View Profile: Numidius - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
Tab Content
No Recent Activity
About Numidius

Basic Information

About Numidius
Introduction:
Ibis, redibis. From BECMI in the eighties, all the way to DW recently.
About Me:
Not so old, but surely bold, GM from Rome, the eternal city, a chaotic, struggling, but indeed alive city. While I still like plain old deadly dungeon crawls, I do enjoy storygamey roleplaying and rpg theory discussions. Also boardgames: euro, american, wargames, whatever. Most important, I enjoy the company of people at the table. Fiction I like: Mark Lawrence for fantasy, Greg Egan' s hard SF, and Charles Stross to have a modern, lovecraftian, laugh.
Location:
Rome
Disable sharing sidebar?:
No
Sex:
Male
My Game Details

Details of games currently playing and games being sought.

Town:
Rome
Country:
Italy

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
267
Posts Per Day
0.89
Last Post
Situation, setting and "status quo" Saturday, 25th May, 2019 03:48 PM

Currency

Gold Pieces
0
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 12:06 PM
Join Date
Saturday, 22nd September, 2018
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0
My Game Details
Town:
Rome
Country:
Italy
No results to show...
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Sunday, 26th May, 2019

  • 03:24 PM - pemerton mentioned Numidius in post Situation, setting and "status quo"
    ...nd that's not very close! When it comes to a discussion on 'status quo', I think it's important to see it in context. The driving theme in AW is 'scarcity'. Everything is scarce. Water, shelter, friendship, warmth, fuel, food, ammunition, tools, knowledge, medicine, transport... everything anyone wants and needs is hard to get. And anytime someone has it, someone else wants to take it. So everything is precarious, everything is under pressure. A character may have a nice rifle, but where do they get bullets from? And what happens if the bullet-making guy moves on? And where does that guy get his lead from, or his powder? They can dry up, right? Where do your ragtag 40 survivors get water from? Food? You got a windmill running a generator - who can fix it? Who's got wood and spare parts? Who's got the know-how? What's stopping Ol' Jake from burning it down in the night?See, this is what I look at and think would push me as a GM in ways that I'm not used to being pushed. (Whereas Numidius's comment about "a freeflowing play and Gming" doesn't cause me any anxiety - I think I'm fairly used to and comfortable with that.) I'm not used to having to bring a setting to life in this particular fashion.

Tuesday, 30th April, 2019

  • 04:03 AM - pemerton mentioned Numidius in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    Players that choose gear all by themselves before approaching a challenge, without a sort of linkage to how their characters would do it in their fictional world, looks pretty gamist to me.In what way? I'm not following. I would think adventurers would equip themselves between their travels. Are you inferring that they do not confer with each other or with others/specialists before equipping? If we look at D&D solely, then we are looking at a system (or series of related systems throughout time) that has its own set of assumptions about the cultural norms, rationalities of the game, and how it nominally should function.I've quoted Aldarc here in the context of Sadras's response to Numidius because it seems highly apt in that context even though that wasn't quite the context Aldarc was responding to. I took Numidius to be referring to the standard approach for equipping a new PC in D&D, which is (i) to roll (or, in more recent editions, otherwise establish) starting money, then (ii) choose equipment from a list which has various items (with a particular focus on combat gear, and then travelling gear, and less focus on (say) household furnishings or cute trinkets) and prices next to them, with (iii) this often being done more-or-less independently by each player, or - if there is collaboration - the collaboration being purely in terms of ensuring not too many iron spikes and ensuring enough oil and lanterns. And the poiint that I took to be the main one is that this process doesn't bear any close resemblance to what is happening in the fiction, which is that (i) this character lives in a quasi-mediaeval economy where a lot of trade is barter- rather than coin-based, ...

Monday, 29th April, 2019

  • 08:13 PM - hawkeyefan mentioned Numidius in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    ...th an appropriate weapon that does significant damage to undead (i.e. bludgeoning). Is this more authentic to you? I find the more you deviate from how things occur in RL, the more you tend towards a gamist system. Hard choices and integration are still there, and play focus has shifted, but this type of deviation leans more towards abstraction. I'm not sure I understand this example....I could just be misreading.....I don't see swapping one weapon type out for one that would be more effective against an expected enemy to be problematic. Either method we're discussing would allow for this. Blades has the option for certain playbooks/classes to carry ammunition that is effective against ghosts, but it costs an inventory slot to have that ammo be available. In what way? I'm not following. I would think adventurers would equip themselves between their travels. Are you inferring that they do not confer with each other or with others/specialists before equipping? I can't answer for Numidius, but my take on what was meant was that this sounds like a case of a player making a choice, rather than the character making a choice. Sure, there is some overlap in what the character would know and what the player would know.....but if you think about who would make a more informed opinion about what to bring on a mission, I think it's clear that it would be the character. So a game that lacks some way to evoke or emulate the character deciding, then it feels very much like a player making a decision....and therefore, seems like a game.

Saturday, 20th April, 2019

  • 02:28 AM - AbdulAlhazred mentioned Numidius in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    I'm hoping that perhaps a new and rather stripped down example may help. I hope this in the same way I hope great big wads of cash fall from the sky and land in my yard. Yeah, judging from the posts between your's and this one, I think your kitten has died (to completely change analogies in mid-stream, but at this point who cares). Anyway, here's hoping Numidius will come back and continue with the fun ideas about bootstrapping story now with mechanics. I am not going to talk about whatever it is that killed the kitty, no more no more! ;)

Friday, 12th April, 2019


Thursday, 4th April, 2019

  • 11:11 AM - Hussar mentioned Numidius in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    Shhh!! Don't clue him in. He's busy mocking me with his superior knowledge. ;) Sorry to burst your bubble Maxperson, but, this is in response to earlier questions from Numidius. And, heck, my 4e and 5e games aren't all that different. Maybe other folks are. Mine? Not so much. I find 5e to be mostly an update of 4e, particularly from the Essentials stuff. Certainly closer to 4e than 2e with which it shares virtually no mechanics. I mean, there's almost no 2e dna in 5e - the spell system is completely different, whether it's daily casters using Sorcerer mechanics or short rest casters like the Warlock which have no equivalent at all in 2e. The skill system is 4e's skill system without the level adjustments. The combat system is straight up d20. Me, I look at it pretty simply. Could a 4e player, with no experience in 5e, read a 5e character sheet? Pretty much. A 2e player? Wouldn't even recognize the character sheet as being a D&d character. The only thing that 5e shares with earlier editions is some milksop advice on letting the DM be in charge (which is really easy to ignore) and a sliver of monster lore. Does anyone really think a 2e figh...

Sunday, 31st March, 2019

  • 03:57 PM - darkbard mentioned Numidius in post Played The Dying Earth RPG for the first time today
    I've never read The Dying Earth I second Numidius 's suggestion; though it's been quite a few years (maybe 20?) since I read them, I have very fond memories of relishing them. In fact, they even helped me understand why Vancian magic (i.e., fire and forget) appealed to Gygax back in the day! Your write up makes the game seem well fitted to a brief, none-too-serious break from ongoing campaigns (which, in your case, of course, it is!).

Saturday, 30th March, 2019

  • 04:24 PM - Maxperson mentioned Numidius in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    ...rms. An assassin can simply kill a target, no hit points are involved whatsoever (though you can argue about whether or not NPC assassins exist and if they can use this mechanic against a PC). There are a few places in modules and discussion where Gary, or at least TSR, used or advised use of a death save as well. This could be a good way to adjudicate jumping off a 400' cliff for example. OTOH AD&D doesn't specifically state any of this consistently and hit points are certainly thought of as the default damage mechanism. So a player would probably be expecting, and would have good reason to expect, that this mechanism would prevail in your example. I can almost guarantee dismay at the table in any case, and this is a weakness of the Gygax model of D&D. One which others sought to overcome in various ways. Modern RPGs with their models of intent, action, and consequence often avoid these issues. 1e was a different beast than 5e, and the 5e definition is what I was discussing with Numidius. Personally, if you do something in my game that gives up hit points, like deliberately stepping off of a cliff or standing still for a sword strike, the PC is going to die or at least be down and dying.

Thursday, 28th March, 2019

  • 12:46 PM - pemerton mentioned Numidius in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    ...e Author-power of Pawn Stance in competitive situations, such that the player is not hampered in the range of possible options. *A Narrativist approach to Stances usually involves keeping Actor Stance confined to limited instances, such that Author and Director Stances may generate a lot of metagame impact on the storyline. *A Simulationist approach to Stances usually involves designating when Actor Stance, the default, may be exited. I'm personally not sure these conjectures are true. As I expalined upthread, when using a fairly standard scene-framing approach, if the GM is doing his/her job then a player in actor stance should find that "story now" is the result. (Of course, this same approach requires the GM to adopt author stance rather than actor stance in the play of NPCs, but stance as Edwards is using it is really about non-GM participants and their "player character.) I think pawn stance also has a range of functions outside of the gamist context Edwards suggests. Numidius gave an example upthread. A different sort of example occurred in my last Traveller session, where a player with a wealthy PC opted to liquidate assets to pay for the psionic training of an impecunious PC, because the player of the wealthy PC thought it would be too harsh for the player of the poor one to miss out on the opportunity, given its importance to the player and centrality to the character concept. Maybe this will "evolve" from pawn to actor stance as the consequences of the debt are explored in play, but to date it really is pawn stance. (In some other systems this sort of issue could probably be resolved mechanically - eg some sort of social conflict either between the PCs or between the PC and the Psionics Institute - but Traveller simply doesn't have that sort of mechanical tech.) I'm also not persuaded that actor stance is the default in simulationist play. It can certainly be important, and as I've posted upthread and as AbdulAlhazred has responded to, one functio...

Wednesday, 27th March, 2019

  • 11:24 AM - pemerton mentioned Numidius in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    Thanks Numidius. When you had said "puzzle solving using real-life psychology" I at first though you had meant the GM had (deliberately) posed a puzzle to you that he expected you to solve by application of real life psychology. But now I realise that you meant that the whole at-the-table situation, including the Gm, confronted you with a puzzle which you solved by application of real life psychology by coming up with a plan that would enable you to get things moving. I hope you're able to have a fruitful conversation with your friends. The play that you're describing sounds really painful!
  • 09:57 AM - pemerton mentioned Numidius in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    ...eedom, and climbed the social ladder. He had a nice townhouse that he leased, and had aspirations to become a magistrate of his city. These features of the character made it easy for me, as GM, to present situations that could be responded to in actor stance. And there are obviously other ways to approach this outside of the scene-framing method that I personally incline towards. For instance, if the setting is rich, and the PC is built by reference to that setting (see, again, RQ for an example) then - provided the player understands the setting and his/her PC's place in it - then actor stance is relatively easy to achieve. Of course, it's always possible for a GM to frame a situation that is, from the perspective of the player adopting actor stance, a non-sequitur. If the GM doesn't describe a situation that speaks in some fashion to the motivations established by a player for his/her PC then the player will have to drop out of actor stance and adopt some other stance (see eg Numidius's post about his/her (? sorry, I'm not sure what the right pronoun is) WHFRPG game, where to make things happen it was necessary to declare actions in pawn stance). Or in a setting-based game, if the GM's situation doesn't engage the player's understanding of the setting, the result might be pawn stance, or even the degenerate case of the player asking the GM What would my character do in response to such-and-such? Whether this sort of non-sequitur (assuming its not degenerate) counts as good or bad GMing will depend on the details of system, table, mood, present in-game circumstances, etc. In my RM game, the player of the would-be magistrate sorcerer sometimes declared actions in author stance rather than actor stance because he wanted to facilitate game play, maintain party cohesion, etc. And sometimes I would frame situations that were intended to engage a different PC, and then the player of this PC had to retroactively decide what his character thought about those things. Bu...

Monday, 25th March, 2019

  • 09:40 PM - robus mentioned Numidius in post Suggestions wanted: Adventure set in Medieval Italy
    Numidius - fan-freaking-tastic! So evocative. It's like you're reading my mind :) I picture the monks using stone from the tombs to enhance their monastery accidentally incorporating some arcane relic into the altar that has now been activated and is possessing the abbot and causing the change of allegiance.

Tuesday, 19th March, 2019

  • 11:04 PM - pemerton mentioned Numidius in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    I think you are really misinterpreting this <snip> you are stretching what they are saying into territory they clearly don't intend <snip> the point about the challenge of playing within the limits of your character, to me that very much suggests a thought about meta gaming. What interpretation? Do you disagree that "there is no statement of any universal metagame ban"? Do you disagree that "the approach to rules questions, and the emphasis on collaboration/consensus rather than GM rulings and GM decision-making" is interesting? The first paragraph says you can't use player knowledge and have your PC's know it.As Numidius posted, it talks about player knowledge of chemistry, not player knowledge of the gameworld. The players working together just means that they shouldn't be jerks about ideas on what to do.It encourages metagaming - that is, making decisions having regard not to the fiction and the character, but rather what will make the game work as a game.

Wednesday, 13th March, 2019

  • 11:33 PM - pemerton mentioned Numidius in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    Well, assuming I am running a game where (1) there are trolls, (2) trolls and their weaknesses are not common knowledge to whatever civilization that the PCs are part of, and (3) the party hasn't previously run into trolls and learned all about them, then... First, any PCs with the appropriate skill can roll to see if the recognize the troll. If they roll well, then I tell them they know what they are dealing with, what the weaknesses are, etc. If they fail the skill roll, then I let them know they see "Large green humanoids" that they cannot identify. It is up to the PCs what happens next. I rarely ambush my players, so there is a good chance that if they are running into a new monster, they will have options to avoid or retreat. Maybe they decide to go back to town and research it. But, assuming they have somehow got themselves into a combat situation, then after a few rounds it will be clear that the creature they are battling has incredible regenerative capabilities. What happens then...
  • 11:32 PM - pemerton mentioned Numidius in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    ...or when. When I already know something as a player, but my character doesn't, I am indeed discovering what he knows via those activities I described. For me discovery is happening. For you, not so much. This is incoherent. If you've deciding that your PC doesn't know about trolls, although you already do know about trolls, you're not discovering anything. Deciding isn't discoverying. if my PC doesn't know about troll weaknesses, it's good roleplaying to portray that in character. How does this even work? Do you just let your PC be killed by the trolls? I wouldn't do anything at that moment. If the player metagames, that would be cheating, even if it saves the party. A win via cheating cheapens the game for all of my players as we are on the same page with regards to metagaming, so the player would be spoken to afterwards and given a first and final about cheating. What I wouldn't do is stop the declared action. It's not my job to to control the PCs.This doesn't answer Numidius's question: what do you expect good play to look like in this sort of case.

Tuesday, 12th March, 2019

  • 09:40 PM - Lanefan mentioned Numidius in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    Catching up on several posts at once here... I'm not sure what the basis is for your conjecture. To explain by way of comparison: Some people like solving crosswords. Others like debating at seminars. The former is pre-structured. The latter is social, and has a responsisve and evolutionary dynamic. Both are intellectual and require good command of one's words. I don't see what reason there would be to think that solving crosswords, in general, should be more enjoyable. Interesting that your examples - whether intentionally or not - also imply a degree of social interactivity. Solving crosswords is usually a solitary pastime, while debating is by definition going to involve other people. Numidius ' analogy in the followign post regarding dinner preparation is much better, the only variable missing in the GM-made meal part is whether the GM asked for menu input before starting to cook and-or how well she listened to any responses. These are devices for allowing an ignorant player to oblige the GM to inform him/her. They don't tell us that players who are already informed are meant to do whatever-it-is that you think they're meant to do. (And frankly I don't know what that is.) They are also devices for telling a knowledgeable player playing an ignorant character when the player knowledge may be used (success on the skill check) and when it may not (failure on said check). Obviously if a PC already has the knowledge e.g. this isn't the first time she's fought trolls then no check is required*. * - barring very unusual circumstances e.g. PC amnesia. Mother, meta i? A TPK is about to occurr. One PC might give resolutive help, but dares not because metagaming. Pl...

Saturday, 9th March, 2019

  • 08:45 AM - pemerton mentioned Numidius in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    It was parked in a hangar. Nothing was preventing me from getting into the cockpit and starting the engines. But this DM had everything planned out that he wanted to happen, and the players grabbing his decorative X-wings and bailing was not part of that plan. Not only did he railroad the campaign, but his playstyle meant blocking our actions at every turn. He would arbitralily tell us our actions failed, because it is not what he intended.I don't want to speak too harshy about a situation that you were part of and I (obviously enough) was not - but why participate in this game for more than the session or so it took to work this out? What you're talking about here isn't RPGing, it's just sitting there listening to the GM tell his Star Wars story. Which is unlikely to be as good as one you'll find in a comic or a film, simply because most professional storytellers are better than most amateurs. To me, this seems like the other side of Numidius's bathtime coin: we have bathtime GMs who just leave the PCs hanging with no fiction for the players to engage with; and on the other side we have GMs who have already prewritten all the ficiton so still there is - for practical purposes of playing an RPG - no fiction for the players to engage with.
  • 03:18 AM - pemerton mentioned Numidius in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    ...g the rules of that game if you do this. The point you're so adeptly missing is that D&D puts control over the rules under the GM as a rule of the game. BW does not.To add to what Ovinomancer said: (1) There is nothing special about the GM role in the example you give. I could buy the BW books and create house rules for it and ask someone to GM it for me. (2) There is nothing special about the game being an RPG in the example you give. I could buy Forbidden Desert, create a house rule for it (eg double the number of sand counters) and ask people to play it with me. All you'e shown is that people can make up games and ask people to play them with them. Which I think is probably common knowledge for participants in this thread. Or the GM says, " you're lawful good and have orders yo guard this location. You wouldn't wander off behind the tree. If you do, I'm changing your alignment and you'll lose your Paladin abilities."I'm still working through the thread, so maybe Numidius has responded to this already. But to me it seems a fairly common alternative to being left hanging around unsupported by the fiction.

Friday, 8th March, 2019

  • 04:24 PM - pemerton mentioned Numidius in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    ...asic PDF): The players describe what they want to do. . . . Sometimes, resolving a task is easy. If an adventurer wants to walk across a room and open a door, the DM might just say that the door opens and describe what lies beyond. But the door might be locked, the floor might hide a deadly trap, or some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete a task. In those cases, the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results . . . The DM narrates the results of the adventurers’ actions. One reading of this is that it is always open to the GM to decide whether or not the PC makes it behind the tree. (And I have a memory of you arguing as much in a thread we both participated in not too long ago.) I'm not sure, myself, that that is the only or even the best reading, but I'm guessing it's what Ovinomancer has in mind. (If I'm wrong about that I'm sure he will let me know.) The long answer is the one given by Numidius upthread, that I've replied to just upthread: the issue isn't the narrow, immediate one of whether or not the PC ends up behind the tree, but rather of whether any of the interesting things that the player thought might result from that actually do come about. Or whether the PC is left "hanging around without support in the fiction."

Thursday, 7th March, 2019

  • 10:59 AM - pemerton mentioned Numidius in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    I haven't read or played Torchbearer, but - obviously given my posts - am a big fan of Burning Wheel. The weapon list seems to have more properties/qualities than the 5e counterpart which is great and places more weight when choosing one's weapon in a particular conflict. Maybe Manbearcat or Numidius can confirm - is this similar to the BW weapon list? Selecting a conflict captain is interesting - kind of like a player referee/administrator of sorts.I am guessing this is related to Luke Crane's love for the caller role in Molday Basic. Is that right? Fight for your Belief, accomplish your Goal, help out with your Instinct.That seems similar to BW, though not identical.


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
No results to display...
Page 1 of 9 123456789 LastLast

Saturday, 25th May, 2019

  • 03:00 AM - pemerton quoted Numidius in post Situation, setting and "status quo"
    I humbly suggest to the op to read the fluff intro, of course, and jump straight to reading all the pc playbooks. Most of the setting is there. Yes, I've done that. I get the setting in the sense of genre/colour/tone. Hi there! I wouldn't say the setting is the situation. Perhaps the situation is the (first) session, instead. By reading the manual and the playbooks the setting is mostly implied. Does it make sense?Interesting. Maybe my use of "setting" is misleading, or just flat-out wrong? I'll try to explain what I was getting at, and why - for me - it's distinctive compared to what I'm more familiar with. Painting in broad brush strokes, and doing some classification on the run, I would say that I'm familiar with 3 main sorts of situation - and I'm thinking here especially of situations at the start of a campaign/"arc": (1) The PCs have to leave home/comfort/their default to deal with a challenge/threat/problem; (2) The PCs are in the midst of some immediate crisis/threat/ch...

Friday, 24th May, 2019

  • 11:41 PM - dragoner quoted Numidius in post Situation, setting and "status quo"
    No "prewritten" locations. Although a lot of stuff is suggested in the examples of the text. In the First session of play characters are made, and also worldbuilding, but not a whole fantasy world, just the locations in which the players, or the party, live and start playing, a smallish postapoc setting, supposedly rich of npcs and connections. I get it now, though I think the language could be a little clearer. In one of my games, for example, I grabbed a line from a book ad about "violent gangs vy for power on the frontier" (frontier could be changed to post apocalyptic wasteland) which sort of described most of what the players needed to know. Other parts, I let them fill in the blanks.
  • 03:45 PM - dragoner quoted Numidius in post Situation, setting and "status quo"
    Actually AW is intended to start "clicking" after half a dozen sessions, at best. The setting is heavily implied in the text. There are no locations, tho, since it is a post apoc setting. No status quo means no self sustained authority bigger than "the party" that cannot be subverted if They so choose. Lots of connections, tho, between all the factions/npcs involved. Lots of procedures to create a coherent environment with scarce resources needed by anyone, but not enough for everybody, hence no status quo. Hope it helps No locations? It seems that: "no self sustained authority" would be the status quo? Also the scarcity. Except "the party" is there? This seems confusing.
  • 02:34 PM - Sadras quoted Numidius in post GAME OF THRONES SEASON 8--Final Run-- Part 5
    Some blame also the budget not enough for two dragons I do not buy that. They were offered tons of cash and loads more episodes by HBO. They also keep spewing the line about how expensive it is to create/shoot Ghost and to have dogs behave a certain way. Maybe they could have spoken to the guys who managed the dogs in John Wick Parabellum. Given the rest of the show, I'd put it down to lazy writing.
  • 12:49 PM - Sadras quoted Numidius in post GAME OF THRONES SEASON 8--Final Run-- Part 6---THE END
    Maxperson, Cool! Glad to hear it. On Aegon, I think it is going to be Jon even in the books, 'cause I guess the other claimant is going to die horribly before the ending :D I think his name will be Aemon. I believe that they did not want to confuse viewers with Maester Aemon from Castle Black hence the switch to Aegon. For the same reason they created Yara Greyjoy.
  • 12:39 PM - Sadras quoted Numidius in post GAME OF THRONES SEASON 8--Final Run-- Part 5
    Apparently the two showrunners don't like the number "3", so we never got a third Targaryen mounting the third dragon. Fair enough, but why not having Jon Snow ride Rhaegal above KL trying to stop the fury of Daenerys? That would have been cool, also causing havoc in the city more as a collateral damage than unilateral assault. Drogon kills Rhaegal, then, in last episode, Jon kills Daenerys as seen on TV? or any other random ending... Because they kind of forgot how to write...
  • 07:51 AM - Maxperson quoted Numidius in post GAME OF THRONES SEASON 8--Final Run-- Part 6---THE END
    Any chance Martin is going to publish the sixth book, now that the TV series is over? I read a quote from Martin release earlier today that he was due to show up at a convention or something like one in July of 2020. He said that if he does not walk into the convention with a copy of the finished book, we could imprison him over a sea of sulfer or something like that until he finishes. So he seems to have given himself about another year to finish.

Tuesday, 30th April, 2019

  • 04:03 AM - pemerton quoted Numidius in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    Players that choose gear all by themselves before approaching a challenge, without a sort of linkage to how their characters would do it in their fictional world, looks pretty gamist to me.In what way? I'm not following. I would think adventurers would equip themselves between their travels. Are you inferring that they do not confer with each other or with others/specialists before equipping? If we look at D&D solely, then we are looking at a system (or series of related systems throughout time) that has its own set of assumptions about the cultural norms, rationalities of the game, and how it nominally should function.I've quoted Aldarc here in the context of Sadras's response to Numidius because it seems highly apt in that context even though that wasn't quite the context Aldarc was responding to. I took Numidius to be referring to the standard approach for equipping a new PC in D&D, which is (i) to roll (or, in more recent editions, otherwise establish) starting money, then (ii) choose equipment from a list which has various items (with a particular focus on combat gear, and then travelling gear, and less focus on (say) household furnishings or cute trinkets) and prices next to them, with (iii) this often being done more-or-less independently by each player, or - if there is collaboration - the collaboration being purely in terms of ensuring not too many iron spikes and ensuring enough oil and lanterns. And the poiint that I took to be the main one is that this process doesn't bear any close resemblance to what is happening in the fiction, which is that (i) this character lives in a quasi-mediaeval economy where a lot of trade is barter- rather than coin-based, ...

Monday, 29th April, 2019

  • 11:17 AM - Sadras quoted Numidius in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    But, it's kinda not. The gear mechanic is very tightly tied into all the other mechanics such that, while it may appear super loose, it generates many hard choices as well and isn't nearly as loose in play as it looks in isolation. When @hawkeyefan first mentioned the mechanic I pretty much realised how it could be used in a game and given your above post, this confirms it. It is an excellent mechanic! Hard choices and integration can be incorporated in both gamist and more authentic mechanics. But, that aside, your objection isn't one of "realism" but rather play focus. You may prefer the detailed planning and gearing and detailed encumberance, but in the fiction generated in play there's no realism difference. This is an argument about where we prefer to spend our game time. Planning beforehand ticks more realism/authenticity boxes. Play focus does not enter the conversation, it is a completely separate issue in this instance. In the same vain one could have weapon slots so when...

Wednesday, 24th April, 2019

  • 05:05 PM - estar quoted Numidius in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    estar Man, I do love walls of text :) gonna take some time to read, digest it and reply, though. One additional thing, I am the Rob Conley that Brendan mentioned. I just realized my handle on Enworld doesn't make that connection clear.
  • 03:45 PM - estar quoted Numidius in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    My search for the right party, to run or to play with, continues... A little late to the party :D At this point I refereed campaigns in a variety of circumstances, with friend fact to face and online. At game store where anybody can drop in from week to week, at conventions with total strangers. One off sessions like the one described by BrendanBedrock and so on. To make what I do apply across all these groups equally well, I roleplaying and ask my player to roleplay in first person. if somebody says "I have Rurik the fighter go and talk to the shopkeeper and buy a sword." I would look the player in the eye (or with VOIP) say in first person "How can I help you?" And cox the player into responding in first person. Now to be crystal clear this is not the same as acting or doing the funny voice. It sufficient to be just yourself with the abilities and knowledge of the character. This is a first crucial step because what it does for most is engage their natural social instinct as people. A p...

Saturday, 13th April, 2019

  • 01:43 AM - AbdulAlhazred quoted Numidius in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    Let's focus on what you propose: a Player driven story arc. Say: the Pc half-elf fighter/bard wants to marry the daughter of the high elves' King. The Gm could say: "Agreed, let's move on", or "Not so fast. First you have to phisically get to the elven kingdom, and I remind you that the mountains are infested by warring orcs lead by an evil shaman. (Sounds like Exploration stuff). Then you will discover that she is promised to a noble cousin, (and that is Social). Finally the King himself will probably ask you to prove your might and clear up an annoying megadungeon situated just under his realm (Combat)." In any of those points, the Player may use his slots to move further (or those of someone else's in the party, if they participate), and Gm may use Force to stop him. When the negotiation phase is over, the normal play begins, and the Pc will use his own ability, feat, skill, Slots (at-will, encounter, daily, whatever). Who or what regulates when that transition happens? Is it just "keep...

Friday, 12th April, 2019

  • 11:49 PM - Hand of Evil quoted Numidius in post What are you currently playing?
    I still play in a wfrp2 group. What your opinions on ZH? A good bit like wfrp.v2 but Zweihander runs better and rules system works well.
  • 03:44 PM - darkbard quoted Numidius in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    I have not read PW. Would elaborate on that? The difference I perceive from DW, is that I'd put in place a procedural frame to be followed as RAW. In which Gm and Players are not pulling their punches, since in any moment one can mandate the other to roll, and then another Frame dictates who narrates Success and who Failures (who rolls narrates Failures... the other Player the Success: so in the above Bard & Princess story arc Negotiation, the Gm would roll for the social stuff regarding the Princess and her promised Cousin: Gm fails and narrates that Yes The Princess now loves the Bard, but he captures her and flee into the dungeon helped by his noble house relatives --- note that The Dungeon was already in the fiction, so who narrates may incorporate anything that has been established, and of course pertinent: this can be clarified before the roll, btw, to have fair play/all on the same page) Ah, I see: this is formalized through rolls rather than freeform narrative building. That is q...
  • 12:30 PM - darkbard quoted Numidius in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    Let's focus on what you propose: a Player driven story arc. Say: the Pc half-elf fighter/bard wants to marry the daughter of the high elves' King. The Gm could say: "Agreed, let's move on", or "Not so fast. First you have to phisically get to the elven kingdom, and I remind you that the mountains are infested by warring orcs lead by an evil shaman. (Sounds like Exploration stuff). Then you will discover that she is promised to a noble cousin, (and that is Social). Finally the King himself will probably ask you to prove your might and clear up an annoying megadungeon situated just under his realm (Combat)." In any of those points, the Player may use his slots to move further (or those of someone else's in the party, if they participate), and Gm may use Force to stop him. When the negotiation phase is over, the normal play begins, and the Pc will use his own ability, feat, skill, Slots (at-will, encounter, daily, whatever). Do you see this setting creation as fundamentally different than...
  • 11:28 AM - pemerton quoted Numidius in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    And in your opinion, what resource the Gm should use?Dunno, I've never thought of establishing setting and "big picture" (to use Luke Crane's terminology) in this way before. Fate has something a bit like this in it's setup phase, but I've never played Fate. Does it have anything useful to offer? MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic allows the GM to set up to three Scene Distinctions for free in each action scene, and the rest have to be paid for from the Doom Pool. Maybe the GM gets three uses of Force for free, and then every further move allows the players to introduce some favourable element into the fiction also (eg the GM has trolls, but the PCs have a bolt hole among the fairy folk of the forest).

Thursday, 11th April, 2019

  • 01:44 AM - AbdulAlhazred quoted Numidius in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    Re: Adventure, I see Stakes, something that is wanted by the Party and a couple of Factions/Npcs: a situation that fosters a series of small Conflicts having an immediate Goal, albeit small, that gets Players closer to control the Stake, and, in the process, producing fiction regulated by rules on the Right to describe outcomes. (Sounds like Edward's Trollbabe, again, I know, that's my filter of analisys) Re: Gm producing Backstory: I mean, why not, but I would focus on the introduction of new Content by the Gm*: s/he also has to have some Stats to roll if Players do not agree: like Dungeon, Town, Wilderness, for general arenas of play, or about the Use of Force: enforced in-fiction by Npcs or bigger Factions or anything: stats would be like Use of Violence, Mind Control, Environmental Obstacles, when directly against the Party to limit their freedom of movement, or to generate players driven scene framing. (It's been a while that I'm thinking on these lines......) OK, so at th...

Wednesday, 10th April, 2019

  • 01:08 AM - pemerton quoted Numidius in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    "Let five years pass" ... this is something that scares trad Gms IME. When resuming warhammer 2e last year, I proposed to let some time pass: new careers for older Pcs, new Npcs and situations to start with, even if continuing the same overall storyline-big plot behind the scenes... instead the game resumed exactly were we left, in the very same moment. No scene framing, so it took two whole sessions to get to the place we all agreed we had to start play with... as per past clues (an old elven ship wrecked on the coast and hidden by debris)Numidius, you seem to have some frustrating play experiences! One thing I'm curious about is whether (i) you're an outlier, or (ii) others do this too but enjoy it, or (iii) others have similar frustrations.

Tuesday, 9th April, 2019

  • 08:48 PM - Staffan quoted Numidius in post Pathfinder 2E or Pathfinder 1E?
    Would someone please summarize char gen and action system in PF2, for what is known? Thanks Character generation (from the playtest): Based on choosing Ancestry (previously known as race), Background, and Class. Some of these contain one or more sub-choices (e.g. which of these four 1st level abilities do you want?). Those three largely determine stats as well - at each stage, you get a number of stat boosts (some fixed, some you get to choose, but no stage can double up on the same stat) and sometimes stat flaws, and at the end you get another round of customizing stat boosts. So let's say you want to play a dwarf monk who used to be a sailor. You'd choose: Ancestry: Dwarf. As a dwarf, I have speed 20 ft, and I get ability boosts to Constitution and Wisdom as well as a free one which I put in Dex. I also get an ability flaw to Charisma, and I get Darkvision. I choose the heritage Ancient-Blooded (which gives me the ability to use a reaction to get +2 to a save against a magic effect, ...

Friday, 5th April, 2019

  • 07:35 AM - Maxperson quoted Numidius in post A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
    Maxperson, why do you think the weekly long rests won't be enough to solve the adv day problem? The main issue is that it still puts me on the day, but longer. I'm unable to really have 1 or 2 encounters in a week, because the balance gets thrown way off. I suppose I could just downgrade the exp for the easier fights, but that's not that satisfying, either. The week is much better than a day, though.


Page 1 of 9 123456789 LastLast

Numidius's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites