NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 6105721" data-attributes="member: 6668292">I just wanted to say I feel you, here. My issue is more focused on pointless description than Tom Bombadil's, though. I couldn't read the LotR series; I tried the first 50 pages of the first book, and put it down. Couldn't read Wheel of Time (which my brother was very into, and was the first official RPG I played) for the same reason. I've heard that Song of Ice and Fire is better by my friends, but what I've seen online (excerpts, reviews, etc.) just fall to heavily into "pointless" description. I'd much rather watch dialogue between "pointless" NPCs than read paragraph after paragraph of descriptions of food and clothes (unless it's, like, a cultural thing, and the first time we're exposed to it).I think the whole point of "take 10" is to let people skip those checks, and just move on. So, if they can make it, yep, totally with you, there. Play style, etc., etc. That is, my players were once defeated by a small group of mercenaries (they lost a 4 on 3 fight, stacked against them). They survived, and when they came into conflict with the same group again (on more even terms), they jumped at the chance to fight them. All of the  mercenaries had names, and they fought them on the street in front of one of their homes. One of the PCs, a barbarian, dueled the guy (the leader, who had dropped the Barbarian and Fighter in the first fight) in front of his house. First round, Barbarian goes first, charges, crits, and kills him.The players were happy. The other mercenaries were a little defensive, and definitely less aggressive, but there was still a lot of tension between the party and the mercs. But, all of this was momentary. The wife of the man who just died screamed from the doorway, and ran out to her husbands corpse. Another merc's wife (the only other wife of the mercs) tried to console her. The tension immediately drained out of both groups. Brock, the Barbarian PC, apologized, albeit feebly, and the widow was ushered inside by the other wife.Brock went through a massive change in character concept. He was much less aggressive from that point on; he'd still fight evil, and he'd still kill bad guys, standard soldiers. Hell, he'd still take them out if they were fleeing. But, he really didn't fight on pride anymore. His character, which was originally based around "I want to prove I'm the best", changed, voluntarily; his pride was not worth killing people over.This was a definitive moment in the campaign, and it happened early on (just before the Fighter PC lost both of his eyes in a single battle, on a spectacularly unlucky Hit Chart roll; he'd go on to gain blindsense, and be the greatest warrior in the party). The motivations and personalities of the mercs came into play before their first conflict (when the PCs lost), during the second conflict (when the Barbarian killed the leader), and afterwards (there was a third conflict that was stopped before anyone was wounded, and later interactions with the party).The point, I guess for me, is that by knowing the personalities of the mercs, their motivations, their lives (to a tiny degree, like if they're married or have children), I know what they're willing to put on the line, and why. This can be told to the players, if they're interested. But, in my games, it'll always be there, whether or not the players know. Do the players care? Mine generally do. Knowing that Biff the Warrior's goal is to marry his sweetheart helps the players know Biff, who is a living, breathing character in the world.Now, that's not to say that you need to know that to hire mercenaries; the players have hired mercs many times, and usually only know the captain and lieutenant's personalities to any real degree. But, my players do care about Biff's goals, in that they know who Biff is. And, my players care about NPCs; they love them, they hate them, and they feel everything in between (except, maybe, pity, for whatever reason, now that I think about it; they feel sympathy, but not pity, really).So, you don't care about Tom Bombadil; I get that. To me, that's exploration of the setting for the sake of it (which I asked you about earlier, but didn't really get a confirmation). I also get you not caring about Biff the Warrior. But, this loops back around to how I opened this: "Play style, etc., etc." Because, my players care about Biff the Warrior (in this campaign, it's Dupuk the town guardsman, or Rakit the professional soldier, or Cager the scout). They could go either way on Tom Bombadil for the sake of Tom Bombadil; it's fine in "reasonable" amounts.Basically, yeah, I get where you're coming from. I don't think you should advocate it for everyone, and I can't tell if you are, since you said "My entire point through this thread is to cut out the Tom Bombadil scenes from your campaigns." But, as a certain play style (and even a well-liked and not insignificant one), I totally get it. But, my group will continue to prod Biff the Warrior for more information, and even stop to Tom Bombadil from time to time. And they'll do it without prodding, and positively react to it when it's offered. It's just play style, obviously. As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification