 'distressed' by gang-rape role-playing game
    Simple - it denies the potential for rehabilitation. It's not true rehabilitation when it comes with a sense of entitlement. Sometimes the price of crummy behavior is that there are consequences for bad behavior - like having to earn back trust over time. Or even people choosing to decide they don't want to risk being on the receiving end of that crummy behavior again. As long as we're talking about things that piss us off, I'm very, very tired of the Geek Social Fallacy terror of exclusion and the child-bully's "geez, I said I was sorry, okay?!" being substituted for people owning their screw-ups and genuinely trying to earn back trust somewhere other than on the backs of the people they hurt. There are people I've been a jerk to over the course of my life who've forgiven me, and that's great. There are other people who have decided that there are about seven billion other people in the world and they don't need to spend time with me, necessarily. And that's their right. Being not-a-jer...

Saturday, 8th June, 2019

  • 12:24 AM - MarkB quoted billd91 in post Players 'distressed' by gang-rape role-playing game
    Simple - it denies the potential for rehabilitation. Well, first of all, does it really deny that possibility? We're not talking about banning this individual from DMing, only banning him from doing so during certain periodical public events. He can do as much DMing as he likes outside of those events, and can choose to better himself or not to do so. And second, how could anyone possibly adjudicate whether or not someone has "rehabilitated" their DMing style? What do you do, sit him down with an Appeal Committee, and have him run a game for them?

Friday, 7th June, 2019

  • 09:59 PM - Tony Vargas quoted billd91 in post Let's Talk About THAC0
    Let us not pretend players didn't read the thing. Well, let us also not pretend they didn't pretend they didn't read the thing!* ...er.. wait, let me parse that again... Ö yeah, that's right. ;) I'm not entirely convinced it's about knowing what target number you had to roll to hit that AC - rather, those columns in the weapon table are AC types in the 1e PH. A player could record their net modifier against each of those AC types. Or just copy from the weapon v armor type mods from the tables in the PH, to the corresponding spaces by the weapon. Afterall, it didn't have AC 10 to -10 there, just the ones that corresponded to PH adjustments. I won't say that's "how I always saw people use them," though - because everyone else I saw always seemed to leave them blank! C'mon, use the Weapon v Armor adjustments! (I mean, you think THAC0 got a bad rap...) * for values of 'the thing' including the DMG, the MM, and whatever module you were runni...
  • 08:54 PM - Dannyalcatraz quoted billd91 in post Players 'distressed' by gang-rape role-playing game
    Shaming and sanctions have their place, enough to administer appropriate correction. Excessive shaming and sanctions are destructive. Of course, one manís ďexcessiveĒ is anotherís ďnot quite enoughĒ. Yes, there are known objective boundaries that delineate where shunning, exclusion and similar social penalties can become harmful, abusive or even torturous- essentially the nonviolent equivalent of the death penalty. But even then, for some people, in certain situations, that is seen as ďpunishment fitting the offense.Ē Consensus on that, then, is probably difficult to achieve....but itís worth discussing.
  • 06:26 PM - Umbran quoted billd91 in post Players 'distressed' by gang-rape role-playing game
    Simple - it denies the potential for rehabilitation. Used to be that was a liberal value If you are going to try to make this political, please leave the thread now before you get booted. There will be precious little pataience for this. This is not about politics or government. This is about how people in our hobby relate to and treat each other. I hope that is 100% clear to everyone here.
  • 06:20 PM - Sacrosanct quoted billd91 in post Let's Talk About THAC0
    I'm not entirely convinced it's about knowing what target number you had to roll to hit that AC - rather, those columns in the weapon table are AC types in the 1e PH. A player could record their net modifier against each of those AC types. The basic D&D character sheet is clearly different since it doesn't tie those boxes to specific weapons, but since I think that came out after the goldenrod one, it may have reflected how people ended up actually using the boxes.... not possibly as they were originally intended to be used. It says "adjusted to hit Armor Class." That clearly means you put down what you need to roll to hit the various armor classes after adjustments (modifiers). Seemed pretty obvious to us anyway, back then. I mean, that's what the words mean. So if I needed a 19 to hit an armor class 0, and I had a +1 modifier for strength and a +2 modifier for the magic weapon (that's why each weapon has it's own table), then I would put a 16 in that AC 0 box. No math needed dur...


billd91's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites