View Profile: pemerton - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
  • pemerton's Avatar
    Today, 11:15 AM
    I GM much more than I play a PC. When I play a PC this is what I am looking for - but more below on my personality weakness in this respect! As a GM I like to see what drives the PCs. I also enjoy the big moments of conflict, some of which are internal - or intra-group - and some of which are external. The first time I really played a character in this way was actually in a freeform Cthulhu...
    769 replies | 21808 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Today, 11:13 AM
    The 2e Fighter *(Warrior Lord) definitely included the 4e Warlord in its banner (at least flavor wise).
    65 replies | 1272 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Today, 11:01 AM
    Fireballs must be really easy to cast... (this is actually a reference to an old issue of D&D spells always working but being described as really hard and meticulous = but a stray cat could mess up the casters day - ok that is later in the story)
    65 replies | 1272 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Today, 10:42 AM
    To be clear ... does not exist in 4e either that is more 4e is an MMO speak congratulations join the dog pile of ignorance.
    65 replies | 1272 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Aldarc's Avatar
    Today, 10:07 AM
    It boggles my mind that this is the conclusion you reach when the person you are quoting is comparing this to 5e without once mentioning 4e. :erm:
    128 replies | 7820 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Today, 09:15 AM
    Taunting / Intimidating and so on was a very common technique IRL people are not dead wood NOTE the very very limited but still available stopping up a doorway just quit being the only way which it was previously. When its all you got it gets glorified. "sophisticated" -stop up a doorway is sophisticated? It was a desperate only way LOL The Cavalier cannot interfere with an...
    65 replies | 1272 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Today, 08:46 AM
    It uses your one and only reaction... no opportunity attacks no Sentinel feat benefits and you are protecting against an attack that may have been something which already failed. It seems like you are trading out offense not defense.
    65 replies | 1272 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Hriston's Avatar
    Today, 01:11 AM
    This is the conflation I was talking about. Not only is the target rising as a vampire spawn a tertiary effect of the vampire's bite, but it's also an effect of the target being a humanoid and being buried in the ground. Why would that effect kill you when that's not what it says it does? The killing effect follows immediately upon the target's hit point maximum being reduced to 0, which...
    189 replies | 4856 view(s)
    0 XP
  • MoonSong's Avatar
    Today, 12:47 AM
    But the reverse is not true, beyond some exceptions like -El gran juego de la Oca- Spaniard content doesn't fare too well in Hispanic America -because the lexicon and register is just too different-. On the other hand dubs and productions made in the Bogota-Buenos Aires-Caracas-Mexico-Miami-Santiago circle freely move between both continents and gain widespread recognition. Spain's Spanish is...
    74 replies | 2267 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Hriston's Avatar
    Today, 12:44 AM
    I never said that the target's hit point maximum is reduced by nothing. The target's hit point maximum is reduced as one of the effects of the vampire's bite. I agree with you that this effect is separate from the bite's necrotic damage, which is why I laid out the various effects of the bite up-thread. It's good enough for me, however, to simply say that all of these effects are caused by the...
    189 replies | 4856 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Hriston's Avatar
    Today, 12:31 AM
    I didn't mean to imply that you were confused, just that you were conflating the reduction of the target's hit point maximum with the effect that reduces the target's hit point maximum and kills the target if it reduces the target's hit point maximum to 0. Is that not the case?
    189 replies | 4856 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Hriston's Avatar
    Today, 12:22 AM
    That’s what I just said. The hit point maximum reducing effect of the bite is not normal. It reduces your hit point maximum. After that, normal processes resume, and your hit point maximum stays at its new reduced value (until you finish a long rest). The vampire's bite is what reduced your hit point maximum. The reduction is just what it is, the fact of your hit point maximum being less...
    189 replies | 4856 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Campbell's Avatar
    Today, 12:14 AM
    I'm going to start with some personal background. Before I ever touched any dice I got my start role playing in online free form communities associated with various fandoms. I also am a lifelong theater geek with a deep appreciation for the craft of acting. I have a group of friends who gets together every couple months to do read throughs of some of our favorite plays. Right now I'm currently...
    769 replies | 21808 view(s)
    5 XP
  • pemerton's Avatar
    Today, 12:03 AM
    It's a bit hard to express a view on this without more context, but I don't think it is such a thing. I'm not seeing that there is a situation suggesting to the PC (and his/her player) that, in fact, those who fight beside me are not worth dying for. But maybe I've missed something or otherwise misunderstood what you are describing.
    769 replies | 21808 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:45 PM
    I heard this was a patch for someone leaping off of cliffs/tall towers with impunity
    150 replies | 3686 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Aldarc's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:38 PM
    In other words, the 7th Sea setting falls into the Uncanny Valley of Earth-based settings.
    119 replies | 8827 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:28 PM
    My first personal character for the last edition was a swordmage with white lotus riposte trivially created at level 1. Do a swordburst damaging a bunch then if they attack they get porcupined with force blades back
    65 replies | 1272 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:45 PM
    That just needed quoted
    150 replies | 3686 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Hriston's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:52 PM
    There’s no rule that says your hit point maximum bounces back to its former value in the absence of an ongoing effect that keeps it down. Your hit point maximum is whatever value the rules say it is. Except for specific monster and spell effects, there are only two general rules in the game that change your hit point maximum: you add the total of a Hit Die roll to your hit point maximum when you...
    189 replies | 4856 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:39 PM
    Conceptually Talents for Monsters opposite Talents for Player Characters may be rather like what I was talking about depending on the details Or at least a method to present the new abilities
    100 replies | 2121 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:13 PM
    Or go variant human I think. Interesting and a different take. Interestingly intricate level progression Makes me think of Conan almost ;) What would be your best level 5?
    65 replies | 1272 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:08 PM
    It almost has to be seen that way when it takes so much time and energy for me I have to decide if it's even worth it.
    100 replies | 2121 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:56 PM
    Thanks to those who actually contributed on this thread without playing accusatory MMO games
    65 replies | 1272 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:49 PM
    Pretty murky behind paying for it, not that I would begrudge doing so if it managed to clear up the problems I currently see with 5e.
    100 replies | 2121 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:38 PM
    Not sure that is entirely true myself I was targeting a big tactical module as much as something WOTC could produce as anything. The earlier edition had a Tactical expansion of 192 pages; The set of role oriented subclasses some may already exist minor tweaks on Cavalier. Monsters which create more varied problems than a big bag of hit points and something like a more explicit stunt system...
    100 replies | 2121 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:28 PM
    I shoot for not overwhelmingly specific partly because it could differ a lot It's a method for inspiring people without over-riding their own inclinations. someone just shared a homebrew everyman/simple action that allows someone to "Take a hit" when their adjacent squishier allie is about to be hit they can interpose, hoping maybe their greater defense helps them out. It could be seen as a...
    100 replies | 2121 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:18 PM
    Ah that works and is a compromise removing my criticism.
    65 replies | 1272 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:15 PM
    Yeh I couldn't understand how there was a failure to communicate... which is evidence of a failure to communicate too LOL
    100 replies | 2121 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:12 PM
    Parrying an attack against ones ally for that shield user might be... a somewhat different thought. You trade out your shield bonus to improve an allies armor class not your own... you no longer get the bonus till the end of your turn.
    65 replies | 1272 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:09 PM
    Hmmm.. I was just thinking that a reaction is such a commodity using it when the enemy might not even hit would feel lame.
    65 replies | 1272 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Manbearcat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:58 PM
    Forget for a minute what you feel about my analysis of your excerpt. Do you not think, for better or for worse, this would have changed the cognitive space you were occupying and the play experience of the other participants who bore witness to your PC's sacrifice? 1) Your character had a feedback loop (lets call it Nature) with 3 descriptors attached to it and both a positive and a...
    769 replies | 21808 view(s)
    3 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:57 PM
    I do like that quite a bit... I have been thinking for quite a while that a lot of fiction has heros who do little tidbits that might be seen as overlapping on the specialists. Many times it includes characters inspiring their allies but yes this is definitely another, a dive in front of an attack seems viable (you could even add some small movement if you accept being prone afterwards)... ...
    65 replies | 1272 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:59 PM
    OK I will channel my much younger self. Note I now disagree with that guy on almost every point for various reasons. hmmm maybe some are still influencing my thinking Hit points massively increasing? I mean really? Single attribute based actions = there is nothing that simple? Classes = carbon copy encouragement for the win Amnesia magic = nothing at all like legend or myth....
    163 replies | 7015 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:45 PM
    That might be ok if something is rare enough it isn't something to count on or worry too much over ... however it REALLY REALLY seems strange a mage is immune to the interference of the Cavalier adjacent to them. Hard to imagine they cannot ... something about mechanics being unnecessarily different, yada yada yada memory escapes me. Mage slayer looks like it has some bite against adjacent...
    65 replies | 1272 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:13 PM
    There is a fun issue... your intimidation or even active interference against nearby enemies cannot will not interfere with casters they are immune.
    65 replies | 1272 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:04 PM
    My gameworld has a hmmmmm archetype? That sometimes were called justiciars originally like police back in the ancient times but many of them became more like personal guards in modern times. Green Knights were one such group who I sort of hedged as being like druid/fighters when it was 1e days. But the Warden in 4e was associated with the Nature magic / sort of Druidic branch it fit rather well....
    65 replies | 1272 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:59 PM
    I kind of like that too it rather has the intimidation angle going on... You are distracting them because they think you might be coming back for more.
    65 replies | 1272 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:52 PM
    Yes it certain seems to have some how many of what you mention above are in the Players Handbook vs Xanathars (which I had not investigated) I think ones that require a reaction are pretty darn limited though. And goading attack seems to have no impact on casters.
    65 replies | 1272 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:49 PM
    We had tons of outdoor adventures back in the day I still do including many open arenas and battlefields whose only walls were trees ...heck I think dungeons were actually pretty nonsensical to many DMs. 5 foot door ways for the win I suppose or dead squishies because someone objects to enemies falling for false openings, tricks and taunting and intimidation effects. Honestly I do not...
    65 replies | 1272 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:33 PM
    The exception proves the rule... they might also ignore your attacks and run past so they can get at the more brains behind you not because you are too tough but because more meat is back there. Yeh but if you can barely react to one enemy see 5e... watch the others run by to get at the squishy threat with glea. The doorway/choke 5' point solution can under a narrow circumstances enable...
    65 replies | 1272 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:26 PM
    The above is pointing out how recognizing roles as specializations of PCs is not a new thing I think if you make a diverse set of tactical choices they will undoubtedly interact with roles. 5e classes are pretty locked down design elements hurray for supporting classes but it means that the fighter is a meh defender without something like the subclass Cavalier. And arguably he needs a way to...
    100 replies | 2121 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Hriston's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:18 PM
    I think it comes from confusing the "reduction" with "this effect". They aren't the same thing. The "reduction" is the state of having your maximum hit points lower than it was. "This effect" is the thing that reduces your maximum hit points in the first place. The fact that "this effect" can also kill you if it reduces your maximum hit points all the way to 0 means that you stay killed until...
    189 replies | 4856 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:07 PM
    Show me how show me. An ability might support one role when used one way and another role when used another way... does that mean it somehow doesn't support roles?
    100 replies | 2121 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:59 PM
    Ah I was kind of hoping you had some inspiration on that which I lacked to be honest.
    100 replies | 2121 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:55 PM
    You are being obtuse I told you that you could swap out the adjective for its opposite and the sentence and idea still sounds interesting why would you have ever assumed I meant the adjective was ? "important"? Explain how it even makes sense to look at the words I want to meet a fancy dancer and assume your can remove the word dancer and have it even be meaningful let alone important?...
    100 replies | 2121 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:30 PM
    Your being very hard to hit is not some invisible property If they do not behave differently very quickly then the DM is roleplaying them very badly... The guy who looks like he might be leaving openings but can take a lot of shots will be the target of choice the entire battle. Even though the DM knows you can soak the crap out of it. That will take much longer for the monsters to notice ...
    65 replies | 1272 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:23 PM
    @dave2008 creating non-combat tactical role support might be something brand new to D&D even. Though I have heard of the face and similar ideas I do not remember them ever being rich with tactical choices.
    100 replies | 2121 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Hriston's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:13 PM
    Well, the reason people are thinking there's an ongoing effect is because of how they're reading the sentence, "The reduction lasts until the target finishes a long rest." They're seeing it as establishing a duration for some effect that reduced the target's maximum hit points (and killed the target if its maximum hit points was reduced to 0), while to me it seems fairly obvious that this...
    189 replies | 4856 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:59 PM
    Thumbs up for being very on topic ;)
    100 replies | 2121 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:50 PM
    Adjectives cannot stand alone they describe the other and I pointed out you could in theory also create a non-combat tactical module which might be very intriguing to be honest.
    100 replies | 2121 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:45 PM
    And the early edition had fighters become minion sweepers too as they levelled (if the DM used them zero levels it could in theory make fighters feel pretty badass)
    100 replies | 2121 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:41 PM
    The party was according to Arneson originally inspired by the US fireteam of 4 soldiers. With classes approximately reflecting its composition/roles.
    100 replies | 2121 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:38 PM
    Adjective is battlefield indicating type and noun is role ... could call it combat role too. ( though in theory you could actually have a non-combat tactical expansion)
    100 replies | 2121 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:30 PM
    Not everything is a comparison and 4e will not always be better ;) - it cannot be ubiquitous like it was in chainmail (nor as absolute) so giving it other subtle control like the control I added which fit flavorwise seems a compensation for the indirect control it used to get.
    100 replies | 2121 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:27 PM
    Sure and ones best designs are likely something you buy into yourself. I also think battlefield role support is a component of tactical game play. 5e is not very flush with that. So a module that built a series of subclasses to bring that on might be good. Had not even seen the Cavalier till I asked about defenders.
    100 replies | 2121 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:08 PM
    It took an expansion to get what looks like a functional defender... unless I am missing something
    100 replies | 2121 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:02 PM
    Fireball and lightning were iconic wizard magic from Chainmail they had indirect control because they were ubiquitous and as large area of not-ally friendly effects influences enemy behavior to not-clump together and 2 get close to allies of the wizard so the wizard cannot easily smash you - A wizard always had 1 or the other (which they could do every turn of the battle). Other consistent...
    100 replies | 2121 view(s)
    0 XP
  • MoonSong's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:52 PM
    Reminds me that my dog used to think dice were candy and he wanted some...
    74 replies | 2267 view(s)
    0 XP
  • pemerton's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:56 AM
    How is something at stake if you don't know what it is yet?
    769 replies | 21808 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Manbearcat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:42 AM
    When I read this, I'm imagining a Texas Hold 'Em tournament where: 1) There was no codified "buy-in" $ figure for the tournament and we don't know what the participant's financial situation is going into the tournament (is this a desperate attempt to get a windfall at zero hour so a debt to the mob can be paid off?). 2) We don't know what their chip stack was when this hand was played. ...
    769 replies | 21808 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Manbearcat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:58 AM
    This earned a lot of xp, but the take-home needs to be emphasized. In real life we aren't characterizing ourselves. In real life we don't have nearly the expression of autonomy or internal locus of control that one characterizes their PC with in a game of AD&D, 3.x, and 5e D&D. In real life, our behavioral outputs are a collage of external inputs (from emotional provocateurs to those that...
    769 replies | 21808 view(s)
    4 XP
  • pemerton's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:54 AM
    I don't see any challenge to characterisation. You tell us your character is someone who cares about little but being provided with a meal. And so in exchange for a promise of food you submitted yourself to a process that - as you describe it - you seemed to have no control over. As a result you have no soul - I don't know what that means in mechanical terms in 5e, but it doesn't seem to...
    769 replies | 21808 view(s)
    1 XP
  • MoonSong's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:44 AM
    MoonSong replied to Muppets?
    Curious, my fantasy world has a race of muppets. I haven't gotten to actually stat them up. but what I have so far is they are medium critters, with 30' speed, bonus to charisma and dexterity, penalty to constitution, and they have the ability to turn a critical hit into a normal hit, but they lose a limb until it can be reattached. In extreme cases they can survive as only a head.
    3 replies | 171 view(s)
    0 XP
  • MoonSong's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:27 AM
    Spanish is kind of a special case. Unlike Italian(76% of native speakers are in Italy), French(60% of n.S. Are in France), Russian (96% of native speakers are from Russia), and German (78% of n.S. Are in Germany) only like 9% of native speakers of Spanish are from Spain. In contrast, a third of the native speakers are from North America and a half of native speakers are from South America, yet...
    74 replies | 2267 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:21 AM
    It was already mentioned something other than boring bags of hit points monsters consider that your starting point ... then one needs abilities which interact with those on the player side and that depends on what abilities you give those monsters doesn't it devil is in the details and one thing you provide cascades into other things remember how I mentioned "what good is an ability that allows...
    100 replies | 2121 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:43 AM
    I prefer a foundation and some assumptions in the foundation make changing it pretty difficult. For instance 4e assumed heros were most likely gradually approaching something akin to demigod status able to perform stunts which parallel works of magic through skill alone now if you wanted to pretend to being just a farm boy who could accidentally kill beasts the size of buildings through brute...
    100 replies | 2121 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Hriston's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:33 AM
    On a hit, the target’s hit point maximum is reduced instantly. If that reduces the target’s hit point maximum to 0, the target dies instantly. No effect is required for a creature’s maximum hit points to stay the same. That’s what happens normally. An effect is only required to change the value of a creature’s maximum hit points, and once changed, they will stay the same until some further effect...
    189 replies | 4856 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:11 AM
    you could definitely get a goal through the hoops right into left field over that issue...
    100 replies | 2121 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:54 AM
    Here is a lesson in playing a defender if you are too hard to hit and ultimate on saving throws ie defenses it is a very good way NOT to be an effective defender in 4e because the DM will have next to no reason for monsters to attack you because the DM is almost always the difference between you being attacked and not. Although occasionally a defender will have a nice trick that suckers the...
    65 replies | 1272 view(s)
    1 XP
  • pemerton's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:31 AM
    Your PC's actions have put your family at risk. When you decide to do have your PC do X rather than Y, how do you - as a player - know whether your are jeopardiding your relationship with your family? Who decides whether they stick with you or abandon you? And how? Is this is all just GM decides? This seems to rest on a premise that there is a finite amount of "challenge" which, if the PCs...
    769 replies | 21808 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:28 AM
    Because swordmages are so intrinsically superior, snicker They simply must be built as level 17
    48 replies | 908 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:23 AM
    I did make a more controllerish lightning bolt up thread
    27 replies | 930 view(s)
    0 XP
  • pemerton's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:23 AM
    Let's suppose your claim about human physiology was true, which I don't think it is. In 4e hp are not a model of that physiology. They are part of an action resolution framework. The primary mechanical marker of the power of a 4e creature, including the degree of physical trauma it can endure, is its level. By setting the level of a being, the GM is using a mechanical device to signal its...
    769 replies | 21808 view(s)
    2 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:09 AM
    Not what I was saying I was saying so there is that. You wanted to know why I thought it would be difficult and that was an element I would like to see but also an example of how such an element could touch on wide varieties of other design elements and that is a reason tactical elements tend to not be easy squeezy lemon peasy
    100 replies | 2121 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Hriston's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:03 AM
    I think you're correct in that our main point of contention is in your #3. You say the effect that reduced the target's maximum hit points "is still working", but that doesn't seem right to me. In #1, you correctly identify the effect as reducing the target's hit point maximum by the amount of the necrotic damage taken, but once it has reduced the target's hit point maximum, the effect's work is...
    189 replies | 4856 view(s)
    0 XP
  • pemerton's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:57 AM
    To allude back to an earlier post, those are possible transcripts of play, accounts of events that oocur in the fiction. But from the transcript we can't tell what the play experience was. We can't tell who estabished the fiction, or how, or what the actual play experience was of doing that. I don't know what you mean by roleplaying activity or roleplaying experience. Do you mean transcript of...
    769 replies | 21808 view(s)
    0 XP
  • pemerton's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:49 AM
    As I've already posted, I don't think this thread is the place for a serious discussion of philosophy of action. Rather, I'm taking Davidson as a starting point. But if you are correct, then it follows that - in the example - four different actions have been performed. And if there were two prowlers, each alerted, then five different things would have been done. That is obviously absurd. ...
    769 replies | 21808 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:33 AM
    Did that way back in 1e days but I am lazier now... reflavor seemed sufficient
    100 replies | 2121 view(s)
    0 XP
  • pemerton's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:27 AM
    I don't know what you mean by a given instance of RP. I'll set out a practical example to try and illustrate my point: imagine a situation in which the PCs are fighting some NPCs, and are losing - multiple PCs down, hors de combat etc while the NPCs are clearly about to carry the day. In these circumstances in Classic Traveller the players have to make a morale check for their PCs...
    769 replies | 21808 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:52 AM
    LOL you took facing more literally than I meant it... but I suppose I could have said impacting its utterly appropriate for monsters to have one set of rules and the monsters another. your hyperbole about how having zero to -3 be unconscious with the rest dying is still hyperbolic and misplaced unless you think you are playing 3e where they lock step npcs and pcs like the game was RuneQuest 3...
    150 replies | 3686 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:37 AM
    Looks for place in the books saying monster and player facing rules are identical... then turns to 3rd edition ahah.
    150 replies | 3686 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:34 AM
    honestly I only remember their premise ... they may have grabbed random encounter difficulties for all I know so a few bad rolls in a row on the dms side and your group is eaten by a series of nasties which if you planned would be really nasty. Though i think a chase scene with lower difficultes ie a skill challenge would be how the second level + 4 would go down if they survived the first is...
    150 replies | 3686 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:11 AM
    Bloodied is a pacing mechanism which changes and swaps out tactical choices. (Does that make bloodied tactical even though it itself isn't usually a choice I think so - see below for ways it becomes a choice too) On the monster side of the screen monsters get powers that renew on bloodied conditions for instance it changes there choices I have player characters with powers and even skill...
    100 replies | 2121 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Saturday, 20th July, 2019, 11:44 PM
    One can use all the option rich elements not to optimize for potency or balance but for flavor which is why I liked even Hybrids in 4e. 5e multi-classing doesn't live up to my expectations for enabling broad richness, it appears to make somethings prohibitively costly for little reason and other things trivially easy because of coincidence or something. Like having to go 17 levels before I...
    100 replies | 2121 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Saturday, 20th July, 2019, 11:06 PM
    There was a player designed expansion for 4e I think it was designed to show how the rules were flexible enough that without change you can make 4e as deadly as you wanted I think it was called 4th core?
    150 replies | 3686 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Saturday, 20th July, 2019, 11:00 PM
    That is how we interpreted it. From zero to optionally negative 3 nobody had to worry about you if you managed to drop negative farther than that it was a dying process although easily stopped. We still died horribad easy but that rule did make it less absolute than what I saw in the old Blue Book D&D
    150 replies | 3686 view(s)
    1 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Saturday, 20th July, 2019, 10:57 PM
    Yes 3 to 5 is reasonable... though I have known many editions where the designers thought X was the target and players did 1 significant battle with only a few scrapes otherwise besides that so I it may just be people being people. Sure that is the other end of the improvement how much tougher do you make it when you have X likely fights in a given span. 5e did seems to learn some from...
    150 replies | 3686 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Saturday, 20th July, 2019, 10:22 PM
    I would express it as there was less random fluctuation and you are more aware of how how a given challenge will resolve... its not "trying hard" its predictably hard... less oops more planned on the verge of tpk because i designed the encounter that way. DM choices ARE decisive and blaming the dice less a thing. There were ways of Jinxing the EL guidelines even in 4e so its not completely...
    150 replies | 3686 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Saturday, 20th July, 2019, 10:03 PM
    Flamestrike Noting you like Crown Paladin ;)
    65 replies | 1272 view(s)
    0 XP
  • Garthanos's Avatar
    Saturday, 20th July, 2019, 09:55 PM
    The one for range and the other for adjacent OK seeing how that works The use of ones reaction on opportunity attacks is less the Warlords schtick than the fighters so its less of a problem for them that Protection fighting style uses it.
    65 replies | 1272 view(s)
    0 XP
More Activity
About pemerton

Basic Information

Date of Birth
November 9, 1971 (47)

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
20,764
Posts Per Day
4.37
Last Post
Players choose what their PCs do . . . Today 11:15 AM

Currency

Gold Pieces
61
General Information
Last Activity
Today 11:16 AM
Join Date
Friday, 21st July, 2006
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0

23 Friends

  1. AbdulAlhazred AbdulAlhazred is offline

    Member

    AbdulAlhazred
  2. Aldarc Aldarc is offline

    Member

    Aldarc
  3. Balesir Balesir is offline

    Member

    Balesir
  4. Campbell Campbell is offline

    Member

    Campbell
  5. chaochou chaochou is offline

    Member

    chaochou
  6. darkbard darkbard is offline

    Member

    darkbard
  7. DMZ2112 DMZ2112 is offline

    Chaotic Looseleaf

    DMZ2112
  8. Garthanos Garthanos is online now

    Member

    Garthanos
  9. heretic888 heretic888 is offline

    Member

    heretic888
  10. Hriston Hriston is offline

    Member

    Hriston
  11. LostSoul LostSoul is offline

    Member

    LostSoul
  12. Lynda Lawless Lynda Lawless is offline

    Member

    Lynda Lawless
  13. Manbearcat Manbearcat is offline

    Member

    Manbearcat
  14. Mark CMG Mark CMG is offline

    Member

    Mark CMG
  15. MoonSong MoonSong is offline

    Member

    MoonSong
  16. Nemesis Destiny Nemesis Destiny is offline

    Member

    Nemesis Destiny
  17. Neonchameleon Neonchameleon is offline

    Member

    Neonchameleon
  18. pacdidj pacdidj is offline

    Member

    pacdidj
  19. Pentius Pentius is offline

    Member

    Pentius
  20. rabindranath72 rabindranath72 is offline

    Member

    rabindranath72
  21. S'mon S'mon is offline

    Member

    S'mon
  22. steenan steenan is offline

    Member

    steenan
  23. tomja tomja is offline

    Member

    tomja
Showing Friends 1 to 23 of 23
Page 1 of 10 12345678910 LastLast

Monday, 22nd July, 2019


Sunday, 21st July, 2019


Saturday, 20th July, 2019


Friday, 19th July, 2019



Page 1 of 10 12345678910 LastLast
Page 1 of 86 123456789101151 ... LastLast

Wednesday, 17th July, 2019

  • 05:06 PM - Ovinomancer mentioned pemerton in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    ...a *good* solution to the problem at hand. This is an important part about asking for the player's intent. It isn't usually about asking for the players *detailed* goal, but for their *general* goal. Do you want detailed financial paperwork with which to confront the Duke, or will any incriminating evidence do, such that you could pick the most interesting or effective evidence?Counter-point: there's nothing preventing the asked for solution from being THE solution in the fiction. This is an important distiction from the real world. In fiction, the solution is whatever we agree it is. The real world, sadly, doesn't work this way. As an engineer working with customer requirements, and the usually horrible state those are in, I see this all the time. I have little interest dragging it into my games. Then, from there, we need to determine how we arrive at that agreement. Bob Says is a method, as is the player says, or we can use some form of mechanic. This is the large point pemerton is making.
  • 03:24 AM - Ovinomancer mentioned pemerton in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    ...ing dice in this world is the only way to challenge a PC in the fictional world no? Or are challenges not real in our world? Do we only misperceive them as challegnes when in fact they aren't because there's no god ordained dice roller for our universe? Rant over! I mean it may even be fun to roll dice and they likely can be used to enhance the game part of an RPG, but all roleplay can be had without them. In fact it should be obvious that dice and roleplaying are at odds - imagine a game that only ever used dice to determine everything about your character and everything they do and everything they think etc. There is no room left to roleplay in that scenario. That should make it obvious that the more you use the dice to determine the less room you have to roleplay. Likewise the more the GM determines for you the less room you have to roleplay. It seems to me these are obvious truths, or at least should be so. This is, well, a bit philosophically confused. I'll let pemerton bring the big words, but you're doing a decent job pointing out that what happens in game is a fiction and therefore different from what happens in the real world. You break up a bit when you assume that roleplaying a character has anything like the fidelity of being a Real Boy or that the roleplaying game can present a world as rich and uncertain as the real world. The mechanics don't exist because dice are cool (but, you know, they are) but because of that lack of fidelity. The game is a model of a world (fantastical, even) and, as such, it cannot be true to the real world. Further, we are each our own island -- no man can know another and all that. So, assuming that you, a person, can perfectly render a fictional character that is not you with any real fidelity is a bit silly-sounding. We do our best, but for those cases where it's murky because of the lack of fidelity there are mechanics. Otherwise, there's absolutely no need for any social mechanics in D&D -- no persuasio...

Monday, 15th July, 2019

  • 10:21 AM - aramis erak mentioned pemerton in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    pemerton Many authors describe the process of authoring as letting the character speak to them, or even through them; dissociated from their own personality to some degree. So, while they are just making the choices, the choices don't always feel like choices to the authors.

Friday, 12th July, 2019

  • 12:42 AM - Ovinomancer mentioned pemerton in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    ...nge based on choice alone and without any mechanic to determine a result. Even diceless systems have mechanics to determine results. All this isn't to say that the above play isn't fun -- it is. I put hard choices in front of my players all the time. Nor is it to say that you can't have character development using this play -- you clearly can. What it says is that it's not a challenge and you aren't putting your concept of the character at risk with this kind of play. In other words, it's part and parcel of the play where the player declares their intended actions only and the GM decides the results vice being able to make rich action declarations on behalf of the character where both the action and the outcome are determined. In this play, you're staking that action AND outcome and a failure may mean you get both a different action and outcome than you intended, because that's what was at stake. I tried earlier to explore what kind of play this might be, and no one except pemerton has bothered to engage it. I suppose it fell flat for the rest of you, either in conceiving the play presented or caring about it.

Monday, 8th July, 2019

  • 11:07 PM - Aldarc mentioned pemerton in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    ambiguous: doubtful or uncertain especially from obscurity or indistinctness. NO it is NOT ambiguous at all. That is how it is mostly done in RPGs. The player decides describes what his character is doing or trying to do. THEN the GM takes over and describes the results.Apart from numerous RPGs that are exceptions to this, which have been mentioned previously in this thread. So we return to "ambiguous." Catching up on this thread after a weekend vacation: As to the wink, I agree, there probably is a scenario where it makes sense, but it's going to be off the beaten track as far as systems go.I don't necessarily think it's that unusual. Pemerton has mentioned this in the context of Prince Valiant/Pendragon and Cortex+. I am familiar with a similar idea in Monster Hearts (a PbtA game). Monster Hearts was really the game that opened my eye to this sort of thinking. You are playing teenage monsters and the like (think Twilight, Teen Wolf, etc.), but teenage sexuality also plays an important role for the game. One of the things that can happen is that while you may - with all your self-professed player "agency" - declare that your character is straight, you may also find yourself in a situation where you feel a sudden, unexpected romantic attraction to a NPC of the same sex. What now? How do you choose to react to that real emotional response? Your male character's heart just unexpected melted in the presence of another guy. To me, that's where the actual player agency lies. It lies in deciding how our characters choose to respond to their emotional and psychological urges rather than in deciding the particular emotional and p...
  • 02:14 PM - FrogReaver mentioned pemerton in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    pemerton i think there is a pre-step I’ve been missing that changes everything in d&d I cannot role play the character that can never lose at combat as such a character isn’t supported by the rules of the game. The pre- step is that I as a player don’t conceive of a character that the rules wouldn’t support so in the case of the maiden winking melting my heart I can imagine a game that possesses such a mechanic so that I know not to conceive of a character possessing a trait that would be against said mechanic. Maybe that hat is the real crux of the issue.
  • 02:13 PM - FrogReaver mentioned pemerton in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    pemerton i think there is a pre-step I’ve been missing that changes everything in d&d I cannot role play the character that can never lose at combat as such a character isn’t supported by the rules of the game. The pre- step is that I as a player don’t conceive of a character that the rules wouldn’t support so in the case of the maiden winking melting my heart I can imagine a game that possesses such a mechanic so that I know not to conceive of a character possessing a trait that would be against said mechanic. Maybe that hat is the real crux of the issue.

Sunday, 7th July, 2019

  • 04:19 PM - Fenris-77 mentioned pemerton in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    pemerton - the phrase monster abilities was more shorthand for mechanically supported game actions I guess. Obviously not too many flesh golems are dropping successful come hither winks in any system (although now that I've said that, it is going to come up in my game because it's awesome). I was more railing against impact by fiat rather than mechanic. Players agree to the mechanics in a game when they agree to play, and if the game they agreed to play happens to have seduction mechanics then fine, that's the game. I would propose however that there is a pretty vast gulf between the results you list, such as complication dice, or any other complicating modifier, and straight dictated action. I'm fine with the former but not the latter. My apologies if that wasn't as clear as it could have been.
  • 02:45 PM - Fenris-77 mentioned pemerton in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    The wink doesn't pose a problem for me as a PC action, although generally there would also be a mechanic involved there but there doesn't have to be. As an NPC action with a dictated result it's ... wacky. Even if you could find a system that supported it I'd still be against it. Obviously the extent of the forced action plays a big role too. If the forced action just consists of telling the player they get swollen love nodes, which is more an invitation to action than forced action anyway, I'm fine with it. But as soon as the DM says something like "she beckons you with a finger and follow her out the door" then I'm firmly against, and will reiterate my earlier contention that this doesn't happen in RPGs generally so is probably a silly example. I don't really feel the need to explain how monster abilities with mechanics are a different class of example. The minion example is easier to deal with (I'm with pemerton on this). The internal consistency of a lot of fantasy fiction fits (and RPGs) the minion example to a tee. Those randos at the bar are indeed panes of glass to the PC and not to each other, and the fact that they are so is part of the unstated contract a player signs when they agree to play said RPG. Just like the fact that they aren't panes of glass in grittier RPGs is also understood by everyone involved at the outset of the game.

Thursday, 4th July, 2019

  • 07:27 PM - Maxperson mentioned pemerton in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    ...my character sometimes is much less of an imposition, especially since I can impose back. For me it's not about how much authority I have, though. I could have more authority over other aspects of the game and I would feel the same way. For me it's about the PC being mine. I'm the only one, barring some sort of mechanical means like charm, who gets to control what he feels and does. If you look at this issue only from the point of view of D&D, then you're missing the forest for the tree. Especially since you actually give up far more authority in D&D since everything happens at the permission of the GM. D&D strongly relies on principled play by the GM to protect the limited authority of the players and this principled play is not explicit and often assumed by veterens of play to be understood. At least, their understanding of it us assumed, which is the primary cause of many disagreements on this board. I understand that. While I haven't played as many different games you or pemerton has, I have played other RPGs and experienced differences. I'm not saying the games that allow others to assert control over PCs are bad. They just aren't for me.
  • 03:42 AM - Ovinomancer mentioned pemerton in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    ...etermine the characters actions in that world. That's not what begs the question means. I say it means that, when you have the option to make choices, you do so from the role you have assumed. You're assigning a separate axis here -- what limitations exist on choice -- to roleplaying. It doesn't belong there. This is, again, your preference for how to play the game leaking into definitions that have nothing to do with that preference. There's no way that the GM declaring actions for the PC doesn't impact what we are talking about above. It may have a minimal effect, but an effect it does have. - And more importantly, if I am right about what it means to take on an imaginary role in a fictional world, it by definition precludes the player from doing that for the period of time the GM is controlling their PC's actions. You are not right, this is what pretty much everyone in this thread is contesting with you. Maybe pick up on that? But, as an example, the play that pemerton gave for AW -- in the fail state, the GM has carte blanche to dictate actions for the PC. This doesn't reduce the roleplaying occurring, it limits when the player can make choices. Orthogonal to roleplaying. I'm not sure what you mean by control of PC actions in failure conditions. Maybe you can elaborate. Sigh, it's been mentioned a number of times in this thread. If you're only going to read/engage with posts aimed at you, then I'm not going to bother to try to restate those posts you've skipped. If your definition of taking on an imaginary role in a shared fiction is as I elaborated on above then it most definitely does impact their ability to take on an imaginary role in a shared fiction. Don't see it. I'm still roleplaying that character just as much as I was -- I'm still representing that role within the shared fiction when I have a choice to make. Frankly, your argument is steeped in a single-point-of-view of how RPGs are played. It shows a lack of understa...
  • 01:40 AM - Manbearcat mentioned pemerton in post Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E?
    https://www.enworld.org/forum/images/Styles/Blackend/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by pemertonhttps://www.enworld.org/forum/images/Styles/Blackend/buttons/viewpost-right.pngGame systems that are generally oriented towards such play include AD&D, CoC, Vampire: the Masquerade... Three radically dissimilar games. Only very, very tacitly following this thread, but this caught my eye in a "what in the world...?" sort of way. I think this may in fact be a source of dissonance that you and I have in some of these conversations, particularly where it pertains to The Forge and, more specifically, "system matters." The most fundamental core mechanic of VtM and White Wolf games is "The Golden Rule" or "there are no rules" or, apropos, "system doesn't matter." @pemerton is referring to AD&D 2e above (surely), not 1e. AD&D 2e went all-in on this ethos (unlike OD&D, 1e, and B/X). CoC does as well. The lifeblood of those three gaming systems are overwhelmingly GM Force and opacity, inadequacy, incoherency, or impotency of action resolutions mechanics (which, not coincidentally for...

Monday, 1st July, 2019

  • 03:09 PM - Ovinomancer mentioned pemerton in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    ...t action(and all of its micro-actions) concludes, there is the result of that action, the softening of her heart. The act of winking concludes before there is a softening of the heart. In a game, I don't get to declare that I am going to pull out my sword, threaten the prince, have him concede half of his lands to me, go farm those lands, harvest the crops, and then sell them all as a single action. Is there, maybe, a middle ground between 'I pull my sword" and the entirely of what you posit? Could, maybe, discussion happen about things in that middle ground? In other words, no, you can't do the bottom in any game, but that's because you're not engaging the fiction of the scene or the genre of the game and are, in fact, being a jerk. Can we please dispense with the "but if a jerk does it" arguments? Stating the result of your action isn't the same as assuming success. That's why games have resolution mechanics. In your above, it fails because there are multiple goals. pemerton's example doesn't fail because it's a single goal -- soften the heart of the maiden. The action is to wink. The difference between what you're trying to say and what pemerton is saying is that, in your preference, the player can state their goal as information to the GM, but the GM will decide both what a success and what a failure will look like. The other way to do it is to take the player's goal as the only success option. In other word, if a success is rolled, then the GM's job is to narrate how they player's goal comes to be given the player's actions. The GM doesn't get to decide what success looks like. That said, actions and goals need to be rooted in the fiction of the moment. Your example runs off into future goals that aren't established as at stake in the current scene. This is a player violation of the game construct, and is just bad play, not a problem with the player getting to say what success is.
  • 03:01 PM - Ovinomancer mentioned pemerton in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    The premise statement is a longstanding falsehood, all too often unchallenged. Players decide what their character attempts, not what they do. GM's decide what the PC's do, based upon the stated attempt, the rules, and their common sense, and sometimes, their story sense. Players may or may not be deciding how their PC's feel; many systems allow forced emotional states, which only works when players agree to those stakes, but can be fun for some. That is, indeed, one way it happens, and one of the ways pemerton noted in his OP. There are other ways, though, like the other one in the OP, that you've dismissed as a falsehood. Given that it exists in a number of games, and can exist in even more, you should reconsider whether or not you've grasped the intent of the OP and whether or not you're the one engaged in a falsehood. As pemerton noted, Burning Wheel's core loop is opposing truth statements about the world, on the player's the other the GM's, which the dice then decide which occurs. If the GM wins, the GM get to both narrate their outcome AND any actions the PC takes to realize that outcome. If the player wins, they get to do the same. This fundamentally disagrees with your universal assertion. "There are other ways than these," to paraphrase. I like Blades in the Dark, which does a similar thing. The player nominates both the action and the outcome -- what they want to happen and how they're doing it. The GM then sets the risk of that action (how bad will the consequences o...

Tuesday, 25th June, 2019

  • 12:21 PM - Aldarc mentioned pemerton in post GM DESCRIPTION: NARRATION OR CONVERSATION?
    Just realize that the definition of narrating a scene in no way actually implies or explicitly says that there is any passive listening going on at all. That probably the reason that so many people are pushing back against you is that you are working from a definition that no one else is.I don't think Bedrockgames is mistaken here. This sense of literary prose narration happening at you, with the players in more passive roles as an audience to GM performance, was present as far back as the OP of pemerton's thread that spawned this one. He is working from a definition or understanding that others had been using.

Monday, 24th June, 2019

  • 01:21 AM - Hussar mentioned pemerton in post GM DESCRIPTION: NARRATION OR CONVERSATION?
    I can walk into your house and tell you which bedroom is a guest bedroom just by looking (assuming you have one). That's not really a stumbling block to me. But, effectively, pemerton, we're back to vocabulary differences. You're simply using simpler language. So, is it fair to say that the division, for you, between conversational and prose is vocabulary choice? After all, you didn't change any word order. So, is it down to vocabulary, yes or no?

Thursday, 13th June, 2019

  • 02:26 PM - lowkey13 mentioned pemerton in post Formatting- Quotes Not Coming Out Correctly
    Hi Everybody! (HI DR. NICK!) Now tell Dr. Nick where is the trouble. ...so, @Dannyalcatraz first pointed out a problem in my posts, specifically, this one- https://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?659985-Why-are-we-okay-with-violence-in-RPGs&p=7618903&viewfull=1#post7618903 Since then, two other commenters have noted the same problem. @pemerton @Manbearcat Q. What is the problem? A. I don't know- I can't see it! Everything looks good to me. But it looks like, from what is in Danny's post- https://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?659985-Why-are-we-okay-with-violence-in-RPGs&p=7619116&viewfull=1#post7619116 That my "quotes" are disappearing. It seems that pemerton reports it as a text formatting issue. So, I think this is recent? Maybe an "https:" change? And it's not universal ... it looks fine to me. Quotes that I use from someone else seem fine ... I think it might just be a combination of: Using the "quote" feature around text that I paste into the text box, and paste as "plain text formatting" (in order to avoid html issues). But I'd like the Powers That Be to look at this, and either tell me it's a bug (with a fix on the server side?) or that I need to do things differently so everyone can see what I'm doing; I'm guessing that this bug has led to some recent miscommunications. :) EDIT- Here's a test: Nece...
  • 02:48 AM - Hriston mentioned pemerton in post Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?
    Really?? Because I literally brought up this idea that how content was presented could in fact determine whether a group would be interested in the content earlier in the thread (and one of the reasons I thought of it as core to the game) and these were the replies... Emphasis mine. I don't know about @pemerton’s post, but that post of mine you quoted was not made in reply to you or anything you said. I made it in response to @Hussar’s post which directly preceded mine and which asked why dungeon dressing appears in most editions of the DMG.

Wednesday, 12th June, 2019

  • 09:41 PM - hawkeyefan mentioned pemerton in post Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?
    All substance, no style, and you are just playing a boardgame ... or a wargame. All style, no substance, and you are just doing community theater. That's why it's neither ... or both. It tastes great, and is less filling. (Its a STYLISTIC .... SUBSTANCE, or, put another way, it's a ROLE PLAYING .... GAME ;) ). Yeah, I think I acknowledged that in my post, and I think we've made that clear throughout the thread, despite proponents of either using extreme examples as support. Both are necessary. But I would imagine that most of us feel that one is more important than the other, such as pemerton's stated preference in the OP. To use your comparison (dated though it is, I sadly get it :p), for some folks, lite beer being less filling may be more important to the taste. For others, the opposite is true. While it's both, what matters to people is, I think, what's interesting to discuss.
  • 07:40 PM - uzirath mentioned pemerton in post Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?
    Look at the comments you have made in defense of this theory. Long, lengthy, well-written, good grammar, decent vocabulary, engaged with the argument, and so on. Sure. Yes. My framing, narration, gaming conversation, etc., is probably, by some metrics, more "literary" than someone with less formal education, less experience with public speaking, etc. My point wasn't solely about my experience though. I teach RPGs to children ranging from ages 6-14 (and some older). Many of them do not have well-honed skill with language. Many of them succeed at running (and playing in) awesome games, despite that weakness. I am not arguing that good narration can't help—skillful presentation matters in RPGs as in other mediums—but I've slowly come to accept pemerton's basic premise that it is not the most significant element. I regularly see GMs with strong language skills struggling to attract players to their tables because they talk too much or only want the story to go their way. For the kids who stick with it, there is much to enjoy: the GMs may write great descriptions, have good voice control, use spooky foreshadowing, etc. But, often, the table nearby, with a GM who is flustered and has weak vocabulary manages to be more popular because that GM is refereeing a more engaging story, a story primarily written by the other players, dependent on interesting (or hilarious or gruesome) interactions between characters and the fictional environment. Similarly, in college, I had the opportunity to do a two-year folklore study of RPGs. (This was amazing. Still pinching myself.) I referred in my last post to the "torture" of typing up transcripts. That was a big part of the project. I ended up with hundreds of hours of recordings of live D&D games....


Page 1 of 86 123456789101151 ... LastLast
No results to display...

Monday, 22nd July, 2019

  • 10:49 AM - Lanefan quoted pemerton in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    30 years ago I GMed an AD&D game in which one of the PCs, in order to be returned to life, had to be treated by a sage. The result of the sage's herbal treatment was that the PC permanently turned blue. That's a cute enough result, but it's not a challenge to the player's characterisation of the character. Depending on context, it sure could be: if blue-skinned people are shunned by society in that setting the player now has to figure out how to play this character as an outcast, which may or may not be a huge departure from how it was played before. In 5e having a soul has no mechanical effect. I've not yet decided how to portray a character that has no soul. There is going to be some difference for sure. Whatever that difference is, that is what was put at stake. side note In my own game I ruled quite some years ago that having no soul has no real mechanical implications while you're alive (other than that certain types of undead are far less likely to bother you) as your body just ...
  • 10:35 AM - Lanefan quoted pemerton in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    Your PC's actions have put your family at risk. When you decide to do have your PC do X rather than Y, how do you - as a player - know whether your are jeopardiding your relationship with your family? Who decides whether they stick with you or abandon you? And how? Er...are you referring here to the specific example I gave* or asking an in-general question? * - in my example my actions had nothing to do with putting them at risk; the challenge came later when I learned they were at risk and had to choose between family and duty. Is this is all just GM decides? Givan as a) my PC's family are in theory all NPCs, and b) NPCs are completely under the control of the GM, then obviously it's going to be up to the GM to determine (in whatever ways and means he might use) how my family reacts to any of this, and-or to me should I ever find and-or rescue them. This seems to rest on a premise that there is a finite amount of "challenge" which, if the PCs avoid it, means the players win and ever...
  • 10:20 AM - Lanefan quoted pemerton in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    Let's suppose your claim about human physiology was true, which I don't think it is. In 4e hp are not a model of that physiology. They are part of an action resolution framework. Thus, a completely 'gamist' (real-world term use, not forge-world) construct rather than an attempt to model anything; which seems silly when the original idea behind hit points was to reflect - and yes, to some extent model - the amount of trauma one could withstand...along with, as you point out below, how much luck one might have going at the time, be it for or against. The primary mechanical marker of the power of a 4e creature, including the degree of physical trauma it can endure, is its level. By setting the level of a being, the GM is using a mechanical device to signal its toughness in the fiction. Secondarily this is reflected in its defences and any special abilities it might have. Thirdly, this is reflected in its hit points. So far this is more or less true of all editions of D&D. However, in non-4...
  • 12:44 AM - Sadras quoted pemerton in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    It's a bit hard to express a view on this without more context, but I don't think it is such a thing. I'm not seeing that there is a situation suggesting to the PC (and his/her player) that, in fact, those who fight beside me are not worth dying for. I think I understand, will have to ponder on this more. The situation I had envisioned is thus (and I haven't as yet ironed out all the details): A former party member (PC turned NPC) is accused of working for the opposition with strong circumstantial evidence that such accusation is true. The PC will be aware of a mission to have said NPC assassinated. He will have the option to foil such assassination attempt.

Sunday, 21st July, 2019

  • 10:40 PM - Sadras quoted pemerton in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    So I've read on now almost to the end of the thread. Some posters have posted about why this can be good (neither @FrogReaver nor @Lanefan, oddly enough). As I've just posted in response to them, I'm reminded of a certain approach to 2nd ed AD&D. The good of the GM's "special status" seems to consist in curating the players, via their PCs, through an adventure with a reasonably pre-determined structure/sequence of events, or fictional elements to be encountered. (I think this is what @Ovinomancer means by "exploration", and what @Lanefan has in mind in expressing worries about challenges/obstacles being "bypassed".) Now can someone tell me how that sort of play is going to put fundamental pressure on the player's conception of the character? I've not seen that in the real world, and I'm not seeing it in these descriptions either. Good question. If I have understood your side's position (and there is a fairly reasonable possibility I have not as I have only skimmed this thread), is that the ...
  • 04:17 PM - FrogReaver quoted pemerton in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    How is something at stake if you don't know what it is yet? In life the stakes aren't typically clearly defined. We aren't playing the lotto etc.
  • 07:16 AM - FrogReaver quoted pemerton in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    I don't see any challenge to characterisation. You tell us your character is someone who cares about little but being provided with a meal. And so in exchange for a promise of food you submitted yourself to a process that - as you describe it - you seemed to have no control over. As a result you have no soul - I don't know what that means in mechanical terms in 5e, but it doesn't seem to require you to approach your character any differently. 30 years ago I GMed an AD&D game in which one of the PCs, in order to be returned to life, had to be treated by a sage. The result of the sage's herbal treatment was that the PC permanently turned blue. That's a cute enough result, but it's not a challenge to the player's characterisation of the character. What do you see as the challenge to your characterisation in the example that you have provided? What deep commitment or self-conception was put at stake? In 5e having a soul has no mechanical effect. I've not yet decided how to portray a character ...
  • 06:46 AM - FrogReaver quoted pemerton in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    These two accounts of 5e seem pretty congruent with one another. They remind me of a certain, fairly common, sort of approach to 2nd ed AD&D. I've also edited a post about half-a-dozen upthread having read these posts. EDIT: and I also just read this, which seems equally congruent with the other two posts: I think they were excellent accounts of 5e. I think they hardly touched on what 5e does good IN RELATION TO ROLEPLAYING. But I'll be happy for what I got even if it wasn't completely what I asked for.
  • 06:30 AM - FrogReaver quoted pemerton in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    The transcript might be the same, but the play experience won't have been. Yes, different mechanics can influence different play experiences. Note: a play experience is not a roleplay experience. What I mean by this is - Many play experiences are achieved by introducing mechanics that influence play toward a certain kind of experience, but those mechanics simply increase drama and/or tension for the player without actually doing anything for the actual roleplaying. I think you may be confusing mechanics that enhance play to evoke a certain feel and certain tensions with enhancing roleplay. Additionally, in order to achieve that play experience, those systems put more limitations on your roleplay decisions than systems without those mechanics.
  • 06:19 AM - FrogReaver quoted pemerton in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    Now can someone tell me how that sort of play is going to put fundamental pressure on the player's conception of the character? I've not seen that in the real world, and I'm not seeing it in these descriptions either. We have given you all kinds of examples. You dismiss them all because there's no dice involved. So let me give you a 5e example with dice this time. Tonight my character volunteered for a magical ritual whose outcome was uncertain that would on a failure kill him and on a success take his soul. The ritual succeeded and so now my PC has no soul. Note that it was fully in my control to volunteer for this and that I roleplayed my character honestly in volunteering. Note that neither outcome was a good outcome for me - but one much worse than the other. Does this example qualify as a challenge to my characterization? If not why not?
  • 03:20 AM - Tony Vargas quoted pemerton in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    To allude back to an earlier post, those are possible transcripts of play, accounts of events that oocur in the fiction. But from the transcript we can't tell what the play experience was. We can't tell who estabished the fiction, or how, or what the actual play experience was of doing that.Yeah, the actual play experience will be subjective, so looking for the difference there will, at most, uncover some dusty system artifacts that might reveal which system was used, but nothing much more. Now, whether via system procedures, or via some naïve-RP/freestyle/make-believe consensus, the same persons could have established the same elements of the fiction in the same order. I don't know what you mean by roleplaying activity or roleplaying experience.Good. It's nice being the one using confusing terms for a change. ;P Well, I don't think I'm trying to draw a distinction between the two. I am trying to draw a distinction between the, I guess 'high level,' experience of roleplaying, an...
  • 02:51 AM - Tony Vargas quoted pemerton in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    I don't know what you mean by a given instance of RP. I was searching for some way of making a statement general enough to avoid implying any specific system or set of assumptions. But, y'know, RPGing is something we all do. Any time we do that, is an 'instance,' right? So, in any given instance, we might decide to go beyond the scope of the system we're using, or even merely the scope of what it does well. And, /if/ we're a group with a good dynamic, we may even be able to get away with it and produce a given hypothetical experience. It's an idea that's positively tautological. You have an imagination? You can roleplay! The scope of roleplaying in that naïve sense is prettymuch limitless. And, you can, hypothetically, always fall back on that. So if you're trying to discuss differences among some systems, and you say "you can't roleplay in that system" or "it's impossible to do inveigle a framistatt in that system" or whatever makes you feel good about your this system that i...
  • 01:00 AM - ExploderWizard quoted pemerton in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    I don't quite get this. The player decides I wink at the maiden. Who gets to decide whether it's also true that I soften the heart of the maiden with a wink? They're too different descriptions of the one action, so framing things in terms of difficulty doesn't seem to help. Actually they are not different descriptions of the same action. " I wink at the maiden" is an action. The player has complete control of this action. How an action is reacted to or received is not part of performing that action. Desired effects are just that- desires. Actual outcomes or consequences of actions are often not within the original actor's scope of control. In this case I soften the heart is one possible outcome or consequence of the winking action certainly but there may be others completely unknown to the winking player character. Player agency extends to what they actually say and do. Reactions to those words and actions both from GM controlled NPCs and other player characters are not part of that agency.

Saturday, 20th July, 2019

  • 10:11 PM - Lanefan quoted pemerton in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    I don't understand. Are you saying that sometimes the GM has to ignore successful checks and treat them as failures because otherwise the players will win the game unfairly or too easily? That's a strange assertion, if it's the one you're making. No, I'm saying just the opposite: that the GM has to abide by the rolls in principle; and then pointing out that doing so carries a risk of making things too easy and thus making the game less enjoyable. I also don't understand what "combats that are unavoidable" has to do with anything. That's just more checks. If the player's dice are "hot" (as you put it) then the player can "bypass" the combat also. See below... Even within the framework of AD&D I don't really know what you're envisaging here. For instance, nothing in Gygax's AD&D books suggests that a GM can ignore a successful check to find secret doors or to disarm a trap because allowing the success would make things too easy for the players.In 1e or similar systems the presence or abse...
  • 09:56 PM - Lanefan quoted pemerton in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    An action declaration is a proposal that the fiction should include a certain content. For instance, I [try and] climb the wall is a proposal as to the content of the shared fiction, namely, that it includes the PC climbing the wall. Exactly! Hallelujah, we agree! :) It's a proposal to change the fiction, and the dice will then determine the outcome - pretty binary, in this case - you either climb it or you don't. The complications arise when other more general goals, or corollary specific goals that may or may not conflict, get thrown in to the same declaration e.g. I (try to) climb the wall and kill the guard (two goals: climb the wall [specific] and kill the guard [general and unrelated, can be done with a bow from the ground] - should be split out) I (try to) climb the wall and avoid the guard (two goals: climb the wall [specific] and avoid the guard [specific] - hard to split out but also hard to justify tying into one roll) I (try to) climb the wall without being seen or hear...
  • 09:31 PM - Lanefan quoted pemerton in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    I see this as somewhat similar to what I posted upthread - that in AD&D there's no systematic way to put your connection to family on the line.If you're looking for a fully-game-mechanical means of generating or forcing such conflict then no, you won't find it. But that in no way means the system doesn't or can't support it. In 1e that connection can be put on the line via story elements introduced by the GM (most often), by the PC's own player (less common), or by another player/PC (rare, but I've seen it happen). Example. It'd take me all afternoon to fill in the whole backstory, but the here-and-now upshot still in process of being played out is this: up until now my PC has always put duty first: duty to mission, duty to Empire, duty to law, etc. at cost of friendships, potential romances, possessions, and even on at least one occasion her life. Recent events have put her family - who she hasn't had contact with in years and to whom she has never felt any real sense of duty (she rat...
  • 09:16 PM - Lanefan quoted pemerton in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    Upthread, Lanefan asserted that 4e's hp mechanic is flawed because it doesn't conform to his expectations for a hp mechanic. That's a pretty strong claim - that his way of thinking is better. Presumably there's something that can be said to expain the weaker claim that it is good. To save us from yet another hit-points-and-what-they-mean debate, I'll throw in just this: realism. In real life each of us has a certain threshold of physical damage or trauma we can withstand before our body shuts down and we die. And, though we don't numeritically measure it by hit points, the general concept is the same. If, for example, I go out this afternoon and get hit by someone riding a bicycle my "hit points" (i.e. my body's natural resistance to externally-inflicted trauma) are good enough to give me a reasonable chance of survival. If instead I get hit by a car going at standard street speed, my "hit points" will be put to a severe test and quite likely won't be enough to save me..though they mig...
  • 06:38 PM - Tony Vargas quoted pemerton in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    I've highlighted you use of the word things. I think you're using it to refer to certain sorts of events in the fiction. The sorts of things that might be presented on a messageboard in the form of a transcript. I meant it as non-specific and all-inclusive. In my post I was talking about experiences had by the players, at the table. I would absolutely include things like those things, in 'things.' The example was illustrative, not exhaustive. Now, if you want to get down to the level of experiencing system artifacts, sure, even freestyle, with no system to speak of could be said to have those, and they'd be different from an actual system. But, my point was not that all systems, are the same because they're the same as no system, just that nothing is outside the scope of a given instance of RP, just because it's outside the scope of what the system in use does, or does well, as the participants can hypothetically fall back on freestyle/make-believe/non-systematic RP. I see t...
  • 12:38 AM - FrogReaver quoted pemerton in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    Some other posters have already explained how finding a ruby can be a failure. Here's another way: the PC is searching for gold pieces because only gold pieces can lift the curse of the whatever-it-is (I'm imagining some variant of the gem-crushing gargoyle in ToH). Finding a ruby is a, in that circumstance, a failure - although maybe if the PC can make it to a gem market and cash in the ruby s/he can get some or even all of the gold s/he needs. As to your possibilities: (1) I don't really see how this can be known in advance unless the GM has already plotted the story out. Which maybe s/he has, but then that brings us back to the question of what the role of the players is in relation to the fiction. (2) This has been dealt with ad nauseum by @Ovinomancer and by me. If the action declaration would violate the established ficiotn then that should alreayd have been sorted out. Furthremore, this is not particularly a GM function. I mean, the GM's narration of the ruby could negate some prioer...

Friday, 19th July, 2019

  • 08:24 PM - Lanefan quoted pemerton in post Players choose what their PCs do . . .
    But on your own account this isn't true. Because the GM can always narrate something else. As you're presenting it, all the players get to do is make suggestions that the GM may or may not follow up on. Ditto the GM, who in presenting the entire setting is merely making suggestions the players may or may not follow up on (in the example, the players/PCs might decide the Southtor seal isn't enough, or if the GM throws in the bit about the love letters, might decide to follow up on that instead...or ignore it; it's their choice). How is that possiby a success, given the declared action? It's obviously a failure - the PC has not got what s/he wanted (namely, incriminating financial documents). You're concatenating two goals into one here - a specific one (find some financial papers) and a larger overarching one (incriminate the Duke). Even though both are mentioned in one action, there's nothing stopping you from splitting them out and reacting only to one or the other. Otherwise, to give ...


pemerton's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites