Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
"Hot Take": Fear is a bad motivator
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8252516" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Meant to respond to these, but apparently forgot. So you get a little bonus thing, Lanefan! Lucky you <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /></p><p></p><p></p><p>I support unexpected player ploys, like the time they totally "ruined" a fight I made by luring a molten-obsidian golem into a pool of standing water, freezing it solid. No epic battle, no hard-won victory, maybe a couple minutes' exposition. They just outsmarted me. Nothing abusive or untoward about it. That fight ranks up there with the very first "boss" they ever fought (a scroll golem).</p><p></p><p>But challenge the tone and purpose of the game, and I'm not so open. Frex, I told them I won't run a crapsack world: they can show mercy and I won't ruthlessly exploit that mercy as if it were a weakness. (<em>Some</em> prisoners are too dangerous though, like murder-cultists.) I <em>want</em> a world where doing the right thing CAN work. If my players tried to exploit this (dunno how--but I bet <em>you</em> can think of something!), I would be just as upset as if they exploited the "no random, pointless permadeath" policy. I'd feel that they were passive-aggressively crapping on my offer of a world <em>not</em> ruled by cutthroat dog-eat-dog violence.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I guess that's fair, and...<em>technically</em> I do? I just favor other things, or only use it at times that make sense to support cool RP chances. Def <em>not</em> meatgrinders. Call it an "anti-funnel." Funnels soft-guarantee losing LOTs of chars, but survivors are keepers with a sort of story.* "Anti-funnels" soft-guarantee <em>not</em> losing your character, but casualties go out in a blaze of glory. Funnels balance "zero to hero" with "let's not take a year to get a hero." Anti-funnels balance "you can always stand back up" with "be reasonable and make deaths fun too."</p><p></p><p>*TBH "I rolled better, so I survived" isn't a <em>story</em> to me. It's mere statistics, draining away the <em>value</em> of survival. Winning your first hand of poker is exciting; winning at least one game in a batch of 100...less so. Both are wins. But if you play 100 hands, I'd HOPE you win at least once if you're actually trying. Specialness slain by iterative probability. For me, "story" lies in chars <em>responding</em> to success/failure, not the brute facts thereof. Can't respond to failure if failure kills you...unless your death IS your response, which makes it fun and engaging (see below).</p><p></p><p></p><p>Ay, there's the rub. Near-certain death + "keep trying, <em>one</em> PC'll get lucky" kinda bore me. The former, I disengage: if my toys are always taken away, why care? Best to pull away, then the losses won't hurt. The latter sours me on the survivors, who don't feel "special" because of course it happens <em>eventually</em>. Flip a coin enough times and you'll get ten heads in a row, it's not <em>interesting</em> if you flipped 10k times before that. A royal flush is exciting during a poker tournament; it's not exciting if you speed-run 100,000 games a minute until you get one, and even less exciting if you are forced to fold and draw again repeatedly until you <em>do</em> get one.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I'd let them retire chars if they wanted to. None of mine <em>have</em>, because they're pretty invested in their characters, but I'd support them if they did. That Druid player who was going to kill off his char, sought it <em>only</em> to enable an indefinite hiatus. I wanted to leave a <em>chance</em> he could return, even if he doesn't. We talked it out. What he did (spirit-calling the <em>deity</em> of a rival monotheistic religion as a spirit-worshipper who technically should see that deity as "merely" the biggest city-spirit) didn't feel like it should <em>kill</em>. It felt like putting a burden on him (price for his boon), and on his allies (his soul was still locked in a devil's contract). That, plus the deity being good (so their followers claim) meant mystery+doubt felt better than certain death.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, but an artificial <em>general</em> intelligence remains distant. Even the computer science <em>theory</em> of AIs learning from human behavior is touchy (though progress continues). In optimizing functions, statistical analysis, and data aggregation, AI beats us humans by miles. But ask one to write a full-page science news article, and even the best falls short. (Note: it's not really "writing an article," it's doing RNG with a <em>very</em> complex filter to produce likely new words in sentences. The complexity covers long-range correlations. Basic English syntax--e.g. SVO word order, adjectives before nouns, "a"/"an," etc.--is very easy, but <em>semantics</em>, like "two adjacent sentences should have subjects related to one another," is HIGHLY advanced stuff, only big, complex deep-learning algorithms can even <em>try</em> to pull it off. Even complex syntax (like when to insert paragraph breaks) can baffle a mid-tier effort into predictive text generators.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Oh, sure. "Impose" seems pretty strong here. I take and offer suggestions, and support most things my players take interest in.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Great suggestions, and lovely examples. That copper dragon sounds like a hoot. (Dragons are rare in my setting, but a gold one is a trusted NPC ally, who is hunting a black dragon trying to conquer the party's homeland.) And yes, I definitely try to foreshadow shifts in tone.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Absolutely. I tend to prefer a "lighter and softer" side, but I have included several enemies who are just that: enemies. Like that one conversation between Zuko and Iroh.</p><p>Z: "I know what you're going to say: she's my sister, and I should try to get along with her." </p><p>I: "No, she's crazy and she needs to go down." </p><p>Various enemies--the black dragon, the Grandmother of Shadows, the Burning Eye, the (erstwhile!) Song of Thorns, the leader of the Shadow Druids--are genuinely bad people(/spirits) who need to go down. Their followers are also mostly bad, but some can be redeemed, and if the players are clever, they can figure out who and how. I have set one player on the road, but it's up to them to realize it and take it. But there are also trusted friends, friendly rivals, love interests, potential suitors of political expedience....it's a complicated web, but much of it is good people, or at least ordinary people doing their best in difficult situations.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8252516, member: 6790260"] Meant to respond to these, but apparently forgot. So you get a little bonus thing, Lanefan! Lucky you :p I support unexpected player ploys, like the time they totally "ruined" a fight I made by luring a molten-obsidian golem into a pool of standing water, freezing it solid. No epic battle, no hard-won victory, maybe a couple minutes' exposition. They just outsmarted me. Nothing abusive or untoward about it. That fight ranks up there with the very first "boss" they ever fought (a scroll golem). But challenge the tone and purpose of the game, and I'm not so open. Frex, I told them I won't run a crapsack world: they can show mercy and I won't ruthlessly exploit that mercy as if it were a weakness. ([I]Some[/I] prisoners are too dangerous though, like murder-cultists.) I [I]want[/I] a world where doing the right thing CAN work. If my players tried to exploit this (dunno how--but I bet [I]you[/I] can think of something!), I would be just as upset as if they exploited the "no random, pointless permadeath" policy. I'd feel that they were passive-aggressively crapping on my offer of a world [I]not[/I] ruled by cutthroat dog-eat-dog violence. I guess that's fair, and...[I]technically[/I] I do? I just favor other things, or only use it at times that make sense to support cool RP chances. Def [I]not[/I] meatgrinders. Call it an "anti-funnel." Funnels soft-guarantee losing LOTs of chars, but survivors are keepers with a sort of story.* "Anti-funnels" soft-guarantee [I]not[/I] losing your character, but casualties go out in a blaze of glory. Funnels balance "zero to hero" with "let's not take a year to get a hero." Anti-funnels balance "you can always stand back up" with "be reasonable and make deaths fun too." *TBH "I rolled better, so I survived" isn't a [I]story[/I] to me. It's mere statistics, draining away the [I]value[/I] of survival. Winning your first hand of poker is exciting; winning at least one game in a batch of 100...less so. Both are wins. But if you play 100 hands, I'd HOPE you win at least once if you're actually trying. Specialness slain by iterative probability. For me, "story" lies in chars [I]responding[/I] to success/failure, not the brute facts thereof. Can't respond to failure if failure kills you...unless your death IS your response, which makes it fun and engaging (see below). Ay, there's the rub. Near-certain death + "keep trying, [I]one[/I] PC'll get lucky" kinda bore me. The former, I disengage: if my toys are always taken away, why care? Best to pull away, then the losses won't hurt. The latter sours me on the survivors, who don't feel "special" because of course it happens [I]eventually[/I]. Flip a coin enough times and you'll get ten heads in a row, it's not [I]interesting[/I] if you flipped 10k times before that. A royal flush is exciting during a poker tournament; it's not exciting if you speed-run 100,000 games a minute until you get one, and even less exciting if you are forced to fold and draw again repeatedly until you [I]do[/I] get one. I'd let them retire chars if they wanted to. None of mine [I]have[/I], because they're pretty invested in their characters, but I'd support them if they did. That Druid player who was going to kill off his char, sought it [I]only[/I] to enable an indefinite hiatus. I wanted to leave a [I]chance[/I] he could return, even if he doesn't. We talked it out. What he did (spirit-calling the [I]deity[/I] of a rival monotheistic religion as a spirit-worshipper who technically should see that deity as "merely" the biggest city-spirit) didn't feel like it should [I]kill[/I]. It felt like putting a burden on him (price for his boon), and on his allies (his soul was still locked in a devil's contract). That, plus the deity being good (so their followers claim) meant mystery+doubt felt better than certain death. Yes, but an artificial [I]general[/I] intelligence remains distant. Even the computer science [I]theory[/I] of AIs learning from human behavior is touchy (though progress continues). In optimizing functions, statistical analysis, and data aggregation, AI beats us humans by miles. But ask one to write a full-page science news article, and even the best falls short. (Note: it's not really "writing an article," it's doing RNG with a [I]very[/I] complex filter to produce likely new words in sentences. The complexity covers long-range correlations. Basic English syntax--e.g. SVO word order, adjectives before nouns, "a"/"an," etc.--is very easy, but [I]semantics[/I], like "two adjacent sentences should have subjects related to one another," is HIGHLY advanced stuff, only big, complex deep-learning algorithms can even [I]try[/I] to pull it off. Even complex syntax (like when to insert paragraph breaks) can baffle a mid-tier effort into predictive text generators. Oh, sure. "Impose" seems pretty strong here. I take and offer suggestions, and support most things my players take interest in. Great suggestions, and lovely examples. That copper dragon sounds like a hoot. (Dragons are rare in my setting, but a gold one is a trusted NPC ally, who is hunting a black dragon trying to conquer the party's homeland.) And yes, I definitely try to foreshadow shifts in tone. Absolutely. I tend to prefer a "lighter and softer" side, but I have included several enemies who are just that: enemies. Like that one conversation between Zuko and Iroh. Z: "I know what you're going to say: she's my sister, and I should try to get along with her." I: "No, she's crazy and she needs to go down." Various enemies--the black dragon, the Grandmother of Shadows, the Burning Eye, the (erstwhile!) Song of Thorns, the leader of the Shadow Druids--are genuinely bad people(/spirits) who need to go down. Their followers are also mostly bad, but some can be redeemed, and if the players are clever, they can figure out who and how. I have set one player on the road, but it's up to them to realize it and take it. But there are also trusted friends, friendly rivals, love interests, potential suitors of political expedience....it's a complicated web, but much of it is good people, or at least ordinary people doing their best in difficult situations. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
"Hot Take": Fear is a bad motivator
Top