What is your "Fight Me" thread? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Guizonde

2017-07-22, 05:03 PM

a little railroading is fine. i think of it like quick time events in video games. they're a necessary evil so that the party gets to one of the endings made by the dm. yes, i said qte, not cutscene. a bit where the party can react is good, a party that can only listen to the dm blather is bad, no matter how compelling a storyteller the dm is. i mean, let's be frank: you're telling a story using 4+ people, it's only good when all can add their piece to the final product, right?

my beef is thinking crunch over imagination. why wouldn't my character try and do something where he only has a 14% chance of succeeding instead of doing nothing? i hate playing the sheet. i hate people who can only see playing the sheet as the only valid way of playing the game. the story dictates what your character will do, not some random numbers on a piece of paper. don't get me wrong, i usually build lethal joke characters (and if you've read the things i may no longer do thread, there is a constant theme of overkill or disproportionnate damage). i like being thorough, but what i don't like is being told it doesn't make sense mechanically for my dwarven medic to try and pull an erroll flynn just because he's got cruddy dexterity, when the other consequence is doing nothing (and probably getting even more injured than falling 20ft).

i pride myself on thinking outside the box. it's usually due to mental illness, but when you've got three different pen and paper teams who enjoy playing with you precisely because you're legally a lunatic, it tends to rankle when people groan about the thing that makes you unique. if it doesn't make sense in the story, no problem, i'll back off. if it doesn't make sense because of the sheet, get lost. i'll do it anyway, no matter how low my chances of success. as han solo famously said, "never tell me the odds".

Anxe

2017-07-22, 05:04 PM

Someone comes to the forums with a rules question and homebrew is rarely suggested as a viable option.

Lord Raziere

2017-07-22, 05:05 PM

Your asking ME?

Pretty sure there are multiple things that count for me. I feel morally obligated to post just to warn everyone:
Solar Exalted, Exalted 3e crafting, optimization, alignment, always evil races, fan tiers in any system, Vancian magic and crunch-thinking like Guizonde's talks about. don't like any of them. period.

Recherché

2017-07-22, 05:11 PM

Gender and sexual orientation issues being handled poorly in games. Seriously people, try for some sensitivity and keep away from the "ooh boobies" or "no homo" responses. I can normally control myself enough to keep away from those threads but I'll just be sitting in a corner cursing you and the horse you rode in on IRL instead.

Honest Tiefling

2017-07-22, 05:30 PM

Not understanding that if you adhere to the idea that 'it's what my character will do!' your character isn't likely to last long in a collaborative game, and its not the fault of other players you can't learn to compromise with your role playing. If your group wants to play like that, fine, but I'm not going to say it's highly suggested nor suggest that the situation wasn't going to happen. A part of tabletop is learning to have a character that can work with others and making it work.

Also, referencing your character in terms of other characters. I don't mean 'She's kinda like an Errol Flynn swashbuckler, but has [X], [Y], [Z] traits and strongly believes in justice and keeping her word!" or a single line like that. I mean when the description is nothing BUT references. Half the time I don't know what you're talking about, and a quarter of the time the table will launch into a debate on how to interpret that character. I don't want to discuss if Picard is Lawful Good or Lawful Neutral. Just describe your character with words, for Pelor's sake.

Vitruviansquid

2017-07-22, 05:59 PM

Knaight

2017-07-22, 06:00 PM

I don't have a thread, but the point of contention I tend to get into most commonly is the radical idea that you can compare an edition of D&D to games other than a different edition of D&D.

D+1

2017-07-22, 06:06 PM

Someone comes to the forums with a rules question and homebrew is rarely suggested as a viable option.

I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

RazorChain

2017-07-22, 06:26 PM

Not me....I just like to argue. I was on a debate team so I'm perfectly fine with arguing against my convictions.

So for the record...all of you: YOU ARE WRONG, I AM RIGHT.

Or at least that's what western thinking teaches us.

Eldan

2017-07-22, 07:11 PM

VANCIAN MAGIC IS AMAZING AND IMMERSIVE AND FULL OF FLUFF IDEAS. IT PERFECTLY REPRESENTS WIZARD ARCHETYPES.

Yes. That.

Lord Raziere

2017-07-22, 07:16 PM

Congratulations Eldan, I have another thing to add to my "do not like" list. just warning you.

Honest Tiefling

2017-07-22, 07:28 PM

VANCIAN MAGIC IS AMAZING AND IMMERSIVE AND FULL OF FLUFF IDEAS. IT PERFECTLY REPRESENTS WIZARD ARCHETYPES.

Yes. That.

"DnD has been doing it for over 20 years! We can't change it now!"

ImNotTrevor

2017-07-22, 07:43 PM

Maybe not a "fight me" thread thing, but it does make me salty:

When you post a 1-paragraph summary of a single mechanic from a game and someone uses that to extrapolate all of the problems the game definitely probably has, when they've neither read nor played the game.

Individuals who do this get talked to like they're idiots. And it is way more common than I wish it was.

Eldan

2017-07-22, 07:53 PM

"DnD has been doing it for over 20 years! We can't change it now!"

**** no. Just EVERYTHING about Vancian magic as it is in D&D needs to change. But the basic idea is very sound.

RazorChain

2017-07-22, 08:02 PM

I love to tell gamers that they aren't roleplayers because THAT is guaranteed to start fight.

Bashing D&D is like a nuclear war happening and maintaining that one edition is better than other is so potent that we even have a concept for it: edition warfare

Vitruviansquid

2017-07-22, 08:03 PM

Guizonde

2017-07-22, 08:07 PM

Oh, right. Here's another one I'd fight the forum on.

"Immersion" is stupid. Whenever "immersion" comes up, I notice that some people's immersion is so extremely fragile it's a wonder they can enjoy anything at all. And that is because the vast majority of times that people say something is "immersion-breaking" in a published setting or a piece of fantasy literature or in a game, they are actually just finding that something to be simply uncool, and for some reason don't want to say it outright. I have also never met people in actual games who consider immersion to be as important as half the people on this forum do. I think, at the end of the day, it is not that a particular text is immersive or not immersive so much as the audience deciding whether they want to immerse themselves in it or not.

holy carp, i love this. i hate it when ooc appartés or 4th wall breaks cause some people to break out in hives. sometimes, throwing out a quip against the 4th wall makes you realize how horrible the situation is, reinforcing immersion and not breaking it.

... i can't help myself, i quip like i breathe. humor is my go-to stress relief. i'm playing survival horror, you're damn right to expect me to throw out one-liners. somebody says "it breaks immersion" has never watched a film noir or read the diary of a dead/dying/condemned man.

digiman619

2017-07-22, 08:40 PM

People who say "Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards" is a feature, not a bug, and that Vancian Magic and/or Core only is the One True Way to Play the GameTM. Because Martials Can't Have Nice Things is apparently fine, but saying that the designers were wrong about something (i.e., people having at-will powers a la Warlocks is more or less balanced as opposed to slots that you can, in theory run out of at upper levels) is still heresy.

Cluedrew

2017-07-22, 09:26 PM

There are few things that I will go "fight me" over, not none but they are particularly strong and often unusual views held by often a single poster I know. But there was on topic that I was surprised about and that is Caster/Martial Disparity. I mean I new people disagreed on how to solve it, I was mildly surprised when some people argued it shouldn't be solved, and I was shocked at the emotional outburst on the second thread on the topic I created. Mostly because the first did not git one.

ImNotTrevor

2017-07-22, 09:45 PM

I'm gonna want a concrete example to be able to parse this.

For instance, I will say something like:

"Apocalypse World does Niche Protection fairly well. Each playbook "class" has its own thing that it does better than anyone else, or that is pretty much exclusive to it. The Maestro'd, for instance, owns a business and is the only one that gets to do that. Meanwhile Gunluggers are excellent at making stuff more deader. And every class gets to participate, and different combos of classes lead to wildly different things happening, which is neat and fun."

to which someone might reply

"Clearly this system would be boring because everyone would have to wait in line for everyone else to do their own special little thing for the party, or wait for the Maestro'd to finish paying taxes or whatever, then the gunlugger would be the only one killing stuff, and the sneaky guy would do all the sneaking, etc."

to which I will reply,

"you're an idiot, go read the rulebook and play a session before you vomit hasty judgements about a system you're unfamiliar with."
but I'll do so in my "condescending academic" voice because it's snarkier and less likely to get me banned for flaming.

Vitruviansquid

2017-07-22, 09:50 PM

For instance, I will say something like:

"Apocalypse World does Niche Protection fairly well. Each playbook "class" has its own thing that it does better than anyone else, or that is pretty much exclusive to it. The Maestro'd, for instance, owns a business and is the only one that gets to do that. Meanwhile Gunluggers are excellent at making stuff more deader. And every class gets to participate, and different combos of classes lead to wildly different things happening, which is neat and fun."

to which someone might reply

"Clearly this system would be boring because everyone would have to wait in line for everyone else to do their own special little thing for the party, or wait for the Maestro'd to finish paying taxes or whatever, then the gunlugger would be the only one killing stuff, and the sneaky guy would do all the sneaking, etc."

to which I will reply,

"you're an idiot, go read the rulebook and play a session before you vomit hasty judgements about a system you're unfamiliar with."
but I'll do so in my "condescending academic" voice because it's snarkier and less likely to get me banned for flaming.

Alright, I'm picking up what you're putting down.

I agree, and furthermore, let me add that it is especially enraging when people criticize your game's one mechanic solely because it wouldn't work if you somehow attempted to transplant it without context into DnD 3.5. Yes, specifically DnD 5.3.

ijon

2017-07-22, 09:59 PM

martials are more fun to play than wizards, being able to solve everything with one character is a flaw rather than a feature, and I don't care if you think I'm objectively wrong

FIGHT ME

ImNotTrevor

2017-07-22, 10:39 PM

Koo Rehtorb

2017-07-22, 10:48 PM

GMs have to follow the rules too.

Gideon Falcon

2017-07-22, 11:18 PM

Fighter fixes- specifically out of combat actions. I got replies ranging from 'Running archetypes are stupid and nobody should play them,' 'non-warrior archetypes are cheesy and nobody should play them,' to 'fighters don't need to be fixed, you just need to role-play them better' or 'fighters are unfixable.' I was shocked at the bitterness about even the most basic details of the subject.

Vercingex

2017-07-23, 12:04 AM

Pex

2017-07-23, 12:50 AM

In no particular order:

3E/Pathfinder Bashing

Point Buy vs. Dice Rolling

5E Skill System

DM Attitude

Jerk Players

Rollplaying vs. Roleplaying

Bohandas

2017-07-23, 01:01 AM

"DnD has been doing it for over 20 years! We can't change it now!"

Vancian magic is profoundly stupid but it's the main thing that sets D&D apart from other games (definitely moreso than the "product identity" monsters. Beholder knockoffs are plentiful and the mindflayers are already based on the appearance of good ol' publuc domain Cthulhu). Without it it might be better but it wouldn't be D&D

(compare how [i]Rogue One is a good sci-fi movie but does not in any way feel like Star Wars film, what with it's overly serious tone, lack of a title crawl, lack of Jedi {unless you count Vader/Anakin}, score that isn't by John Williams or even particularly based on his style, and story that wasn't written by George Lucas)

Knaight

2017-07-23, 01:01 AM

I agree, and furthermore, let me add that it is especially enraging when people criticize your game's one mechanic solely because it wouldn't work if you somehow attempted to transplant it without context into DnD 3.5. Yes, specifically DnD 5.3.
This also applies to when entire classes of mechanics are considered inherently unfun because it wouldn't work specifically with D&D.

5E Skill System
Considering how many rounds we've gone on this one it might have to go on my list. Or, more specifically:
The decision to have a generic difficulty-list instead of a skill-specific difficulty list is a downright improvement for any number of people, and thus a totally valid design decision (or vice versa).

Svata

2017-07-23, 01:03 AM

pwykersotz

2017-07-23, 11:35 AM

The D&D 5E Saving Throws system is garbage. Unless you're proficient in it, you're MORE likely to fail a save against a level-appropriate encounter the higher level you are. And just as likely to fail a save from a CR 1 opponent at level 20 as at level 1. This is really, really stupid.

Hey, this is one of my "fight me" subjects!

Using misleading or overly simplified statements to make a point that is excessively hyperbolic. Especially when it's trashing something.

Also, maligning the devs, which rarely contributes to a discussion.

Edit: Change of phrasing to focus on the act, not the person.

Alberic Strein

2017-07-23, 12:28 PM

While many things make me tick, for example Shadowrun 5th edition, which I consider absolute crap (due to having a campaign that did not go one session without the GM and me facepalming about the rules, the rule placement, or some utter bullsh*t) in the end if you have fun it's good for you and I'll graciously excuse myself out of the conversation instead of piledriving into your skull that Shadowrun 5th edition is utter trash and could only be improved by publishing it on toilet paper so at least when you wipe yourself with those rules (the only legit course of action to take) it doesn't chafe.

So, if I had to choose my "fight me" subject would be bashing D&D 4E. The common arguments against it are dishonest bullsh*t and the system is, well, good. And doesn't deserve the flak it got.

Silus

2017-07-23, 02:11 PM

Two big "Fight Me!"/"U WOT M8?" things for me:

"Rules trump Story all the time, every time. If it ain't in rules you can't/shouldn't do it." - To hell with that I don't wanna play with you if I can't get inventive.

"Your character wouldn't do X because they're blah-blah-blah." - Telling me how I HAVE to roleplay my character, with VERY FEW exceptions (Cosmoknights, Paladins, etc.) is the fast track to me yelling at you to piss off from across the table.

Quertus

2017-07-23, 03:31 PM

What do you think is the issue you would have a thread like this about?

My list is too long to post. Maybe I should go home and rethink my life. :smallredface:

As for mine:

The war on railroading has got to stop. The way people identify railroading has gotten way out of hand so that I regularly see extremely reasonable campaign set-ups be considered railroading. Neither is some light bit of railroading a bad thing, as it gives some structure to the campaign. It also allows GMs to properly tailor the players' experience in a way that would be engaging, especially in systems where GM prep can require a lot of work.

As "railroading is bad, period", this forum has opened my eyes, and you hopefully won't see me making that argument. I will still argue a) that conventional wisdom is that railroading is generally a bad plan; b) I personally hate railroading. Is that close enough to at least be a ceasefire in the war?

"you're an idiot, go read the rulebook and play a session before you vomit hasty judgements about a system you're unfamiliar with."
but I'll do so in my "condescending academic" voice because it's snarkier and less likely to get me banned for flaming.

I'm pretty sure I'm one of those people. :smallredface:

Some say that the best way to make sure you've understood what someone has said is to say it back to them in your own words. Me, I find the best way is to attempt to extrapolate from what they've said.

Apologies if this technique has caused you undue stress.

Lacco

2017-07-23, 03:54 PM

Mine are....

"I've read a review of the *other than D&D system* done by the guy who obviously did not try playing it and it's terrible because it's not D&D!"

"You can do the same with D&D, you just need *lists homebrew*"

But the worst:

"You can't do a horror in RPG because I don't want to be afraid!"

:smallbiggrin:

Guizonde

2017-07-23, 04:02 PM

As "railroading is bad, period", this forum has opened my eyes, and you hopefully won't see me making that argument. I will still argue a) that conventional wisdom is that railroading is generally a bad plan; b) I personally hate railroading. Is that close enough to at least be a ceasefire in the war?

for me, railroading is a sign of any 3 things:

-inexperience in the dm who can't improvise or change their battleplan/ scenario off the cuff. we all did it, we all grow out of it. that said, some plots need those lynchpins in order to function, else we wouldn't have the henderson scale of plot derailment to gauge how badly a story got fragged. as a rule of thumb, i'll allow myself 2 railroads per campaign: the beginning "cutscene" where the party meets up, and the ending "cutscene" wherein i do a recap of all the players' actions. sometimes, when they've really deviated, i'll tell them where they went off the beaten path and explain what i had in mind. since one is to launch the campaign, i find it better than "you all meet at the tavern", the other one is just the ending monologue based on the actions of the campaign, so in a sense, it's out of player control since it's things they did or set in motion. i write my beginning and my ending (or where i want my players to end up), and leave the middle of the story firmly in player hands. it may be chaotic, my team still talks and references my campaign 4 years later with rose-tinted glasses. so i must've done something right.

-a sign a story is too written with the scenario in mind, and not the characters. being too story-driven, it negates the actions of the characters. perhaps it's time to let the story live a little, get out of control. it can revitalize a stale campaign going off the rails, throwing the playbook out the window for a session or three. it did wonders for a dnd campaign i did years ago, we went off the rails for 6 weeks irl (playing weekly), we'd almost forgotten we were playing return to the temple of elemental evil. felt great after all the dungeon crawling.

-finally, it's a sign that the dm is on a power trip. if you think this is the reason you've gotten on rails, flee. a dm who'll break the rules of the gentleman's agreement just so he can lord it over other people with his "mighty intelligence" and "unfathomable wit" has neither and i know some people who'd break their ego quite well. that's livejournal-worthy wannabe dominatrix talk. i'd say keyboard warrior talk too, but i've met the wannabes with that attitude in real life, never keyboard warriors. i've also met some of those "dm's". you throw a curveball into their plot? you get a rocket launcher hit to the face playing age of conan. that's not a storyteller or a dm, that's a lonely dude with a superiority complex. leave them alone to die a long and worthless life. i'd be nice and say "they'll grow out of it", but no. i know the exact type of dude, he's been crying on every shoulder for 9 bloody years that he can't find players worthy of his "dm'ing talents". never in 9 years has he even started to think the problem might not be with the players.

like i said in my earlier post, railroading is a necessary evil, but like summoning godzilla, if kept to a minimum, it can be bearable and can even unlock some situations, so long as it's not the go-to solution for the dm.

No brains

2017-07-23, 04:27 PM

My fight thread? RIGHT BLOODY HERE! Are you trying to express your grief or frustration? Are you even trying to empathize with me? I'LL TAKE EVERY ONE OF YOU ON! You're not humans! You're just puddles of text on a screen! I'll pedantically pick apart your arguments and not give one picometer on a subject that doesn't personally affect me! I'll smugly put you down to put a veil of intelligence on myself! You're all having imaginary fun wrong! THIS IS A VALUABLE USE OF MY TIME!

WHARGARBL!
My browser corrected that word as BLOWHARD and I lmao.
In all seriousness, what bugs me and what I think makes a fight thread is when people make the leap from "I do not enjoy/ would not at my table permit this" to "This is wrong and you're an idiot for thinking that."

Vitruviansquid

2017-07-23, 04:35 PM

Svata

2017-07-23, 04:41 PM

Hey, this is one of my "fight me" subjects!

People who use misleading or overly simplified statements to make a point that is excessively hyperbolic. Especially when it's trashing something.

Also, maligning the devs, which rarely contributes to a discussion.

I'm not maligning the devs, though? I simply think that this one aspect of their otherwise pretty solid system is bad. Also, what was hyperbolic or misleading, specifically? I want to know, so that I can improve my argument in the future, and not rely on those things.

RazorChain

2017-07-23, 04:55 PM

Well, actually, what I had in mind as your fight thread is both what you will defend to the end no matter how many separate voices disagree with you, and what you think a lot of separate voices will disagree with you on.

Just to be clear.

Well I think you are wrong on what constitutes a "fight me" thread. I'm going to make my own definition and stick to it. My definition might not be the same as anyone else's and you and all the other forumites can argue until you get blue in the face but I know that my definition is right because I have all the best definitions.

Lord Raziere

2017-07-23, 04:58 PM

Well, actually, what I had in mind as your fight thread is both what you will defend to the end no matter how many separate voices disagree with you, and what you think a lot of separate voices will disagree with you on.

Just to be clear.

Well yeah.

Solar Exalted, Exalted 3e crafting, optimization, alignment, always evil races, fan tiers in any system, Vancian magic and crunch-thinking: All bad. that is my opinion, I'll fight you on all of that, no matter how many people disagree.

Just warning you all.

ijon

2017-07-23, 05:02 PM

Well I think you are wrong on what constitutes a "fight me" thread. I'm going to make my own definition and stick to it. My definition might not be the same as anyone else's and you and all the other forumites can argue until you get blue in the face but I know that my definition is right because I have all the best definitions.

all your definitions are wrong and you'll never convince me otherwise

fight me

Vitruviansquid

2017-07-23, 05:09 PM

Well yeah.

Solar Exalted, Exalted 3e crafting, optimization, alignment, always evil races, fan tiers in any system, Vancian magic and crunch-thinking: All bad. that is my opinion, I'll fight you on all of that, no matter how many people disagree.

Just warning you all.

I am infinitely interested to see the spiel about fan tiers.

pwykersotz

2017-07-23, 05:23 PM

I'm not maligning the devs, though? I simply think that this one aspect of their otherwise pretty solid system is bad. Also, what was hyperbolic or misleading, specifically? I want to know, so that I can improve my argument in the future, and not rely on those things.

Oh sorry! Those were two separate points. You weren't maligning the devs, that was a secondary fight point.

In terms of the saving throws, "garbage" was the hyperbole. Being more likely to fail your saving throws against a level appropriate encounter is misleading. The hyperbole seems self-explanatory, so I'll leave that there. The misleading part about the saving throws is that it twists partially accurate data.

By the way, the subject is the "fight me" part, I realize I used the term 'people' when I should have just said 'using hyperbole and over simplified statements'. Your polite reply reminded me to check my phrasing. :smallredface:

It's true that if you face a CR 20 and he targets a weak save, there is likely a greater divide between your bonus and the DC than if you face a CR 2 at level 2. But level appropriate encounters come in more flavors than that. Often you use some multiplier of some lower level of creatures to present a challenge. In addition, the save system works in tandem with a great many class abilities, spells, items, and circumstances (adv/disadv) to go far beyond what it might first appear to be. Analyzing the save system in absence of those is short sighted. Now I'm sure you know all that, and I'm sure you believe your point in spite of it, and I think that's perfectly fine. I just routinely see short quippy posts misinform through omission and spin threads into fights, and I'm not a fan of it.

ImNotTrevor

2017-07-23, 05:36 PM

I'm pretty sure I'm one of those people. :smallredface:

Some say that the best way to make sure you've understood what someone has said is to say it back to them in your own words. Me, I find the best way is to attempt to extrapolate from what they've said.

Apologies if this technique has caused you undue stress.

Allow me to encourage another tactic:

If you plan to extrapolate about a 200-page document, you should probably do so with more than a brief paragraph about one small fraction of its total content. That would be like trying to infer the plot of Moby **** based on a secondhand description of a scene therein. (And with no further information to go on.)

In lieu of producing information from whole cloth, look to Socrates and the method that made him famous. Just ask questions. questions that don't assume an outcome.
"So does this mean that everyone has to wait their turn to play?" is a bad question.
"How does this specialization affect the flow of gameplay?" is a good question.

DataNinja

2017-07-23, 05:42 PM

So, if I had to choose my "fight me" subject would be bashing D&D 4E. The common arguments against it are dishonest bullsh*t and the system is, well, good. And doesn't deserve the flak it got.

That's close to one of the things that mildly irritates me... I'm fine with 4e bashing, but I'd just like it to be informed. I understand that the system is certainly not for everyone (and would probably be thought of as a better system without the "D&D" label, or maybe as "D&D Tactics" or something), but I'd just like people to at least know what the system does. If you have some experience with it, though, go ahead and bash it all you want. (As long as you're not a person who's saying 'you shouldn't play it', that is. I'm totally fine with you not wanting to play any certain game, but saying other people shouldn't, just because you think something is better... that's not really cool.)

Lord Raziere

2017-07-23, 05:49 PM

all your definitions are wrong and you'll never convince me otherwise

fight me

I am infinitely interested to see the spiel about fan tiers.

this ain't the thread for that. this for warning people about the rants, not doing them.

There is no fighting in the war room. :smallbiggrin::smalltongue:

Pex

2017-07-23, 08:05 PM

Kane0

2017-07-23, 09:10 PM

ijon

2017-07-23, 09:46 PM

The development and intriduction of houserules/homebrew is a perfectly valid way to enjoy the game and such creativity should be encouraged, especially as a solution to a percieved/actual problem with RAW.

Fight me.

I mean... yeah? I might be biased as someone who mods any game that can be modded, but I see no reason not to homebrew if you can't find something to fit your needs. it's certainly cleaner than making some abomination that spans multiple splatbooks per character level.

I don't think I have a single character without homebrew, in fact, and I'm homebrewing up Yet Another Stupid Fighter Fix right now (it's a fun experiment, fight me)

Guizonde

2017-07-23, 10:16 PM

The development and intriduction of houserules/homebrew is a perfectly valid way to enjoy the game and such creativity should be encouraged, especially as a solution to a percieved/actual problem with RAW.

Fight me.

you can't make an omelet without breaking a few nerds.

... waitaminute.

anyway, a lot of the homebrews i've seen on these boards help the flow of the game, lighten the rules or make them more easily memorable. call me simple, but i play the game for fun, not for applying arcanely difficult rules or remembering paragraphs of rules that can be done in one die-roll.

this is the reason the "grapple rules" have become a byword for "byzantine and complex rules" isn't it? in my game, we just oppose the two close combat skills of the opponents and solve it with a roll. makes takedowns, flying tackles, and beating in a face using a kitchen sink much easier. it's a hodgepodge homebrew system of 4-5 different systems, with most of the base in whfrp2e. homebrews ftw, if you don't mind me saying.

2D8HP

2017-07-24, 12:42 AM

Oh, I think it would be obvious by now.

D&D was nothing but a ripoff of Tolkien!
(Arneson & Gygax had many other inspirations, Anderson, Howard, & Leiber top my list)

Old D&D was...
(by "old" they only go as far back as 2e AD&D if even that far, oD&D did not have THAC0 people!)

D&D is...
(when they just mean 3.5, not my D&D)

I wish someone would make a game that...
(they did, Either Tunnels & Trolls in 1975, RuneQuest in 1978, Champions in 1981, Stormbringer in 1981, or Pendragon in 1985, all generally did whatever it is the complainer wishes "someone" would publish, different games for different complaints)

"Old School" is... Maybe it was, but I started playing Dungeons & Dragons in 1978, Villians & Vigilantes in 1979, and a host of games afterwards, and I remember different.

Why don't you just play a video game? or That's just playing a video game with paper! (take a flying leap please)

Role/Roll/War games
(call 'em Adventure games, and spare us what a "true RPG" is)

200+ pages is not enough, I want even more rules!
(I don't).

The powerless are oppressing the powerful, I have a mumbly Youtube video from a college campus that proves it!
(please spare me your spoiled boys whining, I don't care if your feelings get hurt in college, most of the world will never have access to those libraries, you're enjoying a rare priveledge)

..Just ask questions. questions that don't assume an outcome.
"So does this mean that everyone has to wait their turn to play?" is a bad question.
"How does this specialization affect the flow of gameplay?" is a good question.

Sorry @I'mNotTrevor, I don't understand what the second question means, but I do the first.

Quertus

2017-07-24, 12:48 AM

My list is too long to post. Maybe I should go home and rethink my life. :smallredface:

Well, actually, what I had in mind as your fight thread is both what you will defend to the end no matter how many separate voices disagree with you, and what you think a lot of separate voices will disagree with you on.

Just to be clear.

Hmmm... Upon further introspection, I see why my list is so long. Far too many times, I have been the one standing against the many, and been proven right (even mathematically proven right, even on this forum). And, also far too many times, I have been one of the many standing against the one, who was later proven right. :smallredface:

So, the number of people who hold an opinion just isn't a good indicator to me as to how valid the stance is, IME. I haven't done the math to see how much of a correlation there is between size of the opposition, and odds that an arbitrary speaker or myself will be proven wrong. However, I feel confident that there is a large correlation between me failing to communicate properly, and people opposing my stance - especially when it's one I know that they generally hold.

So, regardless of the number of people who disagree, I'll stick to my guns, attempting to communicate my idea better, until proven wrong.

Or, at least, that's what I believe to be true about myself, until I'm proven wrong. :smalltongue:

Kane0

2017-07-24, 01:17 AM

-Snip-

-Snip-
Yep, that's what I mean. Check mah sig, I've done my fair share.

Zalabim

2017-07-24, 05:17 AM

There's Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics, and I'll usually only call the the latter two actually my hills. For something that's just wrong, I'll mention a correction and drop it. For something that's wrong but constantly repeated like gospel? "4E is tabletop WoW" is a damned lie. Then everything else is just ****ty math, or using good math in ****ty ways to make a tenuous or nonsensical point. Don't abuse math.

And Bell Curves especially piss me off. "The d20 is awful. You should use something with a bell curve because <stupid>." There are valid reasons to prefer a bell curve. Please explain the ones you like instead of repeating unclear or outright nonsensical statements about consistency.

bulbaquil

2017-07-24, 06:20 AM

Saying the GM should "always say yes" regardless of the situation, especially at character generation, or implying that the GM should have absolutely no control over his/her own setting.

Implying that everybody should want to play expressive and explorative wide-open sandbox games, and that beer-and-pretzel dungeon crawls or highly narrative-focused games are inherently "wrong" or evil.

Implying that house rules are inherently evil and that RAW is the only way to play (similarly, invoking RAW when it is clear from the context or wording of the post that house rules are in effect).

Declaring that expression of a character idea is impossible due to the lack of an explicit mechanic for it (e.g.: "I can't make a proper bartender because there isn't a Profession (bartender) skill").

Random Sanity

2017-07-24, 06:59 AM

Darth Tom

2017-07-24, 07:30 AM

That would be like trying to infer the plot of Moby **** based on a secondhand description of a scene therein. (And with no further information to go on.)

Exactly! Like the way the forum software just assumes it's inappropriate based on the title alone. What's up with that?!

Earthwalker

2017-07-24, 07:51 AM

Pex

2017-07-24, 08:01 AM

Psyren

2017-07-24, 09:22 AM

"Magic should be superior to not-magic" is the hill I have died on repeatedly. They haven't found my phylactery Astral Seed yet.

Guizonde

2017-07-24, 09:58 AM

Fumble mechanics have no place in tabletop gaming. I've seen systems with them, I've seen systems without them have hamfisted attempts to add them (and let's be honest, it's never NOT hamfisted with this ****). It's never an improvement to add them, it's always an improvement to remove them.

And I have a special hatred for fumble systems that escalate the chance of failure as the character grows more competent otherwise - that is not how things work!

Nobody so incompetent as to stab himself with his own sword would ever survive long enough to gain the system's equivalent of class levels.

Fight me. If you can avoid tripping over your own keyboard.

you and me both, to a certain extent, as i like having a chance for my gun to jam and i like my fights to be risky. i play in a system with fumble rules, and all but the direst are rarely more than "you lose your footing and suffer a 5% penalty to hit on your next attack" or "your gun jams". the very worst are "that grenade you pulled the pin off of? yeah, had a zero timer. hope you've got good body armor". a lot of the gear is defective and badly maintained, and most pc's start with at least 2 daily rerolls (any dice result). when a fumble happens, it's usually because the player's been having cruddy luck, and it adds to the tension for a gun to jam at the very worst moment.

our fumble rules are roughly equivalent to a 5% chance of mishap, and a 1% chance of critical mishap without the rerolls factored in. when you know that a badly maintained colt 1911a1 has a 7% chance of jamming on a good day, i'm thinking we're a-ok for the post-apocalypse. that said, the ol' "nat 1 you impale yourself on your sword and die like the loser you are" is both stupid and unproductive. you take a bad fall, you're winded, like above, you're overstretched, fine. you instakill yourself every chance in 20? bull.

one hill i'll die on: fate points. there is nothing like having a character blasted to smithereens and still be playable, if crippled. i've lost count how many times my team got dismembered, torn apart, blown apart, shot clean through... and thanks to the magic that is cybernetics (and a fate point to stabilize the otherwise lethal wound) can carry on with a hefty penalty to sanity and an aversion to water or electricity. it is a very high mortality game i play, so burning fate points is totally acceptable to avoid coming up with a new character every session. plus it adds a sense of danger knowing that any firefight you get into might permanently disfigure your character. come to think of it, it might be why i don't like dnd: you never get permanently disfigured thanks to magic. regrowing limbs is a divine cl4 spell. dude, i want my character to have a black eye after going 12 rounds against a dragon at least! i'm not asking for realism in an rpg, but i'm asking for battle damage! it's only in cartoons that epic fights end and our heroes are sparkly clean next scene.

PhoenixPhyre

2017-07-24, 10:11 AM

My fight me response kicks in due to a problem of my own causing.

Its not a subject or a particular rule / system / way of playing that gets my ready to fight its a style of posting.

When someone posts something like.

In a good game....
In a real game...
In a proper game...

When what they mean is

In games I like..
or
In My game...

This is just the example, its the tone of the post that gets me. I now translate in my head people saying, "in a real game" to "in my game".

The reason it gets to me is there is no one true way of playing. Advocate what you like, don't give it the title of "The right way to play" new people to these boards should be encourage to find the style they like not be told "this is the one true way to play"

Amen to this. "In my opinion" is the most overlooked phrase on this forum. A little humility goes a long way.

Eldan

2017-07-24, 10:20 AM

"Magic should be superior to not-magic" is the hill I have died on repeatedly. They haven't found my phylactery Astral Seed yet.

"A completely normal person can keep up with someone who bends the forces of reality around their fingertips" is one of mine, actually. Though my follow up argument is usually "Hence they aren't normal people and do extraordinary things too".

As for fumbles, I do hate "You stab yourself", but I like the occasional "You stumble and take a -2 to armor until your next turn" or "Your gun jams, take an action to reload" or maybe "The ogre embeds his sword into the wooden pillar and has to strain to get it out again".

CharonsHelper

2017-07-24, 10:23 AM

Airk

2017-07-24, 10:40 AM

D&D was nothing but a ripoff of Tolkien!
(Arneson & Gygax had many other inspirations, Anderson, Howard, & Leiber top my list)

How about the opposite? D&D has BUPKUS to do with Tolkien, and citing it as anything more than "a place they ripped off a few monsters and races from" is giving D&D way too much credit.

Fumble mechanics have no place in tabletop gaming. I've seen systems with them, I've seen systems without them have hamfisted attempts to add them (and let's be honest, it's never NOT hamfisted with this ****). It's never an improvement to add them, it's always an improvement to remove them.

And I have a special hatred for fumble systems that escalate the chance of failure as the character grows more competent otherwise - that is not how things work!

Nobody so incompetent as to stab himself with his own sword would ever survive long enough to gain the system's equivalent of class levels.

Fight me. If you can avoid tripping over your own keyboard.

I will join you on that hill!

My personal hill is the "No, really, D&D is not a world simulator and you can't just run any kind of game in it - doing so results in a terrible game." one.

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-24, 11:04 AM

Alright, I'm picking up what you're putting down.

I agree, and furthermore, let me add that it is especially enraging when people criticize your game's one mechanic solely because it wouldn't work if you somehow attempted to transplant it without context into DnD 3.5. Yes, specifically DnD 5.3.

How about the flip side -- someone makes a specific comment about a specific mechanic in a particular game, and people who adore the game respond as if an unfair assault has been launched on the entire game front to back, top to bottom, and go into rage/insult mode.

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-24, 11:09 AM

My fight me response kicks in due to a problem of my own causing.

Its not a subject or a particular rule / system / way of playing that gets my ready to fight its a style of posting.

When someone posts something like.

In a good game....
In a real game...
In a proper game...

When what they mean is

In games I like..
or
In My game...

This is just the example, its the tone of the post that gets me. I now translate in my head people saying, "in a real game" to "in my game".

The reason it gets to me is there is no one true way of playing. Advocate what you like, don't give it the title of "The right way to play" new people to these boards should be encourage to find the style they like not be told "this is the one true way to play"

Where I get myself in trouble on this is when I try to stand up for my personal preferences, dig my heals in, and stop expressing things with "IMO" or "I like" qualifiers because I'm more concerned with making my point than taking the edge off.

Of course it doesn't help when some posters take clear statements of preference, or even dispassionate analysis, as condemnations of a presumed opposed viewpoint.

Psyren

2017-07-24, 11:11 AM

Mine would have to be things along the lines of "Character balance is dumb, I'm just playing to have fun. Balance is boring."

THE TWO AREN'T MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE! A WELL BALANCED GAME WILL ONLY MAKE PLAYING MORE FUN WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE THE MATH SKILLZ TO REALIZE IT'S BALANCED! Gah.

Balance indeed creates fun, but that leads to another one of my hills: "Balance is not the most important consideration for a cooperative role-based game." It's great to have, certainly - but there are other qualities, like depth, that I consistently rank ahead of it. To use D&D as an example, both 3.5e and 5e have worse balance than 4e does, but they also have much more depth; and I believe that greater depth made them more fun to play. So when resources like designer time are limited, I'm much happier with a quick Rule Zero kludge to fill in the gaps, and moving on to the more important things.

CharonsHelper

2017-07-24, 11:20 AM

Balance indeed creates fun, but that leads to another one of my hills: "Balance is not the most important consideration for a cooperative role-based game." It's great to have, certainly - but there are other qualities, like depth, that I consistently rank ahead of it. To use D&D as an example, both 3.5e and 5e have worse balance than 4e does, but they also have much more depth; and I believe that greater depth made them more fun to play.

Oh - I agree. It's not the most important consideration, but that doesn't keep it from being important enough that it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand as unimportant.

And frankly - even 3.x/Pathfinder's balance mostly isn't too bad for the first 6-10 levels, which is where the vast majority of play seems to be anyway. There are many systems which have terrible balance from the ground up without even the asymmetry to keep it from being as blatant/annoying/easy to fix.

(Balance is a bigger issue in pvp games - which is why I finally gave up on Games Workshop despite liking fluff. The blatant power creep is real. It was done for marketing reasons to get people to grab the latest whatsit - and while it worked short-term it has backfired long-term.)

So when resources like designer time are limited, I'm much happier with a quick Rule Zero kludge to fill in the gaps, and moving on to the more important things.

That I disagree with. It's a cop-out excuse for designers. When any half-way decent optimizer can skim your book and find the blatant OP issues (surprisingly common), you're doing it wrong.

Limited time is a reason for such things - not an excuse.

I don't care if your schedule & budget were tight, it's not okay if my home's roof leaks. Is the roof the most important part? No. I don't need a copper roof which will last a century. But it should be solid enough not to leak during the first drizzle.

Tinkerer

2017-07-24, 12:49 PM

Oh that is an easy one. Starting a thread concerning re-balancing 3.5 back in the day and discussing reigning in spellcasters a bit. So many people would treat those threads as a personal attack that you would have a horde of howling wizards descend upon your thread so fast it would make your head spin. So you start out trying to make reasoned points but eventually all of the off topic braying gets under your skin and you wind up responding to each of the posts and the whole thread just becomes a Taco Bell storm. Yeah, I think the easiest way to balance 3.5 is to remove a small handful of abilities from the spellcasters. No, I don't hate spellcasters.

Additionally I'm right there with you on defending some forms of railroading. Bad railroading is bad. So is bad optimization, bad role playing, or bad combat. In fact I've found a good way to unintentionally start a Fight Me thread is to suggest that the GM should have any sort of control or input over the game that they're running.

ImNotTrevor

2017-07-24, 12:53 PM

How about the flip side -- someone makes a specific comment about a specific mechanic in a particular game, and people who adore the game respond as if an unfair assault has been launched on the entire game front to back, top to bottom, and go into rage/insult mode.

I see this happen only occassionally.

Though usually when I see it, it seems the person bringing up the specific mechanic is either omitting or forgetting the other system mechanics that this particular one might be augmenting or balancing, and is often at least somewhat polite about correcting the perceived error.

Granted, this can quickly get out of hand once emotions get involved.

Beastrolami

2017-07-24, 01:59 PM

My Fight Me topics:

1. Anyone who defends murder hoboing.
I HATE murder hoboing, I will fight anyone who says you should murder hobo, and then I will murder hobo better just to spite them.

2. The Stigma Around TPKs and player death.
There cannot be real stakes without real consequences. If you die, learn from it, and git gud, don't whine about how your poorly built, but highly thematic character died because they tried to kill a balrog with a fork (or fork equivalent).

3. PVP
I like pvp and allow it in all my games. If your character doesn't like someone, take the appropriate actions that character would take. If you think someone is after you, do something to stop them. If you piss off the party, know there are consequences. Anyone who disagrees can FIGHT ME!!!

Quertus

2017-07-24, 02:33 PM

Airk

2017-07-24, 02:33 PM

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-24, 02:36 PM

I want to answer so many posts on this thread, but if we all start doing that it's going to turn the thread into 20 different "discussions" on all the different topics...

Quertus

2017-07-24, 02:37 PM

Though I do find your willingness to allow people to kill their party members somewhat at odds with an anti-murderhobo stance.

You can kill each other, because the PCs aren't important to the plot. But heaven forbid they kill one of the plot-relevant NPCs.

That's one possibility that makes those stances internally consistent...

2D8HP

2017-07-24, 02:41 PM

I want to answer so many posts on this thread, but if we all start doing that it's going to turn the thread into 20 different "discussions" on all the different topics...

Let loose!

We'll either make 50 pages, or the thread will be locked!

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!

(let me make popcorn first please)

kyoryu

2017-07-24, 02:51 PM

1) Fate/PbtA/etc. are "story games" and not really roleplaying because you just think about what's good for "the story" and just play meta games with meta tokens and you never actually do anything real.

Stop. Just stop already.

2) GNS is a useful way of looking at and thinking about games!

No. It's not. The central theory is utterly unsupported, and the useful idea there (people play games for different reasons!) predates GNS by a decade (see: GDS). That and very few people use GNS terms with anything *near* accuracy. GDS. GDS is what you want. Trust me.

3) If you're doing/not doing X, you're not roleplaying.

Shut. Up.

4) Old D&D is broken and unplayable and makes no sense!

Sort of. It doesn't work for how most people play games these days. It works fine in the context it was originally designed for.

5) Railroading is good and everyone should embrace it!

No. I don't like it. Don't convince me otherwise. Stop inflating the definition of railroading until it encompasses everything to "prove" that I like railroading, and therefore like straight linear path games with no player agency. I don't. You do, and that's fine. You do you. I don't like those games.

Honest Tiefling

2017-07-24, 02:51 PM

I want to answer so many posts on this thread, but if we all start doing that it's going to turn the thread into 20 different "discussions" on all the different topics...

Yeah, I know what you mean. I personally dislike it when homebrew gets touted as the ONLY solution to a problem, especially if the thread states that the DM does not want homebrew or lacks the time to evaluate it or there's new people in the group.

FIGHT ME!...Just be gentle. I'm pudgy and easily bruised.

2D8HP

2017-07-24, 03:01 PM

Yeah, I know what you mean. I personally dislike it when homebrew gets touted as the ONLY solution to a problem, especially if the thread states that the DM does not want homebrew or lacks the time to evaluate it or there's new people in the group.

FIGHT ME!...Just be gentle. I'm pudgy and easily bruised.

Well okay, but let's get some whiskey with coffee first. Or rum. How'bout tequila?

Okay homebrew... well more like "house-rules":

Only allow the players access to the free online Players Basic Rules (http://dnd.wizards.com/node/4896) not the PHB!
Use the "Slow Natural Healing", and "Gritty Realism" variants from page 267 of the DMG.
Remember Warlocks, Dragonborn and Tieflings are NPC's only!
If they whine make them roll 3d6 in order for their stats. No takebacks!
All the PC's "backgrounds" are: "Loot hungry murder-hobo"...
PC "Trait", "Ideal", "Bond", and "Flaw" all should be "meets like minded individuals at tavern, to go on noble quest to steal loot from Dungeon dwellers".
That should suffice.
Please PM when you need a player for that campaign.
Thanks
:wink:

Knaight

2017-07-24, 03:17 PM

2. The Stigma Around TPKs and player death.
There cannot be real stakes without real consequences. If you die, learn from it, and git gud, don't whine about how your poorly built, but highly thematic character died because they tried to kill a balrog with a fork (or fork equivalent).

I have a related one: There are loss conditions other than death, there are consequences other than the PCs dying, and pretending they don't exist is one of those things that I'm willing to push back against extensively.

Then there's the really big one: Playing a more rules heavy system doesn't make you better at math than someone who plays more rules light systems. It doesn't indicate that you're better at math than someone who plays more rules light systems. People who dislike, for instance, HERO generally don't do so because they are unable to do the basic arithmetic in the system.

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-24, 03:28 PM

I have a related one: There are loss conditions other than death, there are consequences other than the PCs dying, and pretending they don't exist is one of those things that I'm willing to push back against extensively.

Then there's the really big one: Playing a more rules heavy system doesn't make you better at math than someone who plays more rules light systems. It doesn't indicate that you're better at math than someone who plays more rules light systems. People who dislike, for instance, HERO generally don't do so because they are unable to do the basic arithmetic in the system.

And yet I've seen "the math" cited as an issue repeatedly.

That doesn't necessarily make you wrong, however -- "the math" could be a matter of some people searching for a way to explain what they don't like and hitting on poor terminology for what they're trying to express.

Beastrolami

2017-07-24, 03:33 PM

I have a related one: There are loss conditions other than death, there are consequences other than the PCs dying, and pretending they don't exist is one of those things that I'm willing to push back against extensively.

True, I should rephrase it to "breaking CHARACTERs". (so disappointing in myself for making that mistake.)

I see too many dm's have evilmcbadguy trying to destroy the world, and the only way to stop them is with the magical mcguffin. Yeah, world ending is a serious consequence, but it is death without meaning. It's the dm saying oops, you were to late, everything dies.

You can have a character go stark raving mad, and lock them in an insane asylum, or various other terrible things that don't technically kill the character. The main point is people who shy away from and defend those who shy away from consequences because they don't want to make their players mad/sad/happy/etc.

edit:

NO ONE learns from PLAYER DEATH. :P

Also, this is more usually a result of game mismatch than anything else.

Though I do find your willingness to allow people to kill their party members somewhat at odds with an anti-murderhobo stance.

my problem with murder hoboing is the idea that a player can avoid any and all consequences by running away, and ignoring common sense in favor of "adventuring" mechanics.

oops, I killed a few guards, oh well, I'll head over to the next nation and work there. I'll just sleep in an alley, raid this tomb, burn this village, etc. There are no consequences because the party members are "players/gamers" not living citizens of this world.

I like my players to form a party organically, so there is actual weight behind their agreement to travel together, and that means they have to form actual in-game relationships, be that friendship, companionship, or mutual hatred. If two characters hate each other and try to go at it, it will have consequences. (pretty much comes back to roleplay vs. rollplay)

Psyren

2017-07-24, 03:38 PM

That I disagree with. It's a cop-out excuse for designers. When any half-way decent optimizer can skim your book and find the blatant OP issues (surprisingly common), you're doing it wrong.

Limited time is a reason for such things - not an excuse.

I don't care if your schedule & budget were tight, it's not okay if my home's roof leaks. Is the roof the most important part? No. I don't need a copper roof which will last a century. But it should be solid enough not to leak during the first drizzle.

I think you're being overly harsh. It's never just one optimizer - upon release, a published book immediately goes in front of dozens if not hundreds of pairs of eyes, vastly more than it did when it was being created. Often, a problematic way of reading the rules or an unforeseen combination either within that work or with pre-existing content only comes to light then.

I don't agree with the leaky roof analogy either - roofs are less complex in the sense that you don't have to review your entire body of roofwork looking for broken combinations before you can build a new one, or anticipate what a rules lawyer might read into your roof that is unintended. And of course, a leaky roof is far more serious than a few balance issues in a gaming book. Even if I did agree with it though - well, I'd expect whoever sold me the roof to repair it for free, which is actually what happens if the game has a good errata system in place.

Knaight

2017-07-24, 03:39 PM

And yet I've see "the math" cited as an issue repeatedly.

That doesn't necessarily make you wrong, however -- "the math" could be a matter of some people searching for a way to explain what they don't like and hitting on poor terminology for what they're trying to express.
"The math" is shorthand for "the amount of time sucked down by a number of tedious calculations", not "the difficulty of basic arithmetic".

True, I should rephrase it to "breaking CHARACTERs". (so disappointing in myself for making that mistake.)

I see too many dm's have evilmcbadguy trying to destroy the world, and the only way to stop them is with the magical mcguffin. Yeah, world ending is a serious consequence, but it is death without meaning. It's the dm saying oops, you were to late, everything dies.

That's more because it's big and impersonal than because it's not a PC though. I assume you're familiar with the Stalin quote "one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic", which is a fairly accurate description of how human thought processes work. In this context*, the same thing applies to fictional characters. One well liked NPC, or small well liked location, or other similar thing being threatened - or even the PCs relationship to said NPC or location being threatened**- can create a meaningful failure condition in a way that everything blowing up really doesn't.

*As opposed to the context of justifying killing millions of people.
**e.g. someone framing them for a crime.

kyoryu

2017-07-24, 03:40 PM

I have a related one: There are loss conditions other than death, there are consequences other than the PCs dying, and pretending they don't exist is one of those things that I'm willing to push back against extensively.

Oh, yes. "If you don't say that death is a big thing, your game is easy mode!"

I've so infrequently found campaigns where characters actually die, permanently. If you're playing in a Fate game or PbtA or whatever and you die? You're dead. Phbbt. Gone.

And, you'll probably *lose* more stuff in my games than most in most games. I've asked players before if they thought my game was "easy mode". They looked horrified.

So, yeah, that's a "fight me" subject.

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-24, 03:48 PM

5) Railroading is good and everyone should embrace it!

No. I don't like it. Don't convince me otherwise. Stop inflating the definition of railroading until it encompasses everything to "prove" that I like railroading, and therefore like straight linear path games with no player agency. I don't. You do, and that's fine. You do you. I don't like those games.

Indeed. I've that one go so far as to try to encompass any and all NPC goals and actions separate from the players' input, any pre-existing conditions of the setting, and any cause-and-effect / momentum in the setting, as "railroading".

Oddly, this seems to be done in support of TWO very different agendas. One, as you note, is trying to move the border so that you either "accept" that railroading is "good", or you're "being a hypocrite".

The other is in support of a particular (and IMO peculiar) type of gaming in which everything has to emerge out of play, nothing exists that doesn't come from active play, and there is NO backstory or past until it's "out on the table" in the game's present-moment -- a sort of No Myth / Story Now cranked up to 12. They would assert that any existing setting detail or backstory is "railroading".

Quertus

2017-07-24, 05:08 PM

People who dislike, for instance, HERO generally don't do so because they are unable to do the basic arithmetic in the system.

"The math" is shorthand for "the amount of time sucked down by a number of tedious calculations", not "the difficulty of basic arithmetic".

I'm a bloody math genius - published my own math theory, intuited the infinite nature of the lightning fist combo, etc - but I'm not a fan of wasting headspace on excessive amounts of math in an RPG.

I assume you're familiar with the Stalin quote "one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic",

Stalin! Thank you. I've used the quote, but never knew the original author. I probably won't remember a month from now, but (for) now I know.

2D8HP

2017-07-24, 05:23 PM

Stalin! Thank you. I've used the quote, but never knew the original author.

Do you mean the 1980's Japanese punk band The Stalin (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stalin)?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WD_ZyWwBTPs/T3MMXMbbolI/AAAAAAAALWE/MG4GLdI4qxk/s280/4.blog.THE.STALIN.piccy.png

They're okay, but I prefer The Soviettes (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Soviettes).

http://assets.rootsvinylguide.com/pictures/the-soviettes-tccp-7-rare-dillinger-four-punk-fat-records-oop-punk-ltd-500_9475059

Cluedrew

2017-07-24, 05:40 PM

ImNotTrevor

2017-07-24, 05:49 PM

Personally I don't like fight me topics. Because people are so emotional about it that even if they are correct, they rarely take the time to stop and explain why. Which leads to the slightly sad result that, generally speaking, the more you care about a topic the less likely you are to convince me on it.

Let go of your anger. Appreciating that it is not that easy.

HOW DARE YOU INSIST THAT I CALM DOWN AND SPEAK LIKE A REASONABLE GROWNUP!

But yeah. I have pet peeves but I definitely wouldn't start a thread looking for a fight.

Potato_Priest

2017-07-24, 05:52 PM

My personal fight me topic is subclass balance. There are many folks on the 5e forums that seem to automatically assume that the game is perfectly balanced, and make up whatever justification/wierd scenarios they need to to justify this assumption.

They generally insist that the berserker barbarian is just as good as the bear totem barbarian, that the champion is just as good as the battle master, and that the thief is just as good as the arcane trickster. If that doesn't meet your personal observations after using/DMing the classes in question, then you must be playing the game wrong.

SirBellias

2017-07-24, 09:03 PM

I wouldn't start a thread over it, but I'd like to argue that putting absolutes as to party cohesion, alignments, and most things people argue about in relation to any RPGs (besides out of character issues) is a bit silly. Provided it's talked about beforehand (or not, in case of PARANOIA), and your players agree with what's talked about (or willing to compromise/try it for a session), then anything can work. There have been several games I've been in where the party falls apart due to disparate values, and it was great. Alignments (while mostly ignored in games I'm in) wold have been across the chart if applied. A game with a serious plot that the DM has lined up and well though out definitely works if talked about beforehand. They aren't my preferred domain, sure, but it will work if you trust the people you're playing with to roll with it.

Guizonde

2017-07-24, 09:47 PM

3. PVP
I like pvp and allow it in all my games. If your character doesn't like someone, take the appropriate actions that character would take. If you think someone is after you, do something to stop them. If you piss off the party, know there are consequences. Anyone who disagrees can FIGHT ME!!!

i chuckled.your phrasing perfectly reflects your attitude towards pvp.

Indeed. I've that one go so far as to try to encompass any and all NPC goals and actions separate from the players' input, any pre-existing conditions of the setting, and any cause-and-effect / momentum in the setting, as "railroading".

Oddly, this seems to be done in support of TWO very different agendas. One, as you note, is trying to move the border so that you either "accept" that railroading is "good", or you're "being a hypocrite".

The other is in support of a particular (and IMO peculiar) type of gaming in which everything has to emerge out of play, nothing exists that doesn't come from active play, and there is NO backstory or past until it's "out on the table" in the game's present-moment -- a sort of No Myth / Story Now cranked up to 12. They would assert that any existing setting detail or backstory is "railroading".

how are any of those examples railroading? i don't get it. you've got a setting that's set and that's the canvas for your players to work on, either with or against the grain. the backdrop does not reflect the course of the story. how would you be on rails when all you've got is the scenery?

the other example seems to me to be a vacuum, where it'd be hard to pull a railroad in the traditional sense of the word. i know it's not your opinion and only your examples, but i'm very confused by this viewpoint. i see a magical mcguffin as more of a railroad station than your examples. it'd be like saying "well, the lich didn't hide his phylactery during the campaign explicitely, so it must be on him, otherwise you've railroaded us into a fetch quest!"

True, I should rephrase it to "breaking CHARACTERs". (so disappointing in myself for making that mistake.)

I see too many dm's have evilmcbadguy trying to destroy the world, and the only way to stop them is with the magical mcguffin. Yeah, world ending is a serious consequence, but it is death without meaning. It's the dm saying oops, you were to late, everything dies.

You can have a character go stark raving mad, and lock them in an insane asylum, or various other terrible things that don't technically kill the character. The main point is people who shy away from and defend those who shy away from consequences because they don't want to make their players mad/sad/happy/etc.

edit:

my problem with murder hoboing is the idea that a player can avoid any and all consequences by running away, and ignoring common sense in favor of "adventuring" mechanics.

oops, I killed a few guards, oh well, I'll head over to the next nation and work there. I'll just sleep in an alley, raid this tomb, burn this village, etc. There are no consequences because the party members are "players/gamers" not living citizens of this world.

I like my players to form a party organically, so there is actual weight behind their agreement to travel together, and that means they have to form actual in-game relationships, be that friendship, companionship, or mutual hatred. If two characters hate each other and try to go at it, it will have consequences. (pretty much comes back to roleplay vs. rollplay)

murderhoboing has consequences in most of the campaigns i've played. my players were a team with an agenda: they hated their respective guts, but they knew they couldn't trust anyone besides their teammates. it was fascinating, especially coming from newbie roleplayers. once the campaign ended they decided their characters would start a war against each other. during the campaign, they spent their time intimidating, killing, and generally being a nuisance. they fought back against the guards permanently, taking down a lot of them until they had gathered armies of their own. they were seen as the lesser bad guys, and it drove them to insanity. being bad guys with a "good" agenda made the campaign a lot more difficult for them. stealth, bribes, assassinations, and underhanded dealings were their bread and butter to continue to solve the main quest.

perhaps it's due to my system, or a "rule" i've tried on people, but we give ourselves 3 sessions to see our character's personnality develop. this means that it's never a fixed thing aside from pet peeves. demeanor changes, tone changes, sanity changes. there has never been one campaign where one character never changed their personnality from the first to the last session of a campaign. bonds form or break in the party, links are woven. sanity is lost, routinely crippling the character until they're a former shell of themselves and generally becoming a nuisance to themselves and a handicap for the party: we've had firebugs, kleptomaniacs, one dude got pica (and ate a teammate's stock of ammo and the brains of a mayor...), i tried to have a character remain fully human for the duration of the campaign and failed on the last session where he had to have cybernetics installed to keep going (hero syndrome and distrust of the machines in a team of cyborg mercs. it was intense roleplaying. he didn't live well with it).

dying is easy: it's surviving and solving a main quest with a crippled character that's hard.

Pex

2017-07-24, 11:03 PM

1337 b4k4

2017-07-24, 11:13 PM

Hammering D&D for not being good at generic fantasy. D&D is largely a victim of its own success here, but D&D is not a generic fantasy game. It's a game for D&D fantasy, which yes would have been cyclical reasoning before D&D came out, but given that since then it's more or less established its own branch of fantasy stories, isn't so much cyclical as it's the apprentice becoming the master. If you play D&D for the game that it's intended to be, it's a wonderfully fun game and the system works just fine for it. 3.x IMHO tried to make the game more generic, and lost a lot of tiny details along the way (e.g. XP for Gold). And given at this point we have almost 20 years now of 3.x D&D (and Pathfinder) being the primary starting point, it's unfortunate that so many people haven't had a chance to play some good old fashioned grave robbing, exploring and seeking treasure D&D. To me, that's part of what triggered the OSR movement, was a re-discovering of the games D&D was originally designed to run.

To a lesser extent, slamming old D&D for not being modern (either in terms of game mechanics or "social commentary"). Old D&D is a product of its time, and more than that a product of a small group of people making stuff up as they go along. Things we take for granted today weren't 20 years old when old D&D was being made, and likewise modern views weren't the views 30 and 40 years ago. Remember when D&D was first being written, "Summer Blockbusters" weren't a thing (Jaws was 75, Star Wars was 77), the F150 was a brand new truck, SNL was brand new, Bohemian Rhapsody was brand new and it would be 5 more years before the world knew what Pac-Man was. Old D&D absolutely had its flaws, and knowing what those are have helped make TTRPGs what they are today. But slamming it for not having all the things that come from a hobby that's 40 years old is unfair.

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-24, 11:15 PM

how are any of those examples railroading? i don't get it. you've got a setting that's set and that's the canvas for your players to work on, either with or against the grain. the backdrop does not reflect the course of the story. how would you be on rails when all you've got is the scenery?

the other example seems to me to be a vacuum, where it'd be hard to pull a railroad in the traditional sense of the word. i know it's not your opinion and only your examples, but i'm very confused by this viewpoint. i see a magical mcguffin as more of a railroad station than your examples. it'd be like saying "well, the lich didn't hide his phylactery during the campaign explicitely, so it must be on him, otherwise you've railroaded us into a fetch quest!"

I don't really get it either... like I said, it's taking what could be some interesting and useful advice about how to have the fictional world and other characters react to the PCs actions, and cranking it up to 12+.

One of the examples given in my exchange with one of its proponents was that the PCs were searching for an artifact in an abandoned tower, and as the GM, this proponent insisted it would be railroading if he decided before the players rolled whether or not the artifact was indeed in that tower...

It made no sense to me, I mean, I'd say that the artifact was either in the tower, or it wasn't. Searching "really hard" or "really well" for something that just isn't there won't make it appear out of thin air.

Hammering D&D for not being good at generic fantasy. D&D is largely a victim of its own success here, but D&D is not a generic fantasy game. It's a game for D&D fantasy, which yes would have been cyclical reasoning before D&D came out, but given that since then it's more or less established its own branch of fantasy stories, isn't so much cyclical as it's the apprentice becoming the master. If you play D&D for the game that it's intended to be, it's a wonderfully fun game and the system works just fine for it. 3.x IMHO tried to make the game more generic, and lost a lot of tiny details along the way (e.g. XP for Gold). And given at this point we have almost 20 years now of 3.x D&D (and Pathfinder) being the primary starting point, it's unfortunate that so many people haven't had a chance to play some good old fashioned grave robbing, exploring and seeking treasure D&D. To me, that's part of what triggered the OSR movement, was a re-discovering of the games D&D was originally designed to run.

True.

One of my peeves is actually players who insist that D&D (and its offspring) are generic fantasy gaming rulesets, when really that sort of system is only suited for a particular sort of game experience and "story structure" (it's there even if the story is emergent).

RedMage125

2017-07-25, 02:09 AM

I most frequently argue about alignment.

ESPECIALLY in 3e boards. Since it was the last edition to use "heavy-handed" alignment mechanics.

Thing is...I like alignment. I find that it works fine.

In 100% of the stories I have heard from players and DMs who have shared their "bad experience" with alignment, a key part of the problem is that someone deviated from RAW. SOMEONE in that telling, went off-books about what constitutes Good/Evil/Law/Chaos, or what the ACTUAL rules are for a character changing alignment, or how the rules pertain to character classes with Codes of Conduct or alignment restriction. Also, my personal favorite, people deviate from the RAW in terms of what alignment even IS. Statements of "Alignment X must behave in manner Y", or other such nonsense.

Fact is, alignment works fine, as long as people stick to what the rules say. The 3e PHB, and supplements like BoVD and BoED are very specific about what is Good and Evil in D&D. And guess what? It's a fantasy game, so the devs actually DO have the right to say "X is an evil act". I don't care about whatever arguent each and every special snowflake has to support their opinion on why a certain deed "should not be Evil". RAW say it's evil.

Houseruling is fine. D&D is a game that thrives on customization and houserules. But when you deviate from the RAW, you should at least be aware of it, and so should everyone at the table. Know that when you change certain things about the definitions of alignment, that may have a cascading effect on the mechanics, so be prepared to make adjustments to those, too. If you redefine what constitutes Good/Evil/etc., then use the mechanics that enforce the RAW definitions of those, you may encounter problems.

Point is, if the only thing that makes you say "this mechanic is bad" stems from situations where people are deviating from the rules of said mechanic, then it is not a fair indictment of the mechanics, only of those people. Crutches can be very useful to people with injured legs. If you've been repeatedly bludgeoned over the head with someone's crutch, does that make all crutches "dangerous weapons designed to inflict pain"? No? Then shut up about alignment.

Have had some interesting conversations about "railroading", too. I don't like what I call "hard railroading", where the players' choice and agency is rendered meaningless and they know it. But I also like to run games with a plot and direction. I like to write story elements and foreshadowing. I like to tell a specific story. Now, my players always have room to be creative and make that story better in ways I cannot always predict. Which is what makes the game great.

I'm getting sidetracked. I've actually had a group of players ASK me to give them a railroad plotline. I took over a group as DM when our last DM got stationed somewhere else. He usually ran pre-published adventure, and that was what the group was used to. My first game with them, I did an Evil Campaign. Which meant the players had a LOT more freedom and agency. More than a normal "sandbox" game, actually, because I expect villains to be proactive and move the plot along, while I, the DM, simply describe how the world (and its inhabitants) react to them. More often than not, these people were paralyzed by the availability of choice. After that mini-campaign concluded (about 5 or 6 sessions), they asked for "a more structured storyline with more direction". I was floored.

What all of it boils down to is this: No matter what rules you're playing with, or how you're playing, the only wrong way to play D&D is when people are not having fun.

Railroading is not inherently "bad", some people like it. When the players at the table are groaning and complaining, chafing at the restrictions...THEN it is bad. But no one here is of an authority to say "this is badwrongfun"

Alignment rules can work just fine. Some people hate them. Cool, don't use them. Houserule to your heart's content. But don't act like your OPINIONS are so vital and universal that they carry the same weight as objective fact. Your negative opinion about alignment and alignment rules has no bearing on whether or not they are objectively "bad".

Glorthindel

2017-07-25, 06:37 AM

My hill to die on is that character death is fine, acceptable, and an entirely normal and natural part of the roleplay experience.

It is ok to kill a character, and not just because they did something dumb, or it is a dramatic pivotal moment of the campaign. Sometimes a character will die in a completely simple, boring, and anti-climactic way. And this is ok. Not everyone gets to be Aragorn, sometimes it turns out you were playing Boromir, and all your plans, and plotlines get cut short by some nameless peon with a good roll. Yes, be a little sad, but if the idea of your characters death is traumatic to you, you need to take a step back.

I will not use (and will always try and talk other people from using) "acts of god" or other DM ex-machina to save or bring back a dead character. Your character is nothing to the gods and other powers of whatever setting I'm running. When your character stabbed up a whole temple full of Clerics of [insert evil god here], who were actively advancing their dieties cause, he didn't step in and save them from death, so why should the god you only pay lip service to when its relevant even be aware of your existence, let alone value it enough to intercede? Even if you are on a literal "mission from god" in likelihood everyone you are opposing is on a mission from their gods too, so what makes you special? If every "god supported" enemy put in the ground popped back up a few minutes later because their god revived them too, the game would suck - so the rules apply to your character too.

Oh, and no, the monsters didn't just "knock you out". You attacked their friends and family in their home, unless there is a particularly valuable bounty or active slave-trade involved, they are executing your murderous ass for their own safety (and likely desire for vengeance). That's assuming they aren't particularly hungry carnivores - it isn't cannibalism for a goblin or gnoll to eat a human you know.

As a secondary (slightly less vehement) cause, backstories are not pristine, inviolate works of art. Once it is in my game, it is mine, to do with as I see fit. I wont spring changes on you, and will breif you on anything that needs to be adjusted to suit the world, but I wont ask your permission either. I might give you the intresting plot development you hope for, but I might equally do nothing with it because it isn't appropriate for the story that is being told. And that is my prerogative.

2D8HP

2017-07-25, 07:04 AM

...don't act like your OPINIONS are so vital and universal that they carry the same weight as objective fact....

Where's the sport in that?

:confused:

NEVER!

Doing what you suggest would lead to tolerance, mutual respect, courtesy, and common sense.

AND THAT WOULD BE WRONG!!!

:yuk::

As The Clash taught us:

"...Let fury have the hour, anger can be power
D'you know that you can use it?

The voices in your head are calling
Stop wasting your time, there's nothing coming
Only a fool would think someone could save you..."

ON THIS HILL I'LL DIE!!!!!

CharonsHelper

2017-07-25, 07:36 AM

But no one here is of an authority to say "this is badwrongfun"

YOU might not.

I DO

2D8HP

2017-07-25, 07:46 AM

YOU might not.

Bluetext is boring

And typing out: Blah, blah, blah is tedious.

I prefer ALL CAPS and lots of EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!!

ON THIS HILL I'LL DIE!!!

Faily

2017-07-25, 09:41 AM

Alignment-stuff in D&D.

I will gladly stand by you on this hill, RedMage125! :smallsmile:
I am among the "weird people" who like the alignment-rules, and think they work perfectly fine in a fantasy-game that is much more black-and-white than real life is. I enjoy the escapism of it.

----

My hill is most often game-settings, especially settings I am very familiar with. While I don't mind that people play various game-settings differently at their own tables, I do take issue with incorrect understanding of settings (also not fond of people expecting a setting to be changed for their expectations or wants either, but that's a different matter I suppose).

Legend of the Five Rings is a setting I know very well, and I have discussed and explored the setting with the people who were on both Story Teams and RPG Teams (both in games or in just out-of-game conversations) before the IP-sale. L5R-stuff is a hill I will fight on if I see misinteprations or misunderstandings.

goto124

2017-07-25, 10:14 AM

Yes, be a little sad, but if the idea of your characters death is traumatic to you, you need to take a step back.

You know what's traumatic? Spending all that time rolling up a new character and coming up with a new character concept!

More seriously though, I really need to streamline my character creation process. I probably should ask someone who's overflowing with character ideas, I'm dry as a desert in need of a downpour...

And typing out: Blah, blah, blah is tedious.

I use the mobile site on both desktop and mobile. I type out not just the color codes, but the url,
img, and quote codes as well!

Lord Torath

2017-07-25, 11:39 AM

Here are my "Fight Me" topics:

Spelljammer is stupid!

No. Yes, there is some inherent silliness in the game (Gnomes and Giant Space Hamsters). Yes, there are some new laws of physics you're going to have to get used to. No, it's not perfect (what game is?). But if you want Adventures on the High Seas in SpaceTM, this is the setting for it. And all spaced-based RPGs that I've heard of have either new laws of physics, or "magic" ways of breaking the currently-understood laws of physics - FTL of whatever stripe (or plaid, as is the case in Spaceballs), artificial gravity, strength of materials of spaceship construction, etc.. Spelljammer may not be for you. That's fine. But your Space RPG of choice is not inherently better than Spelljammer, simply due to the fact that you prefer the way your RPG re-writes the laws of physics better than the way Spelljammer does it.

DM fudging dice rolls is always terrible!

Yeah, "No." None of us are perfect DM/GM/Storyteller/Referees. If I, while planning an encounter, overlook a special ability, or fail to think through the implications of the terrain, combined with a unique attack form, and only realize how this moderately-challenging encounter I planned is going to kill everyone midway through the encounter? Is it fair to punish the players because I made a mistake? I can either tell the players I made a mistake and retcon the thing (obvious deus ex machina), say "screw it" and kill the PCs anyway (They brought this on themselves!), save the players through the intervention of some other "monsters" (possibly less-obvious deus ex machina), or fudge some opposition hits into misses. Is fudging always a good thing? Obviously not. Is it always a terrible thing? Also no. But it has its place.

CharonsHelper

2017-07-25, 11:47 AM

...Giant Space Hamsters

Any miniature giant space hamsters?

prufock

2017-07-25, 11:53 AM

"Flavour is immutable" or similar.

Tinkerer

2017-07-25, 12:11 PM

So many grudges that I had forgotten about until this post came up. I will join people on the hills of:

Defending alignments (in D&D specifically as well as in a couple of other systems)
Character death (up to and including TPKs) occasionally being a good thing
Spelljammer was a fantastic setting that doesn't get nearly enough attention
Defending D&D (particularly defending how hard the creative team works to try and put out a good game)
Character balance being an OPTIONAL part of a game so long as the game accepts that is what it is (Rifts and GURPS accept that they are unbalanced, D&D does not)
Fumble mechanics being acceptable in a game (so long as the odds are lower than 5%)
And as I mentioned before some railroading and wanting to nerf spellcasters rather than buff martials in 3.5

I have put literally hundreds of hours into refining my thoughts and engaging in conversation on all of those (except for Spelljammer since it doesn't really come up as often). My opinion could possibly be changed on any of these points but you'd better be bringing an extremely original point because I've heard all of the standard responses.

Lord Torath

2017-07-25, 01:49 PM

Any miniature giant space hamsters? Yes, actually. :smallamused:
Here are some subspecies:
Subterranean Giant Space Hamster
Sabre-toothed Giant Space Hamster
Rather Wild Giant Space Hamster
Invisible Giant Space Hamster
Sylvan or Jungle Giant Space Hamster
Miniature Giant Space Hamster - Our favorite I mean second favorite (please don't hurt me, Belkar) Ranger has one of these for his animal companion.
Armor-Plated Giant Space Hamster
Yellow Musk Giant Space Hamster (No relation to the Yellow Musk Creeper)
Ethereal Giant Space Hamster (not really ethereal, but has translucent flesh)
Carnivorous Flying Giant Space Hamster (a "regrettable if understandable line of inquiry")
Two-Headed Lernean Bombardier Giant Space Hamster
Fire-Breathing Phase Doppleganger Giant Space Hamster
Great Horned Giant Space Hamster
Abominable Giant Space Hamster
Tyrannohamsterus Rex (25' tall at the shoulder, 75 tons, and no intentional attacks. May trample in fright for 10d10 damage)
Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen ("Woolly Rupert" is speculated to be even larger than the Tyrannohamsterus Rex)

Guizonde

2017-07-25, 02:16 PM

Here are my "Fight Me" topics:

DM fudging dice rolls is always terrible!

Yeah, "No." None of us are perfect DM/GM/Storyteller/Referees. If I, while planning an encounter, overlook a special ability, or fail to think through the implications of the terrain, combined with a unique attack form, and only realize how this moderately-challenging encounter I planned is going to kill everyone midway through the encounter? Is it fair to punish the players because I made a mistake? I can either tell the players I made a mistake and retcon the thing (obvious deus ex machina), say "screw it" and kill the PCs anyway (They brought this on themselves!), save the players through the intervention of some other "monsters" (possibly less-obvious deus ex machina), or fudge some opposition hits into misses. Is fudging always a good thing? Obviously not. Is it always a terrible thing? Also no. But it has its place.

paraphrasing gygax, "a dm rolls dice to make players feel afraid". i toss the dice, i see what comes up. sometimes i don't know, and let the dice decide, because that's how i roll :smallcool:. i fudge rolls often because i must have been blessed by lady luck herself for critical hits. no, there's no reason a low-level mook wielding a crowbar just dealt 47 wounds to the friggin' space marine equivalent that is the player's beatstick. it'll turn into something more reasonable, for example, 7 wounds (knowing that that in itself is just under half his total health...). other times, i'll fudge the rolls in the npc's favor just to drag a fight for longer than the initiative round. occasionnally i do it for humor, turning a crit hit into a crit fail (works wonders for speech checks, or the boss' rallying monologue), or on the contrary, making sure the extremely lithe and trained assassin does pull a batman and escape through several wall jumps. it's dependant on the scene and the mood i'm going for.

my teammates are the same, it goes with the setting: the dm rolls the dice to make the players crap their pants. sometimes, just the sound without consequences is enough to get us on edge.

CharonsHelper

2017-07-25, 02:23 PM

Miniature Giant Space Hamster - Our favorite I mean second favorite (please don't hurt me, Belkar) Ranger has one of these for his animal companion.

Really? Lol. I always just assumed that it was Minsc's weird affectation out of nowhere.

Amphetryon

2017-07-25, 03:25 PM

Any version of "the dice shouldn't be used for the social aspects of any (rules-medium/heavy) RPG that uses dice for other aspects of the game."

Yes. Yes they should.

CharonsHelper

2017-07-25, 03:40 PM

Any version of "the dice shouldn't be used for the social aspects of any (rules-medium/heavy) RPG that uses dice for other aspects of the game."

Yes. Yes they should.

I'd argue that either way can work. Some crunchy systems choose yes, while others want to keep social portions looser.

Either can work so long as they're consistent.

Amazon

2017-07-25, 03:46 PM

Every Time someone feels like they need to share their misconceptions about feminism.

I will be there.

*Super hero pose*

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-25, 03:50 PM

Random Sanity

2017-07-25, 04:50 PM

Any version of "the dice shouldn't be used for the social aspects of any (rules-medium/heavy) RPG that uses dice for other aspects of the game."

Yes. Yes they should.

I will die on that hill as many times as necessary to drive the point home. Charisma is not an attribute you can fake, and no GM in the entire world has any business expecting people to try.

mgshamster

2017-07-25, 05:16 PM

Any miniature giant space hamsters?

Hi there.

Yes, there are miniature giant space hamsters.

Cluedrew

2017-07-25, 05:26 PM

Shouldn't they be called giant miniature space hamsters?

Tinkerer

2017-07-25, 05:50 PM

Shouldn't they be called giant miniature space hamsters?

No, they are giant space hamsters which have been miniaturized, not miniature space hamsters made giant. Hence miniature giant space hamsters.

Cluedrew

2017-07-25, 05:55 PM

I thought something like that would be the answer. I didn't know, or really care, I just wanted to make the joke. ... Which may not have come off that well.

mgshamster

2017-07-25, 05:56 PM

I thought something like that would be the answer. I didn't know, or really care, I just wanted to make the joke. ... Which may not have come off that well.

It was amusing enough. I also came here for the joke, as my name should make obvious. :)

AMFV

2017-07-25, 06:20 PM

At one point, it was Paladin tricking into falling threads. But those seem to be much rarer now than they once were on here.

Cluedrew

2017-07-25, 09:08 PM

To mgshamster: For some reason my brain moved the first 's' to the front and I got smghamster, which of course would be short for small machine gun hamster. For some reason this made perfect sense. My only excuse is we are on the internet. This would have been great in the username thread.

mgshamster

2017-07-25, 10:40 PM

RedMage125

2017-07-25, 11:34 PM

Where's the sport in that?

:confused:

NEVER!

Doing what you suggest would lead to tolerance, mutual respect, courtesy, and common sense.

AND THAT WOULD BE WRONG!!!

YOU might not.

I DO
BWAHAHAHA

I will gladly stand by you on this hill, RedMage125! :smallsmile:

So many grudges that I had forgotten about until this post came up. I will join people on the hills of:

Defending alignments (in D&D specifically as well as in a couple of other systems)

WOO! Shield wall on top of the hill! ;)

Also...

My hill is most often game-settings, especially settings I am very familiar with. While I don't mind that people play various game-settings differently at their own tables, I do take issue with incorrect understanding of settings (also not fond of people expecting a setting to be changed for their expectations or wants either, but that's a different matter I suppose).

Legend of the Five Rings is a setting I know very well, and I have discussed and explored the setting with the people who were on both Story Teams and RPG Teams (both in games or in just out-of-game conversations) before the IP-sale. L5R-stuff is a hill I will fight on if I see misinteprations or misunderstandings.

I actually REALLY like L5R, but I *shamefaced* only know of it from d20 supplements, which, as I understand from purists, are an abomination.

I have the 3.0 Oriental Adventures, Rokugan, and Way of Samurai & Ninja. I've probably read each of them cover to cover twice.

I really do like the setting, though, even if I never got into the d10 system version as far as mechanics.

For your consideration, though, a group called DM's Guild (just google their website) did some 5e stuff, with new races (Nezumi, hengeyoki, Spirit Folk, etc) and some new subclasses (Witch-Hunter, etc.) and even some new classes. One, the Shogun class, is split into 7 "subclasses". things like Crawfish, focuses on defense, Heron, focus on agility, Phoenix, focus on magic, Pegasus, focus on mounted combat, and so on...you see the clear similarities. I've been thinking about trying it out, and was hoping someone with more L5R knowledge might also be interested in looking over the material as well.

Quertus

2017-07-26, 07:26 AM

DM fudging dice rolls is always terrible!

Yeah, "No." None of us are perfect DM/GM/Storyteller/Referees. If I, while planning an encounter, overlook a special ability, or fail to think through the implications of the terrain, combined with a unique attack form, and only realize how this moderately-challenging encounter I planned is going to kill everyone midway through the encounter? Is it fair to punish the players because I made a mistake? I can either tell the players I made a mistake and retcon the thing (obvious deus ex machina), say "screw it" and kill the PCs anyway (They brought this on themselves!), save the players through the intervention of some other "monsters" (possibly less-obvious deus ex machina), or fudge some opposition hits into misses. Is fudging always a good thing? Obviously not. Is it always a terrible thing? Also no. But it has its place.

I'd much rather take the TPK, thanks. So, "always terrible for a game I'm in". But, if your players like it, more power to you!

alignment. "railroading", too.

Ok, I came to these forums believing that railroading was inherently Evil, and have learned that apparently some people actually enjoy being railroaded. Fair enough.

But alignment? I've said many times that I believe alignment is the worst thing to happen to role-playing in the history of RPGs. Still, I'm willing to learn. You have a good thread to point me to where I could learn that alignment actually is capable of having positive value in a game? (even if it's a thread I was already active in, I'm senile like that, ok?)

My hill is most often game-settings, especially settings I am very familiar with. While I don't mind that people play various game-settings differently at their own tables, I do take issue with incorrect understanding of settings (also not fond of people expecting a setting to be changed for their expectations or wants either, but that's a different matter I suppose).

And this is one of the reasons why my characters are "not from around here". People who care about settings never seem to like my interpretations. I'd much rather enjoy exploring the setting as an outsider than cause friction with my incongruously alien perspective, thanks.

As a secondary (slightly less vehement) cause, backstories are not pristine, inviolate works of art. Once it is in my game, it is mine, to do with as I see fit. I wont spring changes on you, and will breif you on anything that needs to be adjusted to suit the world, but I wont ask your permission either. I might give you the intresting plot development you hope for, but I might equally do nothing with it because it isn't appropriate for the story that is being told. And that is my prerogative.

And this is one of the reasons why my characters are "not from around here". I can't roleplay a character I can't understand; change my backstory on me, and you've ruined my character, because every event is part of what made them who they are today.

But what's up with this concept of people writing their hopes for plot development into their backstory? :smallconfused:

Any version of "the dice shouldn't be used for the social aspects of any (rules-medium/heavy) RPG that uses dice for other aspects of the game."

Yes. Yes they should.

"It's fine or even good to infringe on the core connections between the player and the PC, by hijacking the PC's thoughts and desires, and telling the player what their PC wants and feels."

No... no it's not... and I'll plant my banner on that hill and fight to maintain the core critical aspect of player agency.

I will die on that hill as many times as necessary to drive the point home. Charisma is not an attribute you can fake, and no GM in the entire world has any business expecting people to try.

Show me a system that works as well as a good group "just role-playing" - and if that doesn't include the GM role-playing the NPCs reacting to the charisma on your sheet, not your personal delivery of the lines, you have failed my definition of "good group" for this context - and I'll try it out. Until then, no, I will not murder and eat my best friend just because your words convinced me that (s)he was yummy. :smallannoyed: I get to do exactly one thing in this game; trying to take that away to replace it with something worse is probably the thing I'll fight hardest against.

Amphetryon

2017-07-26, 08:17 AM

Excellent use of hyperbole to argue against my hill with something that, to my knowledge, never happens in any system I have ever played, Quertus. (Perhaps there's a zombie apocalypse system with this actual result, I suppose.... Or, under a particularly horrible jerkwaffle of a GM, but the solution to the latter is not playing with jerkwaffles).

ImNotTrevor

2017-07-26, 08:23 AM

Show me a system that works as well as a good group "just role-playing" - and if that doesn't include the GM role-playing the NPCs reacting to the charisma on your sheet, not your personal delivery of the lines, you have failed my definition of "good group" for this context - and I'll try it out. Until then, no, I will not murder and eat my best friend just because your words convinced me that (s)he was yummy. :smallannoyed: I get to do exactly one thing in this game; trying to take that away to replace it with something worse is probably the thing I'll fight hardest against.

Apocalypse World
Dungeon World
Burning Wheel

These systems turned my group from one that doesn't like or grok roleplaying to one that loves roleplaying. New players go from "I'm confused" to actually roleplaying within about half a session depending on the game.

And yeah, I'm with other posters. Having an RP system is not a replacement for RP. So your request is kind of like going to a car forum and saying that cruise control is unacceptable on cars until it can drive the entire car for you. Which completely misses the point of cruise control in the same way that your demand misses the point of deeper RP mechanics.

Faily

2017-07-26, 09:04 AM

I actually REALLY like L5R, but I *shamefaced* only know of it from d20 supplements, which, as I understand from purists, are an abomination.

I have the 3.0 Oriental Adventures, Rokugan, and Way of Samurai & Ninja. I've probably read each of them cover to cover twice.

I really do like the setting, though, even if I never got into the d10 system version as far as mechanics.

For your consideration, though, a group called DM's Guild (just google their website) did some 5e stuff, with new races (Nezumi, hengeyoki, Spirit Folk, etc) and some new subclasses (Witch-Hunter, etc.) and even some new classes. One, the Shogun class, is split into 7 "subclasses". things like Crawfish, focuses on defense, Heron, focus on agility, Phoenix, focus on magic, Pegasus, focus on mounted combat, and so on...you see the clear similarities. I've been thinking about trying it out, and was hoping someone with more L5R knowledge might also be interested in looking over the material as well.

While some probably consider me a snobby purist, I am among those who see nothing wrong with playing the setting of Rokugan with d20 mechanics (I do think it works better with the original system, but the setting is more important than the mechanics, imo!). Heck, I even learned about Rokugan through Oriental Adventures and the various d20 supplements for L5R, so it's not like I am in a position to poo-poo people for coming from that angle.

I fully acknowledge that it's not a setting for everyone's tastes, and have learned this the hard way too trying to GM it to a bunch of hardcore D&D-only players (where one of the characters won the hand of a prominent Scorpion maiden in marriage by winning a rather lethal test of skills, and the player declared that that was the end of the character since he "couldn't go adventuring now")... It's a setting I greatly enjoy and have done a lot work with for the online community, but yeah, it's not for everyone. :smallredface:

I'm not familiar with 5th Edition, but I will check it out in the future. :smallsmile:

SirBellias

2017-07-26, 09:20 AM

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-26, 09:23 AM

I'm so glad I've never actually encountered that in a game. Well, other than stuff like "You're definitely getting some evil vibes from this glowing magic demon egg. Are you sure you want to take it?"

Stuff like that is fine with me, as it isn't strong enough to actually change anyone's mind and makes sure the player knows what they're getting into.

We took the egg anyways of course, but that's just common sense. :smallwink:

Right -- there's a difference between "you / your character senses this from the object" and "you / your character wants to take the object". The object can even give off misleading information, but it's still the player's decision how their PC reacts to that information.

KorvinStarmast

2017-07-26, 09:27 AM

My personal peeve is PvP (or as I like to put it, "griefing") being justified as "good roleplaying". I don't care if your thief would steal from his friends, or your paladin would murder his companions for trivial infractions, or whether any given odious social behavior is "in character"- stop being a jerk to your fellow players! This is a pet peeve, but I am not sure I'd go into a flame war on a forum over it. It's a simple matter to me of "it's not all about you." (Except in some RPG's where PvP is part of the game system by design and intention).

Guizonde

2017-07-26, 09:46 AM

I most frequently argue about alignment.

ESPECIALLY in 3e boards. Since it was the last edition to use "heavy-handed" alignment mechanics.

Thing is...I like alignment. I find that it works fine.

In 100% of the stories I have heard from players and DMs who have shared their "bad experience" with alignment, a key part of the problem is that someone deviated from RAW. SOMEONE in that telling, went off-books about what constitutes Good/Evil/Law/Chaos, or what the ACTUAL rules are for a character changing alignment, or how the rules pertain to character classes with Codes of Conduct or alignment restriction. Also, my personal favorite, people deviate from the RAW in terms of what alignment even IS. Statements of "Alignment X must behave in manner Y", or other such nonsense.

Fact is, alignment works fine, as long as people stick to what the rules say. The 3e PHB, and supplements like BoVD and BoED are very specific about what is Good and Evil in D&D. And guess what? It's a fantasy game, so the devs actually DO have the right to say "X is an evil act". I don't care about whatever arguent each and every special snowflake has to support their opinion on why a certain deed "should not be Evil". RAW say it's evil.

Houseruling is fine. D&D is a game that thrives on customization and houserules. But when you deviate from the RAW, you should at least be aware of it, and so should everyone at the table. Know that when you change certain things about the definitions of alignment, that may have a cascading effect on the mechanics, so be prepared to make adjustments to those, too. If you redefine what constitutes Good/Evil/etc., then use the mechanics that enforce the RAW definitions of those, you may encounter problems.

Point is, if the only thing that makes you say "this mechanic is bad" stems from situations where people are deviating from the rules of said mechanic, then it is not a fair indictment of the mechanics, only of those people. Crutches can be very useful to people with injured legs. If you've been repeatedly bludgeoned over the head with someone's crutch, does that make all crutches "dangerous weapons designed to inflict pain"? No? Then shut up about alignment.

Alignment rules can work just fine. Some people hate them. Cool, don't use them. Houserule to your heart's content. But don't act like your OPINIONS are so vital and universal that they carry the same weight as objective fact. Your negative opinion about alignment and alignment rules has no bearing on whether or not they are objectively "bad".

i am one of those people who see the flaws of an alignment system. i don't mind it, per se, i just find it limiting. "good v evil", "law v chaos" is to arbitrary for me. i have read the alignment rules, i've done my research on it extensively precisely so i could game my way into behaving how i want my character to behave without forcing alignment changes. it just adds another difficulty to my growing list of things i dislike about dnd. for example's sake, i wanted to play an irate dwarven rsop. he had a thing about ritual scarification (of the religious experience variety), was extraordinarily xenophobic, a bit sexist, vegetarian, and had a personal code of conduct that was odd to both clerics and dwarves. all his considerations flew out the window when he had a patient to treat, though, since his ersatz hypocratic oath took precedent (including healing a loyal evil orc, and freeing a loyal neutral necropolitan without banishing her). after reading the alignment rules and talking with the dm, the closest we came to was "chaotic good". to wit, having two opposing codes of conduct (personnal v proffessional) should have scragged the "chaotic" attribute because he was a stickler to those two codes, never deviating, but he was pretty much a heretic to his race and to his church in his way of doing things, eliminating the "loyal" part. ultimately, we considered him "grumpy good" and left it at that. on paper, it became neutral good so i could hit the prc.

that's a layer of difficulty i could have gone without when playing true-blue dnd 3.5 for the first time (i used to play pf and a hodgepodge between pf and 3.5). fair enough, it's part of the game, and once i got that part down, it didn't bother me too much.

like you, though, i do have a problem for people who misunderstand the fundamentals of the alignments mechanic: people who either play "chaotic stupid" or "loyal anal", and my favorite, wannabe- gods of the "superiority complex" variety who enjoy it making a paladin fall for arbitrary reasons.

i wish there were more options for "fallen" characters, because after reading the "eisenhorn trilogy", it makes for a tragic story of seeing someone fall. a character gets more and more powerful, all the while damning himself to the point of no return. fallen paladins get the blackguard, but that's just a mirror image fighting good instead of evil. a grey guard's code is even stricter than a regular paladins by raw (i swear, people who tout the grey guard as a freeform paladin haven't read the entire class description). the only class i found where you could do that was the inquisitor (and i wonder where paizo got its inspiration from....). that's how i want alignments to evolve. not be another layer of complexity, but a natural evolution to a character's evolving moral compass.

i know that's not how alignments work, and i'm not gonna change it. i live with them "bon gré, mal gré", and people who like alignment rules i can only say more power to you. i know if i'm playing pf or dnd, i'll have to haul that anchor. playing dnd without those rules is not playing dnd.

all i know is playing dnd while misunderstanding those rules is not only not playing dnd, but it's also not fun.

KorvinStarmast

2017-07-26, 09:46 AM

Point Buy vs. Dice Rolling you'll argue either side?

5E Skill System Wait, you have a comment on that? :smallbiggrin:

DM Attitude Not sure what the issue is?

Jerk Players Exist

Rollplaying vs. Roleplaying Is a continuum ...

The D&D 5E Saving Throws system unless you're proficient in it, you're MORE likely to fail a save against a level-appropriate encounter the higher level you are. Yeah, it's a mess that the OD&D saving throw tables, there were five of them, didn't have.

"Rules trump Story all the time, every time. That might get me fighting.

"Your character wouldn't do X because they're blah-blah-blah." - Telling me how I HAVE to roleplay my character Good way for bad things to happen.
I appreciate the following Murlockian utterance.
WHARGARBL!
My browser corrected that word as BLOWHARD and I lmao.

Saying the GM should "always say yes" regardless of the situation, especially at character generation, or implying that the GM should have absolutely no control over his/her own setting. I might get the musket from over the grognardish fireplace and take up arms over that one.

Declaring that expression of a character idea is impossible due to the lack of an explicit mechanic for it (e.g.: "I can't make a proper bartender because there isn't a Profession (bartender) skill"). All that demonstrates is a lack of imagination of the part of the person taking that position.
Fumble mechanics have no place in tabletop gaming. Mostly, yes.

"Balance is not the most important consideration for a cooperative role-based game." Yeah, and I may head for the fireplace and the musket on that one.

My Fight Me topics:
1. Anyone who defends murder hoboing. Actually, if you play a pure murder hobo game (and all players are in on it) a silly amount of fun can be had up to the point that the DM calls out Joe Lefors and Lord Baltimore.

2. The Stigma Around TPKs and player death.
There cannot be real stakes without real consequences. Yep.

goto124

2017-07-26, 09:49 AM

(where one of the characters won the hand of a prominent Scorpion maiden in marriage by winning a rather lethal test of skills, and the player declared that that was the end of the character since he "couldn't go adventuring now")

Nevermind that I already learned my lesson about L5R from another post, I shall always un-capitalise the first letter of Scorpion and imagine a much siller situation.

... fight me?

KorvinStarmast

2017-07-26, 10:03 AM

To me, that's part of what triggered the OSR movement, was a re-discovering of the games D&D was originally designed to run. I agree.

I would like to remind everyone who wishes to discuss D&D, that it was originally a swords and sorcery model, not what has come to be "generic fantasy." As Tolkien said about his own magnum opus "the tale grew in telling."

Someone made a good point further up that I'd like to pounce upon regarding what "generic fantasy" is.

Recursion happens.

D&D became a way to play out being inside a great adventure story. As the stories based on D&D got published as fiction/pulp/paperbacks, and even best sellers like (Salvatore) and (Weiss Hickman), the overlap with how Hollywood in the 70's, 80's, and 90's revisited that old style of story telling (about magic and adventure ... Thief of Baghdad and Arabian Nights, or the Legends of the Knights of the Round table or Charlemagne's paladins ... compared to Fritz Lieber and Michael Moorcock) changed what the perception of what the basic story form of fantasy (and role playing) is and was. So too did all of those ideas erupting from the pages of Dragon Magazine and other topical rags (Omni, anyone?) during the RPG blossoming of the 70's and 80's.

What the grognaridian / OSR movement tried to do was revisit the past, and I am somewhat surprised (and pleased) that it succeeded to a certain extent. The old game succeeded in ways that its authors had no idea it would. They were playing catch up from about the second printing.

The game grew in telling, you might say, and I stepped out of the game for a while because bloat (the latter stages of 2e and all of 3.x) isn't attractive growth.

With the above considered, I never got to play TSR's original Top Secret game, and I note that it is being released anew. Maybe someone in our town will start one. I'd love to finally play Top Secret with a group at a table.

Airk

2017-07-26, 10:13 AM

Right -- there's a difference between "you / your character senses this from the object" and "you / your character wants to take the object". The object can even give off misleading information, but it's still the player's decision how their PC reacts to that information.

This is why it's fun to play games with more interesting metacurrencies, because you can TOTALLY offer a player a BRIBE to do a thing that their character is being magically "suggested" to do.

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-26, 10:16 AM

This is why it's fun to play games with more interesting metacurrencies, because you can TOTALLY offer a player a BRIBE to do a thing that their character is being magically "suggested" to do.

I've seen promising ways of doing that, and really bad ways of doing that.

IMO, one of the really bad ways is including it in the system, and then balancing everything else on the assumption that every player will always have a reserve of meta-currency, and make the meta-currency only available via the "give in" choices, which puts a lot of unfair pressure on the player's choices. It should always be a tradeoff, not a "comply or suffer" setup.

Airk

2017-07-26, 10:37 AM

I've seen promising ways of doing that, and really bad ways of doing that.

IMO, one of the really bad ways is including it in the system, and then balancing everything else on the assumption that every player will always have a reserve of meta-currency, and make the meta-currency only available via the "give in" choices, which puts a lot of unfair pressure on the player's choices. It should always be a tradeoff, not a "comply or suffer" setup.

I don't really agree. If you are dealing with The One Ring or something, "comply or suffer" is totally the equation you are looking for. It's a magical compulsion. You don't simply "decide not to do it". In certain games this would just be "save vs total GM control of your character" which sucks. "I'll give you three magic banana points that you can spend later on cool stuff if you do the <bad thing>" is much better, and I have no qualms about "...and if you decline, you'll suffer a consequence."

The whole IDEA of the system is to put pressure on the player's choices so that they MATTER.

kyoryu

2017-07-26, 10:41 AM

I've seen promising ways of doing that, and really bad ways of doing that.

IMO, one of the really bad ways is including it in the system, and then balancing everything else on the assumption that every player will always have a reserve of meta-currency, and make the meta-currency only available via the "give in" choices, which puts a lot of unfair pressure on the player's choices. It should always be a tradeoff, not a "comply or suffer" setup.

What game are you thinking of?

Because Fate is usually the culprit people talk about, and Fate don't work that way.

That said, for magical compulsion I much prefer Apocalypse World's way of dealing with it - the compulsor gets a certain number of points, that can be triggered for certain negative effects. When you act in a way contrary to the compulsion, they can use a point. When you do The Thing you're compelled to do, they lose all the points.

I'm a huge fan of soft control schemes like this. Also, marking in D&D4 - you may not like the in-world explanation for it, but mechanically I think it's pretty great.

Tinkerer

2017-07-26, 11:10 AM

I'm actually going to make up a thread regarding GM influence over players actions today because I think it has a few more layers of nuance than I think we can really bring up in this thread.

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-26, 12:41 PM

Here's another one I'll stand on the hill to fight against:

The Dung Ages (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheDungAges).

RedMage125

2017-07-27, 12:15 AM

Ok, I came to these forums believing that railroading was inherently Evil, and have learned that apparently some people actually enjoy being railroaded. Fair enough.
Like I said "The only wrong way to play is when people are not having fun".

Those players that WANTED a railroad plot? Came to me after I ran an evil game where they pretty much had more carte blanche than most sandbox-style games. Namely because it was a villain campaign, and I expect villains to be the proactive ones moving the plot forward. They were so paralyzed with indecision most of the time that it actually inhibited a bit of the fun they had. they liked the story we ran, and were satisfied with the ending (left 2 of them dead), but they realized they liked more structured plotlines, and wanted a return to that going forward.

But alignment? I've said many times that I believe alignment is the worst thing to happen to role-playing in the history of RPGs. Still, I'm willing to learn. You have a good thread to point me to where I could learn that alignment actually is capable of having positive value in a game? (even if it's a thread I was already active in, I'm senile like that, ok?)

I can give you the highlights about what I've said about alignment.

First off, understand that D&D is fantasy, and in the fantasy setting of the default Core D&D world, objective Good/Evil/Law/Chaos are things that exist. Good and evil are not "points of view", they are the forces that shape the cosmos, to which even gods are beholden. Good/Evil/etc. can be objectively observed, measured, and even brought forth in physical form through spells (Holy Smite, etc) or through living beings (outsiders with alignment subtypes).

Just because Good and Evil are objective with objective definitions within the D&D universe does not make the morality of individuals any less complex. You could still have someone who believes themselves to be doing something Good for a Good cause, but whose alignment is Evil. Example - Responding to a prophecy that an orphan child would grow up to release Demogorgon into the world, a vigilante who hates demons travels the world, killing all orphans. He sincerely believes that he is preventing the Prince of Demons from coming to this plane, and his goals are therefore Good, or at least Neutral. But his actions, that of repeated and intentional murder of innocent children, would make him undoubtedly evil. He would take damage from Holy Smite, he would register on Detect Evil, etc.

Having alignment mechanics allows for classic fantasy tropes to be given mechanical voice in the game. A Holy weapon that does extra damage to evil creatures, for example. What determines who takes that damage if you don't have alignment rules? The DM's whim? Also, without alignment, demons are not the embodiment of pure evil and chaos, but rather a bunch of sentient outsiders with a different point of view. A paladin being able to sense the "lingering stink of evil" from an abandoned demon cult lair is also a benefit to alignment.

It's important to remember that alignment is DESCRIPTIVE and not PRESCRIPTIVE. There is no "lawful Good people can't do x". The 3.5e books even blatantly state that no one perfectly acts in accordance with their alignment all the time. Some people have flaws. Some people don't always act in accordance with the ideals they hold themselves to. But, like the deva told Roy when he was being judged "it's important that you're trying". A Lawful Good person might have a short temper, or a greedy streak that occasionally tempts them to take things which are not theirs. But if that person is TRULY Lawful Good, they'll eventually try and make amends. Again to quote 3.5e rules, alignments don't change because of a single action, it takes time. It takes consistent behavior of acting more like another alignment before alignment changes, reflecting that the beliefs and outlooks of the person have also changed. Eberron, a 3.5e setting, said it best, "Alignment is not an absolute barometer of action nor affiliation".

I prefer high-fantasy games, with the high-level endgame being some kind of titanic struggle with high stakes. Saving the world, stopping a massive army. Destroying a demonic artifact, etc. But I also am fond of more morally complex stories on the way. I had one that developed kind of slowly as my players were accomplishing missions against an evil death cult around the world. An NPC paladin of Bahamut (a Lawful Good deity), who was the party's patron, gradually became more politically influential in the city that was their base of operations. This paladin, by overwhelming majority of popular support, became the ruler of the city. He began a new order "the white hand", and began successfully routing out all kinds of evil activity in the city. And then he turned to crime. And then he began to turn to other "moral infractions", placing the city under curfew, making swearing illegal and punishable by imprisonment, and so on. When the party returned after one of their quests, they found that this paladin had become a dictator, essentially. His rules all enforced a high moral code in the people. Essentially, I created a Lawful Good antagonist. I think a Lawful Good antagonist made for a great story. The fact that 2 of the party members also worshipped Bahamut emphasized the fact that the antagonist WAS, in fact, a champion of Good who was misusing his authority while never ceasing to be LG.

Any threads I could have pointed you to would have mostly been pointing out that the "problems with alignment" stories all stem from deviating from the RAW. The problems are with the players who use alignment to justify jerkbag moves, and DMs who either wield alignment like a bludgeon and control players' actions, or insert their own definitions for good/evil/etc, and enforce those arbitrary definitions with the rules meant to enforce the RAW definitions. And they usually enforce them wrong, too. 3.5e DMG, page 134 has the rules for changing a character's alignment.

i am one of those people who see the flaws of an alignment system. i don't mind it, per se, i just find it limiting. "good v evil", "law v chaos" is to arbitrary for me.

*snip*

like you, though, i do have a problem for people who misunderstand the fundamentals of the alignments mechanic: people who either play "chaotic stupid" or "loyal anal", and my favorite, wannabe- gods of the "superiority complex" variety who enjoy it making a paladin fall for arbitrary reasons.
*snip*

all i know is playing dnd while misunderstanding those rules is not only not playing dnd, but it's also not fun.
I'm not trying to argue, I just want to point out a few things. In the first bit, I bolded how, in your statements, you are evincing an opinion. Which is totally fine. Even in alignment arguments, I'm not trying to change people's opinions. You seem, at least, to acknowledge that your view is your opinion, colored by your own preferences on how you would like to play. Which I find refreshing, personally. So many alignment haters out there act like they have the only "right" opinion, and that their opinion somehow transcends the fact/opinion threshold and becomes some kind of higher truth. So let me just say-from someone who likes alignment to someone who doesn't-that I respect your viewpoint and the way you present it, and I salute you, sir. Even though we have different opinions, there is no reason we couldn't sit at the same game table, even.

The second bit I left in just highlights my point. People who play "chaotic stupid" or "loyal anal" are the problem. Not Chaotic Neutral or Lawful anything as alignments. I've actually got a few CN characters that work REALLY well within parties. The problem is with the people who misunderstand or misuse the rules. If an out-of-control child is beating on his brother with a wooden spoon, you don't blame wooden spoons, do you? You seem to get what I'm saying. I just wanted to highlight again, that someone who doesn't like alignment and I can both see the real problem (the people who are jerkbags). Again, I'm just enjoying finding common ground.

And the last part of yours that I quoted is about what I said in regards to "badwrongfun". If you or the people you are playing with are not having fun when alignment mechanics are in play, then I suggest you either find another group, or convince the group to modify the system to take those restrictions and mechanics out (it's a lot of work in some editions, be forewarned). The ONLY wrong way to play D&D is when people aren't having fun. Even though I like alignment, I never recommend forcing using it to a group of people playing who all hate it. If I was the DM, and all of my players were of the anti-alignment crowd, I would find a way to play where those mechanics were greatly reduced or removed altogether. I think it's ethically wrong, when playing a collaborative game like D&D, for me to hold fast onto a series of mechanics that all my players would find disruptive to their fun, JUST out of some sense of "this has to be here to play the game 'right'". Everyone at the table should be having a good time.

Good gaming.

Guizonde

2017-07-27, 02:40 AM

Like I said "The only wrong way to play is when people are not having fun".

I'm not trying to argue, I just want to point out a few things. In the first bit, I bolded how, in your statements, you are evincing an opinion. Which is totally fine. Even in alignment arguments, I'm not trying to change people's opinions. You seem, at least, to acknowledge that your view is your opinion, colored by your own preferences on how you would like to play. Which I find refreshing, personally. So many alignment haters out there act like they have the only "right" opinion, and that their opinion somehow transcends the fact/opinion threshold and becomes some kind of higher truth. So let me just say-from someone who likes alignment to someone who doesn't-that I respect your viewpoint and the way you present it, and I salute you, sir. Even though we have different opinions, there is no reason we couldn't sit at the same game table, even.

The second bit I left in just highlights my point. People who play "chaotic stupid" or "loyal anal" are the problem. Not Chaotic Neutral or Lawful anything as alignments. I've actually got a few CN characters that work REALLY well within parties. The problem is with the people who misunderstand or misuse the rules. If an out-of-control child is beating on his brother with a wooden spoon, you don't blame wooden spoons, do you? You seem to get what I'm saying. I just wanted to highlight again, that someone who doesn't like alignment and I can both see the real problem (the people who are jerkbags). Again, I'm just enjoying finding common ground.

And the last part of yours that I quoted is about what I said in regards to "badwrongfun". If you or the people you are playing with are not having fun when alignment mechanics are in play, then I suggest you either find another group, or convince the group to modify the system to take those restrictions and mechanics out (it's a lot of work in some editions, be forewarned). The ONLY wrong way to play D&D is when people aren't having fun. Even though I like alignment, I never recommend forcing using it to a group of people playing who all hate it. If I was the DM, and all of my players were of the anti-alignment crowd, I would find a way to play where those mechanics were greatly reduced or removed altogether. I think it's ethically wrong, when playing a collaborative game like D&D, for me to hold fast onto a series of mechanics that all my players would find disruptive to their fun, JUST out of some sense of "this has to be here to play the game 'right'". Everyone at the table should be having a good time.

Good gaming.

in the words of heisenberg," you're god damn right!" read on, and you'll see there's more common ground.

the only reason i find alignments limiting is sometimes it goes against expediency. a chaotic evil character might have something more to gain saving an orphanage from a fire, or a good character might end up doing more good by coldly executing an evil character. both force an alignment change and could lead to losing powers, so it's less "good and evil is a boring concept" and more a loss of latitude that irks me. i'm fine playing my current pf inquisitor who's got rules to bend and break alignment rules (as we read and interpreted the rules, it boils down to "the ends justify the means", which fits really well the class and my role in the group).

sometimes, i come across the argument that alignments help newbies rp correctly. well, it's true. my first paladin was exactly that. tempered by a war-torn backstory and pretty cynical, but she was lawful good. not lawful anal or lawful stupid, she thought about the most good she could do while following her rules (in that order, which i believe is the verbatim definition of that alignment). here's the flipside: newbie players who end up playing alignments badly: the old "it's what my character would do" cop-out. now, sure, rogues are the archetypal magpies. i played 3 bloody years in return to the temple of elemental evil with an elven rogue who was both the face of the party and the reason our equipment went missing. (that included my blessed mace of pelor. twice. "for fun" she said). i have a problem when the rogue is only the greedy magpie. you're playing a character, not an alignment, and newbies tend to forget that part.

i'll hedge my bets and call out first player inexperience, and only second player stupidity. like you said, that's a mechanic that only falls down when you don't follow the rules. that, and of course when your character's personnality is solely defined by their moral code.

"so, what's your character like?"
"well, they're chaotic neutral so..."
"so...?"
"well, uh, they steal and are greedy and sometimes they put paint-bombs in people's pants because it's random!"

needless to say, both you and i find that grating at the best of times.

another thing: playing whfrp2e for years, their "level-up" mechanic of changing careers and having your character personnality evolve through experiences survived pleased me much more than an arbitrary 9 case grid. you start out a blank slate, and the more you live through horrors the more your character is fleshed out. it's a lot tougher to rp off the cuff, and that's why i talked about my 3-session rule of thumb in an earlier post. you have to leave some things to improvization in creating and giving birth to a character. obviously, not to everyone's tastes, but that's my preference. i'll never tell people "alignments suck and you're an idiot for using them", i'll tell them "your use of alignments is so stupid and against the rules that you might as well play without them". to someone who thrives on them? i'll give you a golf clap, because that's awesome. nothing more to add, you're having fun, i'm having fun, let's crack open a pint and keep gaming!

Vitruviansquid

2017-07-27, 03:10 AM

Apparently, I'm pretty bellicose, because here's another Fight Me topic:

I can't stand it when people use the existence of a mechanic in something else to attack a TRPG for having that mechanic. Here's an example:

"Man, if I wanted to play a game with tanking and aggro, I'd just play WoW." This statement is used as a way to attack D&D 4e for having Defender classes that use marks to limit monsters' options.

It's a sneaky argument. You're supposed to see the argument and think, "yeah, that makes sense that what works in one medium doesn't work in the other medium because the media are different." What it fails to explain is why the mechanic doesn't work in the medium of TRPG. Let's say I like tanking and aggro - how come I can't like tanking and aggro in WoW where I use this mechanic to play in crafted computer game experiences with parties that include strangers AND THEN ALSO like tanking and aggro in D&D where I use it in a tabletop experience with friends and a more free-form world where the GM tailors experiences to the specific wants of the players? Can't we also imagine a world where critics of early MMORPGs - let's say Everquest - say, "Man, if I wanted to play a game where characters level up, I'd just play D&D." And how dumb does that sound?

Alternately, you're supposed to see this argument and think, "yeah, that makes sense that if I can get the tanking and aggro experience from WoW, I don't see why I'd also need it in D&D." What it fails to explain is why I wouldn't want the same thing everywhere if it was a good thing. There are things that work once in awhile and there are things that work all the time. For example, I enjoy pastrami, but I'm not going to get pastrami every time I have a sandwich. Then again, I like having a Sprite every time I eat a sandwich, and I'll get that every time I have a sandwich. So you need to actually tell me why tanking and aggro is pastrami, and not Sprite if you want to pursue this line of argument.

goto124

2017-07-27, 04:33 AM

Vit, you've made me hungry for pastrami and Sprite :smalltongue:

RedMage125

2017-07-27, 06:41 AM

in the words of heisenberg," you're god damn right!" read on, and you'll see there's more common ground.

the only reason i find alignments limiting is sometimes it goes against expediency. a chaotic evil character might have something more to gain saving an orphanage from a fire, or a good character might end up doing more good by coldly executing an evil character. both force an alignment change and could lead to losing powers, so it's less "good and evil is a boring concept" and more a loss of latitude that irks me. i'm fine playing my current pf inquisitor who's got rules to bend and break alignment rules (as we read and interpreted the rules, it boils down to "the ends justify the means", which fits really well the class and my role in the group).

sometimes, i come across the argument that alignments help newbies rp correctly. well, it's true. my first paladin was exactly that. tempered by a war-torn backstory and pretty cynical, but she was lawful good. not lawful anal or lawful stupid, she thought about the most good she could do while following her rules (in that order, which i believe is the verbatim definition of that alignment). here's the flipside: newbie players who end up playing alignments badly: the old "it's what my character would do" cop-out. now, sure, rogues are the archetypal magpies. i played 3 bloody years in return to the temple of elemental evil with an elven rogue who was both the face of the party and the reason our equipment went missing. (that included my blessed mace of pelor. twice. "for fun" she said). i have a problem when the rogue is only the greedy magpie. you're playing a character, not an alignment, and newbies tend to forget that part.

i'll hedge my bets and call out first player inexperience, and only second player stupidity. like you said, that's a mechanic that only falls down when you don't follow the rules. that, and of course when your character's personnality is solely defined by their moral code.

"so, what's your character like?"
"well, they're chaotic neutral so..."
"so...?"
"well, uh, they steal and are greedy and sometimes they put paint-bombs in people's pants because it's random!"

needless to say, both you and i find that grating at the best of times.

another thing: playing whfrp2e for years, their "level-up" mechanic of changing careers and having your character personnality evolve through experiences survived pleased me much more than an arbitrary 9 case grid. you start out a blank slate, and the more you live through horrors the more your character is fleshed out. it's a lot tougher to rp off the cuff, and that's why i talked about my 3-session rule of thumb in an earlier post. you have to leave some things to improvization in creating and giving birth to a character. obviously, not to everyone's tastes, but that's my preference. i'll never tell people "alignments suck and you're an idiot for using them", i'll tell them "your use of alignments is so stupid and against the rules that you might as well play without them". to someone who thrives on them? i'll give you a golf clap, because that's awesome. nothing more to add, you're having fun, i'm having fun, let's crack open a pint and keep gaming!

I'd like to address one of your examples, briefly, because it highlights-to me-one of the benefits of the oft-maligned alignment mechanics.

That of a good character "losing their powers" for coldly executing an evil character. Played correctly, one act does not cause an alignment shift, but pre-4e paladins could not ever "intentionally commit an evil act". So that paladin commits ONE evil act, and BOOM, no powers. BUT, if one was paying attention to how the RAW actually worked, their alignment did not shift. They remained a Lawful Good ex-paladin. Note that those paladins did not fall for a CHAOTIC act, but enough chaotic acts over time could shift their alignment to NG, which would then cause a power loss.

Here's where I defend the "ex-paladin" mechanic. Yes, you are correct that the PCs could do more Good by executing the evildoer they have in custody (since you specified "coldly executing" I am assuming you mean execute in cold blood, i.e. they have him captured). But paladins are more than just Lawful Good Fighters. They are held to a HIGHER standard of Good than other Good characters. It was supposed to be a part of the allure of the class, playing a true paragon of righteousness. The Paladin player in that situation has a much more complex struggle to deal with. Yes, killing the evil character would mean he would never wreak his evil again, while sending him to prison could result in him escaping. So the cause of Good could be better served by killing him. But to the paladin, that's just semantics for taking the easy way out. The burden of a paladin is to never stoop to using evil means (such as executing a captured and helpless foe), even against Evil. The design goal of that mechanic is to confront the struggle of, in the words of Albus Dumbledore "Choosing between what is Right, and what is Easy". And the built in penalty is meant to give the player incentive to always try and find the high road. Subject the villain to a Geas or a Mark of Justice, something, ANYTHING else.

I know in practice (if stories on forums are to be believed) not a large number of paladin players understood the moral struggle, and instead chafed at the restriction on their behavior. But, like I said, I'm a fan of classic fantasy tropes, and pre-4e paladins' powers were supposed to be the reward of Virtue Beyond Reproach. And sometimes having that kind of "goody-goody" hero isn't people's bag. But sometimes, it makes for a great character and a great story.

I agree with a lot of what else you have said. You may now return to your regularly scheduled thread.

mephnick

2017-07-27, 07:08 AM

Hammering D&D for not being good at generic fantasy. D&D is largely a victim of its own success here, but D&D is not a generic fantasy game. It's a game for D&D fantasy, which yes would have been cyclical reasoning before D&D came out, but given that since then it's more or less established its own branch of fantasy stories, isn't so much cyclical as it's the apprentice becoming the master. If you play D&D for the game that it's intended to be, it's a wonderfully fun game and the system works just fine for it. 3.x IMHO tried to make the game more generic, and lost a lot of tiny details along the way (e.g. XP for Gold). And given at this point we have almost 20 years now of 3.x D&D (and Pathfinder) being the primary starting point, it's unfortunate that so many people haven't had a chance to play some good old fashioned grave robbing, exploring and seeking treasure D&D. To me, that's part of what triggered the OSR movement, was a re-discovering of the games D&D was originally designed to run.

Yes. Thank you.

So many people try and mangle D&D into something it's not and then get upset with the system when it doesn't meet their needs. No, it's not for murder mysteries, no it's not for horror, no it's not for political intrigue. It's about exploring ruins, killing monsters and stealing their stuff. All the other ****? Just different options to facilitate this. The adventuring day works perfectly if you play D&D the way it's meant to be played. The Ranger is a fine class if you actually use exploration like you're supposed to. If you want to run a political intrigue city campaign choose a different system. If you want to loot adventure sites, choose D&D. It's not D&D's fault that you're too stupid to research other gaming systems that would better suit your needs.

Cluedrew

2017-07-27, 07:36 AM

"Man, if I wanted to play a game with tanking and aggro, I'd just play WoW." This statement is used as a way to attack D&D 4e for having Defender classes that use marks to limit monsters' options.That one I think is an attempt to create guilt by association. D&D isn't "supposed" to be like WoW so saying that it is, is nothing more than an attempt to disparage 4e. Which is also wrong for its own reasons. Also, marking was one of my favourite mechanically ideas for 4e, it addresses some problems with the flow of combat. Main issue with 4e is I don't want to spend that much time in combat, but if you are I think I would rather do it in 4e than any other edition of D&D.

Airk

2017-07-27, 10:26 AM

That one I think is an attempt to create guilt by association. D&D isn't "supposed" to be like WoW so saying that it is, is nothing more than an attempt to disparage 4e. Which is also wrong for its own reasons. Also, marking was one of my favourite mechanically ideas for 4e, it addresses some problems with the flow of combat. Main issue with 4e is I don't want to spend that much time in combat, but if you are I think I would rather do it in 4e than any other edition of D&D.

Totally. I too am not usually a fan of spending most of the evening fighting stuff, but sometimes I am. And 4e rocks that world.

And 3x/PF combat isn't any faster, so those games are useless to me.

Tinkerer

2017-07-27, 11:00 AM

Let's face facts, any discussion about D&D editions quickly turns into a "Fight Me" thread. Editions of other games as well but particularly D&D.

Guizonde

2017-07-27, 11:31 AM

I'd like to address one of your examples, briefly, because it highlights-to me-one of the benefits of the oft-maligned alignment mechanics.

That of a good character "losing their powers" for coldly executing an evil character. Played correctly, one act does not cause an alignment shift, but pre-4e paladins could not ever "intentionally commit an evil act". So that paladin commits ONE evil act, and BOOM, no powers. BUT, if one was paying attention to how the RAW actually worked, their alignment did not shift. They remained a Lawful Good ex-paladin. Note that those paladins did not fall for a CHAOTIC act, but enough chaotic acts over time could shift their alignment to NG, which would then cause a power loss.

Here's where I defend the "ex-paladin" mechanic. Yes, you are correct that the PCs could do more Good by executing the evildoer they have in custody (since you specified "coldly executing" I am assuming you mean execute in cold blood, i.e. they have him captured). But paladins are more than just Lawful Good Fighters. They are held to a HIGHER standard of Good than other Good characters. It was supposed to be a part of the allure of the class, playing a true paragon of righteousness. The Paladin player in that situation has a much more complex struggle to deal with. Yes, killing the evil character would mean he would never wreak his evil again, while sending him to prison could result in him escaping. So the cause of Good could be better served by killing him. But to the paladin, that's just semantics for taking the easy way out. The burden of a paladin is to never stoop to using evil means (such as executing a captured and helpless foe), even against Evil. The design goal of that mechanic is to confront the struggle of, in the words of Albus Dumbledore "Choosing between what is Right, and what is Easy". And the built in penalty is meant to give the player incentive to always try and find the high road. Subject the villain to a Geas or a Mark of Justice, something, ANYTHING else.

I know in practice (if stories on forums are to be believed) not a large number of paladin players understood the moral struggle, and instead chafed at the restriction on their behavior. But, like I said, I'm a fan of classic fantasy tropes, and pre-4e paladins' powers were supposed to be the reward of Virtue Beyond Reproach. And sometimes having that kind of "goody-goody" hero isn't people's bag. But sometimes, it makes for a great character and a great story.

I agree with a lot of what else you have said. You may now return to your regularly scheduled thread.

believe it or not, i wasn't specifically talking about the paladin when talking about alignment changes. to my knowledge, the druid, cleric, ranger, inquisitor (sort of), paladin, barbarian, and monk are all subject to unpleasantness in case of alignment changes, up to and including having their entire class scrapped or neutered. i loved playing my paladin (until she fell victim to a psycho dm, killing her offscreen and making her undergo necropolitanization), and the moral conundrums you talk about are one of the major draws of the class. i like playing them so they're goody two-shoes who actually think about why they're goody two-shoes. if i didn't want the moral restrictions of the paladin, i wouldn't play one.

but why the hell should a druid who loses the "neutral" qualifier lose all his powers? that's the part i don't understand. or if ever a barbarian becomes loyal he forgets how to rage? (this might have been changed in later editions).

i'm genuinely curious. this is not meant to be aggressive, i want to understand how that works.

my "cold-blooded execution" was actually alluding to what my neutral good cleric5/rsop2 suggested about another pc who had nearly provoked 3 tpks. when the dm told me "nope, not from you", i had to find a turn of phrase to suggest it to the (probably neutral evil) tiefling wizard. yeah, that character (and the player, too) was a load on the team, and the cherry on top was scragging the load would have made me lose saintly status and become a level 7 commoner, permanently losing my status as rsop. ok, fine. since rsop ends with your character becoming a living saint, that i can understand, and to be fair towards the dm and the player, i was venting out my frustration. the barbarian still leaves me in the dark, unfortunately.

Esprit15

2017-07-27, 11:51 AM

Guizonde

2017-07-27, 12:08 PM

Threads about alignment, to join the choir on that topic. In the same vein, people who think that certain party compositions are impossible, even with planning by the players and DM. I've played deep end of the alignment pool characters alongside exalted barbarians. If your character can't contain their Evil urges for even a moment, they deserve to get killed. Also related: that PvP is always wrong. PvP where nobody was aware of it being a possibility, or PvP that's purely antagonistic, sure. On the other hand, if everyone knows that it's a possibility and it makes sense in the story as a whole, where is the injured party?

disjointed alignment parties are, when played well, some of the most dynamic roleplay experiences possible, since it becomes a true struggle finding common ground and a sense of camaraderie. i've played some of those before, and they lend themselves better to narrating the campaign to an audience, as opposed to a team of like minded individuals. that's been my experience from campaigns, not one-shots. in one shots, you never have the time to properly explore party dynamics, unfortunately. then again, if i'm playing a one-shot, i'll have a tendency to break the door, kill the monster, and loot its corpse. it's our default "beer and pretzels" type of game, and i'm fine with that.

pvp i have a love-hate relationship with that. i hate fighting other players, but on the other hand, i love the risk of friendly fire. i'd be interested to know if anyone has a "no pvp, friendly fire activated" policy, since i've never been able to implement that to my liking. (plus, in my team, pvp boils down to fisticuffs and fatigue damage when the carrier of the idiot ball deserves it)

PhoenixPhyre

2017-07-27, 12:17 PM

I

pvp i have a love-hate relationship with that. i hate fighting other players, but on the other hand, i love the risk of friendly fire. i'd be interested to know if anyone has a "no pvp, friendly fire activated" policy, since i've never been able to implement that to my liking. (plus, in my team, pvp boils down to fisticuffs and fatigue damage when the carrier of the idiot ball deserves it)

I have a no pvp policy, but aoe abilities are friendly-fire enabled by default and don't count as pvp unless only targeting party members. So far no one has abused it--in fact they tend to avoid placing an aoe on friendlies even if it would be most efficient. I they to emphasize that distrust between characters is ok as long as the players trust each other. This is a fine line, but so far it's worked.

CharonsHelper

2017-07-27, 12:20 PM

I have a no pvp policy, but aoe abilities are friendly-fire enabled by default. So far no one has abused it--in fact they tend to avoid placing an aoe on friendlies even if it would be most efficient. I they to emphasize that distrust between characters is ok as long as the players trust each other. This is a fine line, but so far it's worked.

I think the only time I've seen AOEs placed on a buddy was a dwarf monk with Evasion and a very high Reflex save. I think he had to roll a 3+, which was considered worth it by everyone involved to hit another couple baddies.

Basically - this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0215.html)

Velaryon

2017-07-27, 12:37 PM

"It's fine or even good to infringe on the core connections between the player and the PC, by hijacking the PC's thoughts and desires, and telling the player what their PC wants and feels."

No... no it's not... and I'll plant my banner on that hill and fight to maintain the core critical aspect of player agency.

I'll fight under that banner too. My single biggest pet peeve is a player is when the GM tries to take decisions about what my character thinks, feels, or does out of my hands (not counting when mind control abilities or something similar are in the mix, that's different).

The other one I can't stand when it comes to forum topics is when someone asks for help with a specific idea or build, and instead of getting that help people push them to do something else. If I ask for help to play X and you tell me instead to play Y, that really gets on my nerves. It's fine to mention alternative ways to accomplish the same goal, but if I specifically say I want to be a Fighter, please don't tell me to play a Warblade (to pick a random but not uncommon example). At the very least, please tell me how to do what I asked about, and then mention alternatives that might be preferable.

HidesHisEyes

2017-07-27, 02:39 PM

I think we've all seen it around if we've been on this forum.

Someone posts a thing that they thought was perfectly reasonable, or just a little bit unreasonable enough to discuss, and all of a sudden they are under fire on every side. But naw, we're going to defend our point to the end. Fight me.

But we're all different, and we're all unreasonable in our own way. What do you think is the issue you would have a thread like this about?

As for mine:

The war on railroading has got to stop. The way people identify railroading has gotten way out of hand so that I regularly see extremely reasonable campaign set-ups be considered railroading. Neither is some light bit of railroading a bad thing, as it gives some structure to the campaign. It also allows GMs to properly tailor the players' experience in a way that would be engaging, especially in systems where GM prep can require a lot of work.

I've got your back in the railroading fight.

My own hobby horse, currently, is the idea of classless D&D, or at least D&D with just a handful of much broader classes (like the generic classes) from 3.5's Unearthed Arcana. I love this idea but everyone else seems to be the victim of an abusive relationship with classes 😥

CharonsHelper

2017-07-27, 02:42 PM

I love this idea but everyone else seems to be the victim of an abusive relationship with classes ��

Lol - so you're right and everyone else is deceiving themselves? They shouldn't like what they think they like?

Airk

2017-07-27, 03:50 PM

Lol - so you're right and everyone else is deceiving themselves? They shouldn't like what they think they like?

Yeah, especially all the people already playing classless games? I dunno. I don't get it.

Vitruviansquid

2017-07-27, 04:17 PM

Lol - so you're right and everyone else is deceiving themselves? They shouldn't like what they think they like?

I love this response. This is the perfect reaponse in this thread. This perfectly encapsulates everything this thread is about.

kyoryu

2017-07-27, 05:40 PM

I've got your back in the railroading fight.

My own hobby horse, currently, is the idea of classless D&D, or at least D&D with just a handful of much broader classes (like the generic classes) from 3.5's Unearthed Arcana. I love this idea but everyone else seems to be the victim of an abusive relationship with classes 😥

So, people that don't like what you like are wrong, and you're utterly unaware of the huge number of classless games out there?

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-27, 05:54 PM

Yeah, especially all the people already playing classless games? I dunno. I don't get it.

So, people that don't like what you like are wrong, and you're utterly unaware of the huge number of classless games out there?

Indeed. Classless games have been around for almost as long as D&D.

Not sure if it's the case here, but I still occasionally run into someone who's almost entirely been exposed to D&D-like systems, or splat-based systems like White Wolf, and thinks that getting rid of classes and the like would be a "gaming revolution".

Makes me think of the opening lyrics of a song from back when I was in high school... "A woman on the radio talks about revolution, when it's already passed her by..."

Glorthindel

2017-07-28, 04:57 AM

And this is one of the reasons why my characters are "not from around here". I can't roleplay a character I can't understand; change my backstory on me, and you've ruined my character, because every event is part of what made them who they are today.

My belief is that the most important events in a characters life should be happening at the table. If anything you have written in your backstory is so convoluted, information-heavy, and intrinsic to your character being who they are, that some minor tweaks to make it fit more tolerably into the world would utterly destroy the concept of your character, then you have written too much.

I'm not talking about changes for changes sake, but background elements that are so "large" that they fundamentally force huge noticible changes in to the world, that may be just too tonally incongruous to be able to incorporate in any form. There is no reason in the world I would alter someone having dead parents, have fought in a war, or had a friend vanish in childhood - these are all things that can easily fit into any world or background. I am very much a case of less-is-more when it comes to character backgrounds, a short concise "local history" will likely go unaltered, but if you pen some sweeping saga of famous deeds and events, i'm going to take the scissors to your multi-page document.

Lets say you tell me your parents were the king and queen of a realm that was destroyed by a marauding dragon army, I am likely going to be getting out the eraser, especially if the setting has no dead kings to spare, no recently destroyed kingdoms, and never had any armies of marauding dragons. And even if all those things did indeed happen in the world, I am still likely to be downgrading the rank of those parents by a few dozen rungs.

So these members of royalty might get shifted down to a minor country noble (or the headsman or mayor of a village, or the captain of a small border garrison), and this army of Dragons might become a single Dragon (or a Balor, or similar powerful-but intelligent creature if it better suits the world, or is easier for me to have the creature play into a future campaign plot). And in your version the monster was likely the aggressor, and your parents innocent victims - well, that might undergo a change as well, perhaps unknown to you your parents stole a treasure belonging to the creature, or were involved in killing one of its offspring, something to make the event a bit less black-and-white.

I would consider none of this "ruining the character", merely bringing it more in-line with the setting and campaigns general feel, and tempering expectations as to how it will play in to the campaign, if at all.

KorvinStarmast

2017-07-28, 07:46 AM

disjointed alignment parties are, when played well, some of the most dynamic roleplay experiences possible,
Our first party in 5e had in it:
An assassin rogue (with a hunger for killing) CN to CE
A Cleric (Tempest) of Thor (NG to LG)
A Bear Barbarian N
A Vengeance Paladin LN
A Lore Bard who was actually very evil (we found out later; he dissembled to the other players/characters about his background, but DM knew. He was more or less using the party as cover since he was a wanted man elsewhere ... )
A high elf wizard(transmutation) who was Neutral Good

Why did this party work?
1. We are friends
2. We were more interested in making it work than in getting all up in arms about our own characters.
3. We played as a team.
4. We had an objective that we eventually met, which opened up the chance for a major underdark adventure line when the game blew up due to RL issues for the DM. He had to step back. (Kids are a priority, and they had just adopted 2)

PhoenixPhyre

2017-07-28, 09:14 AM

Our first party in 5e had in it:
An assassin rogue (with a hunger for killing) CN to CE
A Cleric (Tempest) of Thor (NG to LG)
A Bear Barbarian N
A Vengeance Paladin LN
A Lore Bard who was actually very evil (we found out later; he dissembled to the other players/characters about his background, but DM knew. He was more or less using the party as cover since he was a wanted man elsewhere ... )
A high elf wizard(transmutation) who was Neutral Good

Why did this party work?
1. We are friends
2. We were more interested in making it work than in getting all up in arms about our own characters.
3. We played as a team.
4. We had an objective that we eventually met, which opened up the chance for a major underdark adventure line when the game blew up due to RL issues for the DM. He had to step back. (Kids are a priority, and they had just adopted 2)

I think that all 4 of those criteria are essential for "disjointed" parties. Especially 1 and 2. Those with inflexible notions of their character make for bad times, and being strangers doesn't help.

Quertus

2017-07-28, 11:57 AM

If anything you have written in your backstory is so convoluted, information-heavy, and intrinsic to your character being who they are, that some minor tweaks to make it fit more tolerably into the world would utterly destroy the concept of your character, then you have written too much.

I'm not talking about changes for changes sake, but background elements that are so "large" that they fundamentally force huge noticible changes in to the world,

I often create characters to explore very specific bits of the human psyche. Thus, even little changes would ruin the point of the psychology experiment.

However, as you only seem to care about broad strokes changing your world, and I can create most environments in some isolated village somewhere, it doesn't sound like we'd come into conflict on that note.

Our first party in 5e had in it:
An assassin rogue (with a hunger for killing) CN to CE
A Cleric (Tempest) of Thor (NG to LG)
A Bear Barbarian N
A Vengeance Paladin LN
A Lore Bard who was actually very evil (we found out later; he dissembled to the other players/characters about his background, but DM knew. He was more or less using the party as cover since he was a wanted man elsewhere ... )
A high elf wizard(transmutation) who was Neutral Good

Why did this party work?
1. We are friends
2. We were more interested in making it work than in getting all up in arms about our own characters.
3. We played as a team.
4. We had an objective that we eventually met, which opened up the chance for a major underdark adventure line when the game blew up due to RL issues for the DM. He had to step back. (Kids are a priority, and they had just adopted 2)

That sounds too much like the train wreck that was the party of the Paladin, the Assassin, the Undead Hunter, his childhood friend the Undead Master, and my character.

The players make all the difference. I can't agree strongly enough with that assessment.

Faily

2017-07-28, 12:32 PM

My belief is that the most important events in a characters life should be happening at the table. If anything you have written in your backstory is so convoluted, information-heavy, and intrinsic to your character being who they are, that some minor tweaks to make it fit more tolerably into the world would utterly destroy the concept of your character, then you have written too much.

I'm not talking about changes for changes sake, but background elements that are so "large" that they fundamentally force huge noticible changes in to the world, that may be just too tonally incongruous to be able to incorporate in any form. There is no reason in the world I would alter someone having dead parents, have fought in a war, or had a friend vanish in childhood - these are all things that can easily fit into any world or background. I am very much a case of less-is-more when it comes to character backgrounds, a short concise "local history" will likely go unaltered, but if you pen some sweeping saga of famous deeds and events, i'm going to take the scissors to your multi-page document.

Lets say you tell me your parents were the king and queen of a realm that was destroyed by a marauding dragon army, I am likely going to be getting out the eraser, especially if the setting has no dead kings to spare, no recently destroyed kingdoms, and never had any armies of marauding dragons. And even if all those things did indeed happen in the world, I am still likely to be downgrading the rank of those parents by a few dozen rungs.

So these members of royalty might get shifted down to a minor country noble (or the headsman or mayor of a village, or the captain of a small border garrison), and this army of Dragons might become a single Dragon (or a Balor, or similar powerful-but intelligent creature if it better suits the world, or is easier for me to have the creature play into a future campaign plot). And in your version the monster was likely the aggressor, and your parents innocent victims - well, that might undergo a change as well, perhaps unknown to you your parents stole a treasure belonging to the creature, or were involved in killing one of its offspring, something to make the event a bit less black-and-white.

I would consider none of this "ruining the character", merely bringing it more in-line with the setting and campaigns general feel, and tempering expectations as to how it will play in to the campaign, if at all.

+1 to this so much.

While I do on occassion to elaborate character backgrounds, I *always* keep them limited to what the character's impression was/what they were told, leaving much open to intepretation and shenanigans for the GM, if they choose to do so.

But the most important part of making "big important backgrounds" is to check in with the GM and make sure you're both on the same page here. We did have one player who wanted to be the grand-niece to an Alphatian king in our campaign (and his only living blood-relative), and wasn't really clear on a lot of stuff with the GM while also saying "it's up to you to do what you want with it", and then ended up disagreeing with the GM when some things were not as he had wanted them to be... :smallannoyed:

Always communicate with your GM and make sure they're cool with what you have in mind. And if they say no, respect that.

Amphetryon

2017-07-28, 05:51 PM

Some variation of the following will usually force me to make a Will Save to avoid "fight me":

Circumstances that occur in your actual games are not relevant to our discussion, when the reactions of your group don't mesh with the forum's consensus on how folks would react.

Cluedrew

2017-07-28, 06:57 PM

I often create characters to explore very specific bits of the human psyche. Thus, even little changes would ruin the point of the psychology experiment.Your "experiment" involves an imaginary test subject, with an imaginary set up and the only results are what you say they are. That is the kind of science that shows that the flu shot causes autism.

Before I come of to hard on you, if you want to use that to tell a story you can of course. It could even be a good story. But calling that an experiment seems disingenuous. By which I mean wholly untrue by any measure I can think of, although I may have missed one. I guess people claiming something must be true because it's in a work of fiction might be one of my "fight me"s. Blame the English teacher who taught Lord of the Flies.

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-28, 07:15 PM

Your "experiment" involves an imaginary test subject, with an imaginary set up and the only results are what you say they are. That is the kind of science that shows that the flu shot causes autism.

Before I come of to hard on you, if you want to use that to tell a story you can of course. It could even be a good story. But calling that an experiment seems disingenuous. By which I mean wholly untrue by any measure I can think of, although I may have missed one. I guess people claiming something must be true because it's in a work of fiction might be one of my "fight me"s. Blame the English teacher who taught Lord of the Flies.

I think a far more useful word for what Quertus is talking about is "exploration", as in the exploration of a character.

PhoenixPhyre

2017-07-28, 07:27 PM

I think a far more useful word for what Quertus is talking about is "exploration", as in the exploration of a character.

One of my "fight me" topics is that of fixed characters. Characters who come into a game (especially at lower levels) with a "this is who I am and I'll always be this person" attitude bug me. Nothing is real until it's experienced in game. This extends to me disliking the idea of a "character concept" that extends beyond the initial set-up. Everything else should grow organically out of play, in my opinion.

The reason I'm responding to you on this topic is that I disagree that "exploration of a character" is possible. The character is who the player says he or she is. And that happens in play and only if you're willing to bend. I'm not disagreeing that that's probably a better word for what he intends, but...I would have a problem with someone who came to a low level game with a character that had more than about a two sentence backstory.

You're level one (or 3, whatever). You're an apprentice adventurer. Not a renowned hero/author/etc. As a DM, I want to know a few things:

How does your character fit into society? This determines what information you would know automatically. A background (5e term) helps, but isn't totally sufficient and can be customized.
What do you think is important? 5e calls this an ideal.
Why are you fighting? This is 5e's Bond, plus information about why you left your past life and decided to become an adventurer.
What hooks do I have to include you? This is a character flaw + any other useful information.

That's all. You should have a reason to be adventuring with this group (since I am not fond of in-fighting in a party), but you don't need to tell me that. Anything more is going to get edited. One player came with the backstory that he's a God from the Far Realms who has taken mortal form. Yeah, that ain't gonna fly. I saved it by adding one sentence: "or so he thinks." That is, he can think that he is, but there's no in-universe need for it to be true. He's probably just crazy. Goes with the territory for a Great Old One Warlock, anyway.

</rant>

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-28, 09:20 PM

One of my "fight me" topics is that of fixed characters. Characters who come into a game (especially at lower levels) with a "this is who I am and I'll always be this person" attitude bug me. Nothing is real until it's experienced in game. This extends to me disliking the idea of a "character concept" that extends beyond the initial set-up. Everything else should grow organically out of play, in my opinion.

The reason I'm responding to you on this topic is that I disagree that "exploration of a character" is possible. The character is who the player says he or she is. And that happens in play and only if you're willing to bend. I'm not disagreeing that that's probably a better word for what he intends, but...I would have a problem with someone who came to a low level game with a character that had more than about a two sentence backstory.

You're level one (or 3, whatever). You're an apprentice adventurer. Not a renowned hero/author/etc. As a DM, I want to know a few things:

How does your character fit into society? This determines what information you would know automatically. A background (5e term) helps, but isn't totally sufficient and can be customized.
What do you think is important? 5e calls this an ideal.
Why are you fighting? This is 5e's Bond, plus information about why you left your past life and decided to become an adventurer.
What hooks do I have to include you? This is a character flaw + any other useful information.

That's all. You should have a reason to be adventuring with this group (since I am not fond of in-fighting in a party), but you don't need to tell me that. Anything more is going to get edited. One player came with the backstory that he's a God from the Far Realms who has taken mortal form. Yeah, that ain't gonna fly. I saved it by adding one sentence: "or so he thinks." That is, he can think that he is, but there's no in-universe need for it to be true. He's probably just crazy. Goes with the territory for a Great Old One Warlock, anyway.

If I might offer up a possibility -- and please bear with me, I know my comments here start off seeming more confrontational than I intend -- this reads as if you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and making a couple of presumptions about the sort of game being played.

I absolutely agree that the "concept uber alles" approach can make for some very unfun gaming for everyone else at the table. I've posted about this before, especially as it relates to the "Stormwind Fallacy" and "character tropes" -- players who insist, if not in so many words, that their character is "The X One" (clumsy, scared, weak, lost, inept, loner, pacifist, whatever) and it would violate their "concept" if they grew or changed, even in response to the events of the game as experienced by their character. They misunderstand what "concept" is and insert lazy fictional tropes such that the character is less of a "real" person and more of a plugin to fill a narrative role.

But when I say "explore the character", I'm talking about experiencing first hand how the character reacts to situations, adapts to new circumstances, absorbs new information, and interacts with the setting and other characters. It's not too far off from what I think you mean by "

I agree that each character should be -- in realization that this is a game and it is played with other people -- somehow open enough to interacting with other characters in the context of the campaign and setting. There are limits to the "concepts" that work in any particular game, and trying to fit a square peg into a round hole doesn't make the game better for anyone. But...

First, it seems like you're perhaps assuming the zero-to-hero steep scale of D&D-like levels. This doesn't have to be true in all games. Other games have different progression structures, and support different sorts of campaigns more readily. A character might start a game as a grizzled veteran, or a senior scholar, or something far more in line with a deeper backstory than the two sentences and what farm village the character is from -- but they won't be an order of magnitude more potent in 5-10 sessions, either.

Second, it seems like you're rejected all detailed backstories because of the nobs who abuse detailed backstory as part of a power-grab attempt... either they think that if they can't get it via the rules, they'll try to justify it via a contrived "backstory", or they think that they can dominate "spotlight time" or "the story" by throwing the weight of their backstory around. I totally agree that especially for a standard D&D-like setup, that "god taken mortal form" thing is going to have a hard time fitting in and making sense, especially if the player isn't willing to accept the conceit that the character is completely bound by mortal rules, and won't get that Old God power until he gets it the same way any other mortal would get it, somewhere around level 20 or so. If nothing else, a level 1 character just isn't mechanically sound as a build for an "Old God". But not every detailed backstory is something like "I'm the lost scion of a wronged royal family" or "Back home, I'm the god of stuff". If it fits well into the campaign and into the rules, there's nothing wrong with knowing more about what came before.

As an aside, it drives me up a wall when a game presents example characters who in description and backstory clearly deserve far more rounded or powerful builds than can be accomplished with a starting character -- and then cram them into a starting character build. The character sounds awesome, the build kinda has trouble not tripping over itself. Clearly these designers / writers do not understand how their own system models things.

RedMage125

2017-07-28, 10:06 PM

goto124

2017-07-28, 10:31 PM

Permission to post that to the How to create memorable characters (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?531517-How-to-create-memorable-characters&p=22234790#post22234790) thread, please?

Guizonde

2017-07-28, 10:32 PM

those 5e concepts sound like really useful advice for newbies. one of my teammates in pf is a 5e only veteran and the way he touts the system makes it sound like a good system.

as a tip for newbies, i tell them "resume your character in a paragraph: 1: name. 2: physical description. 3: personality. 4: things they like. 5: things they dislike". then, i give them 3 sessions to see how their character's personality starts to manifest.

i don't like full-blown backstories pre-written beforehand, because i fear that it won't get explored in the campaign. after all, imagine having 4-5 short stories' worth of character arcs to explore on top of the campaign you're running. either you run only the character exploration (and hope the rest of the team is patient enough to wait their turn), or you run a campaign and waste the plot threads.

i talked about it to a few of my friends, and it's a common fear that some dm's tackle willingly. i don't but that's not my main interest in a game. i like seeing the evolution of a character evolving.

that, and i've had too many bad stories about some dude who writes a mary sue story for a mary sue character that doesn't represent anything ingame... unless we're playing a game where that's the norm, nope, you're not royalty or a reality bending badass at level 1. at level 1 in dnd, you're a highly competent nobody. by level 3, you're an impossibly competent less random. by level 5, you're the hero of the game. i remember reading anything over 3 skill points in dnd 3.5 made you beyond a skilled tradesman. einstein was a level 5 expert with (knowledge: astrophysics 7). and now i think about my level 2 inquisitor who's got 8 skills at over 9, and it put things into perspective. my inquisitor is not a badass, he's not egocentric, he's actually quite juvenile in his way of being unless it involves cerebral work in which case he's a nerd.

here's my inquisitor's flavor text: "inquisitor josé. half-drow, pale-skinned, long white hair in a catogan with a mustache and goatee, and mismatched eyes. trickster nerd. enjoys drinking fine wine, burning heresy, explosions, scamming, and throwing a spanner in the works of evil. doesn't like: evil, douchebags, groin-attacks, sunlight, orders."

after 3 sessions, i added "likes libraries, berets. doesn't like horses, loan sharks, palm wine." still pretty much a blank slate. my dm wants to do something about my half-drow origins, but so far it's just a running gag whenever somebody adds 2+2 together (facial hair, purple eyes, white hair? drow. "you don't talk about josé's mom")

an interesting character, highly adaptable. not mary sue, not broken. vague, to be determined. just the way i like it.

RedMage125

2017-07-28, 10:33 PM

Permission to post that to the How to create memorable characters (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?531517-How-to-create-memorable-characters&p=22234790#post22234790) thread, please?

Permission Granted.

PhoenixPhyre

2017-07-29, 09:04 AM

Max, thanks for the detailed reply. It didn't come across as hostile. I'll try to reply in pieces below.

I absolutely agree that the "concept uber alles" approach can make for some very unfun gaming for everyone else at the table. I've posted about this before, especially as it relates to the "Stormwind Fallacy" and "character tropes" -- players who insist, if not in so many words, that their character is "The X One" (clumsy, scared, weak, lost, inept, loner, pacifist, whatever) and it would violate their "concept" if they grew or changed, even in response to the events of the game as experienced by their character. They misunderstand what "concept" is and insert lazy fictional tropes such that the character is less of a "real" person and more of a plugin to fill a narrative role.

But when I say "explore the character", I'm talking about experiencing first hand how the character reacts to situations, adapts to new circumstances, absorbs new information, and interacts with the setting and other characters. It's not too far off from what I think you mean by "

I think this got cut off, but I also think I understand what you mean. Maybe I'm just super literal in my interpretations of things, but I can't get over the thought that the character does not exist, per se. The character is whoever the player says they are. Thus, it seems a little contrived to talk about "experiencing how the character reacts to situations, [etc]." They react however you (the player) decides they react. A perfectly consistent character is an unrealistic character, in my mind. People do random crap that's totally "out of character" for them all the time. Since you always have a free choice, pick one that makes the game fun for you and for others. That's my thoughts.

I agree that each character should be -- in realization that this is a game and it is played with other people -- somehow open enough to interacting with other characters in the context of the campaign and setting. There are limits to the "concepts" that work in any particular game, and trying to fit a square peg into a round hole doesn't make the game better for anyone. But...

The bolded section is the meat of what I want from a character (as a DM). Have a "High Concept" (using Fate terminology), but be flexible in how it's applied in any given situation. Remember it's a game and the purpose is to have fun. It isn't school, it isn't psychotherapy, it isn't a play, it's a game.

First, it seems like you're perhaps assuming the zero-to-hero steep scale of D&D-like levels. This doesn't have to be true in all games. Other games have different progression structures, and support different sorts of campaigns more readily. A character might start a game as a grizzled veteran, or a senior scholar, or something far more in line with a deeper backstory than the two sentences and what farm village the character is from -- but they won't be an order of magnitude more potent in 5-10 sessions, either.

True. I play D&D 5e, so that's what my frame of reference there was. In other games the requirements would be different. The basic bullet list is the same, along with the basic idea that your backstory shouldn't have heroic feats unless your sheet says you're capable of heroic feats. I can accept a SEAL-team member having a decent resume of accomplishments. A second idea is that the backstory should be less "real" (in a sense) than the events of the game. Rewriting a backstory to fit the game is less a problem than forcing the game to conform to the backstory. Backstories should also be in the past--they're things you did, not character arcs you're going to have. The future is what you're playing. You don't get to dictate that--the table, the other players, and the dice play a large role.

Second, it seems like you're rejected all detailed backstories because of the nobs who abuse detailed backstory as part of a power-grab attempt... either they think that if they can't get it via the rules, they'll try to justify it via a contrived "backstory", or they think that they can dominate "spotlight time" or "the story" by throwing the weight of their backstory around. I totally agree that especially for a standard D&D-like setup, that "god taken mortal form" thing is going to have a hard time fitting in and making sense, especially if the player isn't willing to accept the conceit that the character is completely bound by mortal rules, and won't get that Old God power until he gets it the same way any other mortal would get it, somewhere around level 20 or so. If nothing else, a level 1 character just isn't mechanically sound as a build for an "Old God". But not every detailed backstory is something like "I'm the lost scion of a wronged royal family" or "Back home, I'm the god of stuff". If it fits well into the campaign and into the rules, there's nothing wrong with knowing more about what came before.

In a D&D context, I can't imagine anyone with a backstory involving political power, military accomplishments, or serious training being level one. If you've already fought a dragon, you've gained enough XP to be much higher. Thus the edits would be necessary. But otherwise, I mostly agree.

As an aside, it drives me up a wall when a game presents example characters who in description and backstory clearly deserve far more rounded or powerful builds than can be accomplished with a starting character -- and then cram them into a starting character build. The character sounds awesome, the build kinda has trouble not tripping over itself. Clearly these designers / writers do not understand how their own system models things.

Agreed. In fact, this is the source of my biggest concerns. If you're so powerful (have accomplished X,Y, and Z), then why are you level 1? The system just don't work that way.

I have a few characters whom I have "built in" certain flaws with the intent of seeing the character grow out of that flaw. That has made for memorable characters.

One of those concepts, a rather ethnocentric Sun Elf Wizard, I have used twice. One of the groups taught him a lot about how other races have different talents, and that even "half-breeds" can posses as noble a spirit as he would have previously only attributed to elves. The other group taught my wizard that he was amazing, and frequently depended on him to pull a lot of the weight in the party. Most of the rest of said weight was pulled by the Elf cleric in the party, so his ideas about racial superiority were reinforced, rather than eroded, as I expected them to be.

One of my friends, who was in that first group, still remembers my "snobby, racist elf wizard", and how, by the end of the campaign, he was no longer either of those.

I like this idea. I have a High Elf rogue in my group who had the stereotypical "Elves are the master race" attitude. A chance incident with some goblin children (goblins are not evil by default in my world) and some good roleplaying gave him a grudging respect for other races. Still a snob, but much less of a racist. I like seeing growth due to in-game events. I'm less fond of the "creating a flaw with the intent of fixing it" as I prefer the characterization to be backward-looking (this is who I am at the start of session 1), not forward-focused (this is who I plan on this character becoming). That's personal preference, though.

those 5e concepts sound like really useful advice for newbies. one of my teammates in pf is a 5e only veteran and the way he touts the system makes it sound like a good system.

I'd say that the 5e concepts work pretty well for all players. It makes an easy way to have enough information about a character to make them real without being confining or taking total knowledge of the setting.

The last character I made (for a game I was trying out) was a half-orc fighter. I knew he was going to be a fighter because that's what the party needed. I had no clue what his personality would be like until I rolled for the height and weight. 5'5" and 210 lbs. Instantly I knew--he hates being called short, has a Napoleon complex (somewhat), and is bald and clean-shaven. Hates being mistaken for a dwarf. At this point, that's all I know about the character other than some basic ideal/bond/flaw pieces that follow from those. The rest will come with time and play.

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-29, 09:43 AM

I think this got cut off, but I also think I understand what you mean. Maybe I'm just super literal in my interpretations of things, but I can't get over the thought that the character does not exist, per se. The character is whoever the player says they are. Thus, it seems a little contrived to talk about "experiencing how the character reacts to situations, [etc]." They react however you (the player) decides they react. A perfectly consistent character is an unrealistic character, in my mind. People do random crap that's totally "out of character" for them all the time. Since you always have a free choice, pick one that makes the game fun for you and for others. That's my thoughts.

It did get cut off... ugh.

There;s a space between "utterly consistent" and "totally random", I think. And there's some variability in decisions and actions that are still "true to the character", because people have conflicting motives and priorities, and sometimes there are multiple good answers or no good answers.

And while the player does decide how the character reacts, I don't think you can always know how a character is going to react in a specific situation until you get there, and personally, if I'm really into playing a character, I don't stop and think for a long time, "their" decision just comes to mind, and it feels absolutely right for that character in that moment. That said, I will stop myself from completely tanking a game if I have any other options that also make sense for that character or any way to temper their reaction.

That is, there's a balance.

PhoenixPhyre

2017-07-29, 09:58 AM

It did get cut off... ugh.

There;s a space between "utterly consistent" and "totally random", I think. And there's some variability in decisions and actions that are still "true to the character", because people have conflicting motives and priorities, and sometimes there are multiple good answers or no good answers.

And while the player does decide how the character reacts, I don't think you can always know how a character is going to react in a specific situation until you get there, and personally, if I'm really into playing a character, I don't stop and think for a long time, "their" decision just comes to mind, and it feels absolutely right for that character in that moment. That said, I will stop myself from completely tanking a game if I have any other options that also make sense for that character or any way to temper their reaction.

That is, there's a balance.

I agree that there's a balance needed. I guess I'm pushing back against the idea that for each situation there is one (and only one) thing that "my character would do" and that anyone who suggests doing otherwise is "meta-gaming" or "not role-playing" or whatever. I HATE my guy syndrome. There's always a range of things that are "in-character"--pick the one that helps the game be fun for everyone. If a character's established characterization is such that the choice between "what my character would do" and "what helps the group have fun" frequently comes up, either change the character, retire the character, or find a new group. There is no entitlement to play exactly the character you have in mind unless you're in a solo game. Insisting on predetermined character-development opportunities annoys me.

I believe that every player (including the DM) has a responsibility to contribute to the group's fun. All role-playing considerations, mechanics, story-coherence, whatever are subordinate to this responsibility. If that means stepping aside and playing elsewhere because of a mismatch in what you consider fun, do so. What works for one table doesn't necessarily work for others and everyone should keep that in mind. Especially on the forums :smalltongue:

In essence, I fall very hard on the G in RPG. It's a game, first and foremost. This means the goal is having fun. We do this (in part) by role-playing. Otherwise we'd be playing a different type of game. But if the RP is interfering in the G, I know what part is getting cut (for me).

goto124

2017-07-29, 10:15 AM

I'm less fond of the "creating a flaw with the intent of fixing it" as I prefer the characterization to be backward-looking (this is who I am at the start of session 1), not forward-focused (this is who I plan on this character becoming). That's personal preference, though.

[snip] The rest will come with time and play.

Might just be me, but I try to make some plans for character development. 'Some plans' could be really rough ideas of how my character will change, anything as long as it's not a total blank on the future. For example, I plan that if my goblin-hating PC meets some nice goblins, there're lessons about respect to be had. I don't exactly know how the character development will occur, I have have the plan in store when required.

I try to avoid RP aspects that would cause that kind of trouble in the first place, then put up character-development plans for the more problematic RP aspects.

I suddenly wonder if there's benefit from fantastic racism being common enough that players and GMs alike are willing to put up with it to some degree...

PhoenixPhyre

2017-07-29, 10:36 AM

Might just be me, but I try to make some plans for character development. 'Some plans' could be really rough ideas of how my character will change, anything as long as it's not a total blank on the future. For example, I plan that if my goblin-hating PC meets some nice goblins, there're lessons about respect to be had. I don't exactly know how the character development will occur, I have have the plan in store when required.

I try to avoid RP aspects that would cause that kind of trouble in the first place, then put up character-development plans for the more problematic RP aspects.

I suddenly wonder if there's benefit from fantastic racism being common enough that players and GMs alike are willing to put up with it to some degree...

I can get behind the idea of "personality growth contingency plans", things like:

If my prejudiced character has an opportunity to interact well with those he considers inferior, he'll take it and learn
My naive character will probably get increasingly jaded or cynical if she repeatedly encounters people who act like X
etc

as long as they're flexible and internal. Not making demands on the story ("My character WILL encounter goblins and learn a lesson about respect") or rigid. Maybe he meets a goblin that's the stereotype of what he hates about goblins. That should make his prejudice worse, not better. Let the events of the game influence the character in ways that make sense and promote fun.

Honestly, I'm not too bugged by fantastic racism as long as it meshes with the culture. One culture in my setting has a traditional fear/hatred for "monsters." They blame them for the cataclysm that destroyed the civilized world 200 years ago. So a PC having that same attitude (at least initially) is fine. Being willing to learn and grow once you meet a few and realize they're not all bad is important, however. This is strongly table-dependent though. I would not try to play such a character at a table that cared more about such things.

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-29, 10:56 AM

Yeah, I've found that the "my character WILL encounter this sequence of story elements" takes a TON of GM cooperation, and really erodes the sense of effects naturally flowing from causes. It just feels really "meta" and contrary to what an RPG is to me.

Overall... is it possible that we've all ended up on the same hill despite walking up different sides?

PhoenixPhyre

2017-07-29, 11:28 AM

Overall... is it possible that we've all ended up on the same hill despite walking up different sides?

I think so. Another case of violent agreement. I'm shocked--this is the internet. We're not supposed to agree on ANYTHING!!1!

CharonsHelper

2017-07-29, 11:36 AM

i think so. Another case of violent agreement. i'm shocked--this is the internet. We're not supposed to agree on anything!!1!

I disagree!!!

Guizonde

2017-07-29, 11:55 AM

I think so. Another case of violent agreement. I'm shocked--this is the internet. We're not supposed to agree on ANYTHING!!1!

hey guys, i went back home for lunch and my brother asmodeus threw a snowball at me. it missed and hit belzebuth, so i'm fine. just sayin' it's a bit chilly in hell for late july.

mistersticky

2017-07-29, 12:17 PM

Gender and sexual orientation issues being handled poorly in games. Seriously people, try for some sensitivity and keep away from the "ooh boobies" or "no homo" responses.
I agree that it's upsetting to see these kinds of things show up in a campaign, especially transsexual stuff :yuk:

Guizonde

2017-07-29, 06:13 PM

I agree that it's upsetting to see these kinds of things show up in a campaign, especially transsexual stuff :yuk:

my pf team is my trollball team. there isn't much privacy needed between all of us. that said, it did raise eyebrows when the (homosexual) monk called me gay for playing half-elf. or as he likes to call it, "same thing". in my team, there are straights, gays, boys, girls. only lacking trans due to obvious rarity and low player base of trollball. all are in accord to say that "pointy ears" reflects on the orientation of the character. we're a very accepting community, accepting all, so long as we all hate elves.

... i may have created that character to screw with my team. maybe. that, and i find it hilarious to keep them guessing and asking themselves questions they never asked themselves.

most of my games take a very laissez-faire approach to sexuality. playing in the post-apocalypse lends itself well to finding happiness where you can. in dnd, however, i found a lot more of the classic stance on homosexuality, ie, the catholic church's point of view. i understand it, but it doesn't lessen my disappointment.

i am also disappointed by the creeps who rp girls like nymphos as a sexual outlet. played one session with one before getting out of dodge. it's not that hard to crossplay without it coming of as lewd/creepy/ offensive, and yet some people think you care about their fantasy. no. we don't. trust us, and keep that stuff like your private parts: off the gaming table!

Quertus

2017-07-29, 06:19 PM

Your "experiment" involves an imaginary test subject, with an imaginary set up and the only results are what you say they are.

I think a far more useful word for what Quertus is talking about is "exploration", as in the exploration of a character.

Sometimes, posting under the pseudonym "Quertus", I forget myself, and talk more like him. (only sometimes?) Yes, calling it an experiment seems disingenuous. The character of Quertus was created in no small part as an attempt for me to understand the people I'd gamed with for years who still just didn't get it. Changing his life events prior to the start if the game to where he no longer evidenced being "tactically inept", or no longer had a personality that matched his talents, or no longer had a personality I would enjoy playing, would have made him either unplayable, or have defeated the purpose of me creating him in the first place.

Fortunately, for both my enjoyment playing him, and his compatibility with groups I've played in, afaik, no-one has ever really attempted to sit him down and teach him better tactics. The only people I remember trying were worse at tactics than Quertus himself (hard to believe, I know), and were suggesting things like throwing buffs on the opposition. Yes, seriously. And yes, they honestly thought that this was a good plan.

Similarly, many of the personalities I craft are "experimental", in that I am testing what it's like to try to see the world from a certain perspective, what it feels like to play such a character - or whether I even can play such a character in the first place. So I think it's fair to call it an experiment of "can I build and play this character successfully?".

Now, as to the rest, Quertus didn't start as a worlds-famous author - he established a name for himself through play, where he carefully investigated all new creatures, and recorded his findings. He also performed copious amounts of spell research, and digged deeper into the underpinnings of magic than any other character I've ever seen or read about. Now, all this did proceed logically from his backstory, where he relished discussing and writing about his new theories, and all things academia.

Although I've seen it many times - including two "best archer in the land" in the same 1st level party - I really don't get the idea of a backstory that doesn't match the characters capabilities.

Nor do I get the idea of backstory power grabbing, or trying to use "backstory" to gain narrative control over future events.

Backstory is backstory. Period. It's how and why the character is who he is "today" (ie, at the start of the game) - and it bloody well ought to match up to who the character is at the start of the game.

Backstory is nowhere near as cool as events actually played out - which is why I greatly prefer to run existing characters over creating new characters. New characters just don't have the same "life" to them. :smallyuk:

Now, that having been said, some* of my characters' backstories (if the character bothers to mention anything about their past) is a lie - I'm actually playing one of my ascended characters, come down to play at adventuring. Because a) that's fun for them; b) that's fun for me; c) it doesn't involve the laborious effort of creating a whole new personality and backstory. Functionally, there is no difference between who they pretend to be and how they play out, other than how little time it takes me to create a "new" character.

* probably about half. I haven't done the math in a while, but that's the ratio I was running for about 2 decades.

The reason I'm responding to you on this topic is that I disagree that "exploration of a character" is possible. The character is who the player says he or she is. And that happens in play and only if you're willing to bend. I'm not disagreeing that that's probably a better word for what he intends, but...

Hmmm... This is an interesting question. Is Spider-Man still Spider-Man after I've explored "what if he lost an arm..."? Or, to continue exploring the character of Spider-Man, should I have to reset him to "factory condition" before the next adventure?

Whatever the actual answer is, I want the version that allows for years of accumulated play experience to still be called "the character", and whatever verb one applies to the experience of processing the world through their eyes. Or the process of experiencing the world through their eyes. Or whatever.

I would have a problem with someone who came to a low level game with a character that had more than about a two sentence backstory.

If you seriously think a sentence or two is sufficient to encapsulate someone's personality and life experience, then I challenge you to get sometime who doesn't know one of your characters to attempt to roleplay them with just a sentence or two of description.

Backstory is less valuable than time in play. I'd have a problem with someone who claimed to have built a character, rather than just a playing piece, who could not produce multiple pages of backstory.

But when I say "explore the character", I'm talking about experiencing first hand how the character reacts to situations, adapts to new circumstances, absorbs new information, and interacts with the setting and other characters.

Yeah, this is pretty much what I was trying to talk about. I suppose you could still try to call it an experiment, in the sense of, "if I start here, where will I end up in 10-20 levels / after X sessions / whatever?".

i don't like full-blown backstories pre-written beforehand, because i fear that it won't get explored in the campaign.

What newfangled hippie nonsense is this?

My character's backstory is for me, to help me roleplay my character. I want to explore the character in the campaign, not their backstory.

In a D&D context, I can't imagine anyone with a backstory involving political power, military accomplishments, or serious training being level one.

The only thing I liked about Planescape was that the leader of the Sensate guild was, IIRC, only level 3. Because outlook was so much more important than personal power for that position.

That was, of course, the first thing my brother changed for his campaign. :smallannoyed:

There are many paths to power, even in D&D; personal power is just the most obvious.

There;s a space between "utterly consistent" and "totally random", I think. And there's some variability in decisions and actions that are still "true to the character", because people have conflicting motives and priorities, and sometimes there are multiple good answers or no good answers.

And while the player does decide how the character reacts, I don't think you can always know how a character is going to react in a specific situation until you get there, and personally, if I'm really into playing a character, I don't stop and think for a long time, "their" decision just comes to mind, and it feels absolutely right for that character in that moment. That said, I will stop myself from completely tanking a game if I have any other options that also make sense for that character or any way to temper their reaction.

That is, there's a balance.

Advice like this seems, to me, to be far more valuable than most role-playing advice I've heard. Of course, my original training would have held that "my guy" syndrome was indicative of a failure in Session 0, so I might not have always been given the best advice.

kyoryu

2017-07-29, 08:29 PM

There;s a space between "utterly consistent" and "totally random", I think. And there's some variability in decisions and actions that are still "true to the character", because people have conflicting motives and priorities, and sometimes there are multiple good answers or no good answers.

I think in most cases there's a number of things the character *might* do. And a very large number of things they wouldn't do.

Additionally, many people forget two things:

1) Adventurers are, if not "smart", then at least canny, or they become dead adventurers. They don't want to die, and so it's almost always in character for a PC to not be suicidally stupid. "I want to live" is a very common motivation among adventurers, and certainly should be a part of the decision-making process. So, often, is "I want to be successful at the thing we're doing." Yes, you may hate orcs, but that doesn't mean you'll immediately charge as soon as you see one. You'll figure out a reasonable way to screw them over, not suicidally (to yourself or the mission) attack.

2) PCs can and arguably *should* change over time.

Really, a lot of the annoyance comes from the idea that some quirk (like Hates Orcs or whatever) is the overriding feature of the character. That's a flat, unrealistic, two-dimensional character.

Will the orc-hating character trust orcs? Of course not. If they have to work with them, they may grudgingly do so - but you can bet that they'll be figuring out either a way to screw the orcs over in the end, or at the minimum, anticipate betrayal from the orcs and have a plan to deal with it. That's all great for in-character stuff. But "I SEE ORC I CHARGE" is crappy, immature roleplaying.

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-29, 08:43 PM

I think in most cases there's a number of things the character *might* do. And a very large number of things they wouldn't do.

Additionally, many people forget two things:

1) Adventurers are, if not "smart", then at least canny, or they become dead adventurers. They don't want to die, and so it's almost always in character for a PC to not be suicidally stupid. "I want to live" is a very common motivation among adventurers, and certainly should be a part of the decision-making process. So, often, is "I want to be successful at the thing we're doing." Yes, you may hate orcs, but that doesn't mean you'll immediately charge as soon as you see one. You'll figure out a reasonable way to screw them over, not suicidally (to yourself or the mission) attack.

2) PCs can and arguably *should* change over time.

Really, a lot of the annoyance comes from the idea that some quirk (like Hates Orcs or whatever) is the overriding feature of the character. That's a flat, unrealistic, two-dimensional character.

Will the orc-hating character trust orcs? Of course not. If they have to work with them, they may grudgingly do so - but you can bet that they'll be figuring out either a way to screw the orcs over in the end, or at the minimum, anticipate betrayal from the orcs and have a plan to deal with it. That's all great for in-character stuff. But "I SEE ORC I CHARGE" is crappy, immature roleplaying.

Well said, on all counts.

For some reason, there's a current in RPG "culture" that treats "I want to live" and "I want to succeed" as somehow verboten, as somehow never in-character and always "cheating".

RedMage125

2017-07-29, 08:50 PM

I disagree!!!

...And balance is restored.

Alberic Strein

2017-07-29, 09:26 PM

I am also disappointed by the creeps who rp girls like nymphos as a sexual outlet. played one session with one before getting out of dodge. it's not that hard to crossplay without it coming of as lewd/creepy/ offensive, and yet some people think you care about their fantasy. no. we don't. trust us, and keep that stuff like your private parts: off the gaming table!

Hello new pet peeve of mine that I never thought I ever had! Nice to meet you.

So, in the games I play, sexuality is rarely brought up. If anything it shows up more in campaigns where player agency and the passage of time is important. For an example in one Ars Magica campaign we had a Tremere mage that had a very abusive relationship with her master, with her master using his right as her teacher to force her to work for him one season a year and f*cking horribly f*ck with her mind in ways that would make a teenager in the middle of writing a fanfic filled with his most unacknowledgeable and sordid fantasies disturbed.

In other cases it only shows up when I bring it up as a player as I love having my character react like a real-life person would after nearly avoiding death thirty times in a dungeon and being covered in poisonous spiders: Go to town. Get paid. Get laid. Get drunk. Get up for a new day. Or as a GM when I feel the situation tends itself for it. Like when the heroes attack a Gnoll camp, notorious slavers that have been abducting people for weeks, I won't gloss over the fate of the abductees.

That being said, as an aside, I really don't like having my character gender switched. It somehow goes too far and disconnects me from my character enough to make relating to him and roleplaying him difficult. Almost like it's a new character, or because I just can't relate to what happened.

That parenthesis closed, and to go back to your point: I had a player roll out the most sexualized, stripperific and outright slutty sorceress I've ever seen in my life. And that was hilarious. Each time I thought I'd get a break I would get a sky-high diplomacy/seduction check to wring every. single. drop. of intel out of my NPCs. Which opened hilarious situations when I introduced a drunk cleric with a burning passion... for lightning. I mean, how often is that trait supposed to come out as an actual obstacle for your players? And when I start a bit of slapstick with a necromancer getting dopeslapped by his assistant each time he as much as looks at a woman? That freaking sorceress strips and sits with a wide stance, prompting the necromancer to get almost outright murdered. The adventurers want to set a trap for the aforementioned gnolls? Start an open-air barbecue and leave the sorceress in full view, murder the abducting party, leave one alive, and let the -now naked for added appeal- sorceress pretend she was captured to enter the gnoll base to torch it from the inside.

I'm going to stop here, but the numerous examples don't. In other words that player is the exact "creep[s] who rp girls like nymphos" and who plays that female pc as extremely lewd. And it's hilarious. Sex, in the end, is a funny (sometimes floppy, sometimes sloppy) subject and when you're playing with adults that kind of antics can really make a campaign. You can play as whatever you want, how slutty you want. Sure, sometimes it will make people feel uncomfortable. And that's bad. But sometimes you, I, any random joe at a gaming table can just show some tolerance, have a laugh at some actual funny antics and take it in stride.

Of course, as anyone reading this probably guessed, the player in this situation is a woman who is having a blast playing that kind of character. But would it be terrible, inappropriate, or terribly inappropriate if that was instead a male player playing a female slutty sorceress? It's the exact same gags, the exact same antics. Shouldn't it be the exact same right to roleplay a character?

Sure, hurting one's sensibilities, and making one uncomfortable at the gaming table sucks. And it sucks even more when it's you. But sometimes a campaign can only really take off when everybody agrees to take a step back, show some tolerance from one another, in not playing an enormously slutty sorceress, and conversely in not stopping a fellow player from playing an enormously slutty sorceress and agree to have a bit of fun.

One thing I hate, as the GM, is when I feel I can't freaking throw anything at my players. Spider monsters? Real life arachnophobia. Sexual/Gender themes? Uncomfortable. Someone dying forever and ever and nothing after death, the complete destruction of the soul? Thanatophobia! Diseases ridden beastmen? Yucky! Conspirations? Too complicated! Freaking DOOR MONSTER LOOT? CLAUSTROPHOBIA!

At some point I just need a break, a drink, and to just let one of the phobics become the GM, and do the campaign so we can at least kill one damn thing without stepping one someone's toes.

Players b*tch about finding good GMs all the time, I find good players and I f*cking keep them forever because damnit, even my patience has limits.

/rant

goto124

2017-07-29, 11:42 PM

The only thing I liked about Planescape was that the leader of the Sensate guild was, IIRC, only level 3. Because outlook was so much more important than personal power for that position.

Wouldn't a leader of a major guild still have, say, 20 Charisma and 20 ranks in Diplomacy? Unless he has a constant supply of Potions of Glibness, that's still a number of levels from the XP of social encounters.

Not that the leader would have a lot of the combat power that usually comes with levels. It's just part of the game design of DnD, which is meant for combat-based adventurers and not so much on diplomancers who avoid combat.

That being said, as an aside, I really don't like having my character gender switched.

I dislike gender switches as well, but for different reasons. If my character concept doesn't depend on gender, the switch does absolutely nothing. Gender switches make an impact only when gender matters, which means bringing in a lot of gender issues that may or may not be handled maturely by the other players or even the DM. I certainly wouldn't want a gender switch pounced on me by people I don't know very well, or a discussion on what the gender switch will entail.

Guizonde

2017-07-30, 11:48 AM

Hello new pet peeve of mine that I never thought I ever had! Nice to meet you.

*snippin' an awesome story with a happy ending for brevity*

that's all well and good, and damn if sometimes the seductress archetype pays the bills (i've got stories about a character like that involving a bank vault, stillettoes, hip gyrations, and getting paid irl a bottle of bourbon). i don't mind that, what i mind is getting deviancy in there. you know the type, the sweaty 4chan /d/ neckbeard parody that's rp'ing an overendowed and oversexualized 8 year old. or if you prefer, the virgin acne-riddled basement dweller rp'ing his female fantasy, preferrably using any of the following kinks: loincloths, whips, vampires, sluttiness, whipped cream. crossplaying sexy? sure! crossplaying prostitutes? meh, it's really tough but ok. roleplaying what you type on pornhub to get off? allow me to go and get a bucket of ice water and a straightjacket. the first two i've no problems with, was playing as the sexy character's healer for the first, and dm'ing for the second (it was spectacularly shrewd, he played an ex-escort, now madame and blackmailer). being at the same table as the third, i draw the line and it's either him or me.

One thing I hate, as the GM, is when I feel I can't freaking throw anything at my players. Spider monsters? Real life arachnophobia. Sexual/Gender themes? Uncomfortable. Someone dying forever and ever and nothing after death, the complete destruction of the soul? Thanatophobia! Diseases ridden beastmen? Yucky! Conspirations? Too complicated! Freaking DOOR MONSTER LOOT? CLAUSTROPHOBIA!

At some point I just need a break, a drink, and to just let one of the phobics become the GM, and do the campaign so we can at least kill one damn thing without stepping one someone's toes.

Players b*tch about finding good GMs all the time, I find good players and I f*cking keep them forever because damnit, even my patience has limits.

/rant

i'm clinically paranoid. my teammate is arachnophobic. another is a hypochondriac. the third is scared of sharp objects. the other two are afraid of horror stories and drugs, respectively. i've just stated the bread and butter of our world. basically, it's escapism, and we do group aversion therapy. when i'm in-game, the voice in my head telling me to watch my back takes a backseat. my buddy who starts itching when he sees a spider? he's cool as a cucumber when fighting giant spiders! hell, i'm more scared of those in-game spiders than he is, and yet, off the gaming table, i'm the dude who picks up and takes out the spiders he sees.

i totally understand why you need a friggin' drink! have you ever told them to grab their courage and remind them it's just a bloody game?! sheesh. some people are too bloody sensitive!

Cluedrew

2017-07-30, 01:09 PM

have you ever told them to grab their courage and remind them it's just a bloody game?! sheesh. some people are too bloody sensitive!And others aren't enough. The fact that they are just movies doesn't help me watch slasher flicks. Its not a matter of courage, it is the fact that watching them causes me physical discomfort. (Well I suppose it is mental in that it is not actually happening, but the pair does feel like it is coming from my body.)

Guizonde

2017-07-30, 01:43 PM

And others aren't enough. The fact that they are just movies doesn't help me watch slasher flicks. Its not a matter of courage, it is the fact that watching them causes me physical discomfort. (Well I suppose it is mental in that it is not actually happening, but the pair does feel like it is coming from my body.)

aw, great, i came off as insensitive, didn't i? i'm just blowing steam. there are a lot of things that make my skin crawl (hell, i've been compiling a list with my therapist for nigh on 2 years). i'm am not brave or courageous, for years i was litterally scared of my own shadow. the point i'm trying to make is that there are of course things that people dislike, and are even phobic to. i get that, and i'd be a hypocrite if i didn't. that said, if you're "triggered" to the point of fleeing an rpg by things happening within, then it's not a game for you. a dm can and should make sure an adventure pleases all comers, but seeing alberic's rant, it came off as typical whiny tumblr idiocy that he's got a problem with. most people have a fear of death. thanatophobia for an imaginary character is pushing it. necrophobia is a real thing too, but then, if we accept thanatophobia to take out permadeath, that means hello "no more undead in a campaign".

i'm less railing on people that have issues, i'm railing on people who have what i call "internet issues and oversensitivity syndrome", the type to visit tumblr and webmd instead of actual medical professionals. i left a forum that became plagued by that mentality and it became impossible to have opposing views. "triggering" is an actual psychological mechanism that is very well understood. veterans suffering ptsd can get triggered by fireworks exploding, and it can take days to wear off. a brony saying they're triggered because their headcanon ship is proven not true by the show is not that, and on the internet, you've got that in spades. not liking spiders is frequent, but it's not arachnophobia, it's lacking the "irrational" part of the fear.

i cannot watch the saw franchise for the same reason you can't watch slashers, it's empathy making us feel the injuries. what alberic was referring to would be what you and i experience watching slashers/ gorror movies but around the gaming table. that person would not be able to go one combat encounter before breaking into a sweat, so either they stop playing or they get over it. one person bogging down everyone else's fun is a statement i've heard around here that led to campaigns getting cut short.

if the things are few and far between, deal with it in session zero. i don't like graphic descriptions of sex in my games, and for my pf campaign i said "let's just fade to black if there's a romantic encounter". boom, done. another one has got a thing about losing fingers, but reasoned that there's a spell to regrow lost limbs. we'll avoid that, and it's fine. i think those were the two only ones. (and yes, there actually was a romantic encounter in the second session that led to a fade to black, and lots of ribbing later on).

maybe it's the character sheet, but i feel that pen and paper gives me some distance from the things i usually avoid: conflict, fights, bright lights, heights, drowning, torture, dismemberment, helplessness, dogs, snakes, parasites... i've got issues, but pen and paper is really cathartic and even therapeutic (says my therapist, anyway. i'm in it for the story and spending a great evening with my friends, not for treating my broken brain).

Quertus

2017-07-30, 02:01 PM

Wouldn't a leader of a major guild still have, say, 20 Charisma and 20 ranks in Diplomacy? Unless he has a constant supply of Potions of Glibness, that's still a number of levels from the XP of social encounters.

2e, no such thing as "20 ranks" - Heck, IIRC, no such thing as "diplomacy" before the "Players' Options" series. Just Charisma. The way God Gygax intended.

hell, i'm more scared of those in-game spiders than he is, and yet, off the gaming table, i'm the dude who picks up and takes out the spiders he sees.

That's your good, not just for dealing with the spider, but for doing so in a humane fashion.

Cluedrew

2017-07-30, 04:15 PM

goto124

2017-07-30, 07:10 PM

One thing I hate, as the GM, is when I feel I can't freaking throw anything at my players. Spider monsters? Real life arachnophobia. Sexual/Gender themes? Uncomfortable. Someone dying forever and ever and nothing after death, the complete destruction of the soul? Thanatophobia! Diseases ridden beastmen? Yucky! Conspirations? Too complicated! Freaking DOOR MONSTER LOOT? CLAUSTROPHOBIA!

Do you get all of them in a single game? I could deal with one or two such players if the themes aren't core to the campaign and they bring them up early. Say, session zero, since many of these themes are really common in games.

I've been on the recieving side of this:
Me: I was playing this computer game without sound, and-
Person: HOW DARE YOU MAKE FUN OF DEAF PEOPLE! THEIR PROBLEMS ARE REAL ETC.
Me: ... my sound drivers weren't working...

I myself don't like sexual or gender themes in games, though that may be due to clashing viewpoints causing a lot of issues. I'm the kind of person who prefers "50% of the NPCs are a variety of females who are treated as equals" over "this lady is badass and beats up men who grope her", if only because the latter is a rather in-your-face thing I've seen 9001 times.

Drynwyn

2017-07-30, 07:32 PM

kyoryu

2017-07-30, 07:41 PM

My "fight me" trigger is when people override legitimate, interesting discussion about game design with "decide on a case-by-case basis" or "whatever works best at your table!"

When you are designing games, your job is to figure out something with which to decide these cases, and create a system that will work well at most tables. Yes, people can, and should, create houserules, but that's troublesome. If you can't decide, you should create a list of detailed options with explanations about what sort of table each is likely to fit into. Saying "just do it case-by-case" is lazy and shuts down discussion.

Disagree. You should decide who you're making your game for, and make it for them.

That isn't necessarily the majority. Sometimes you want to make something for a subset. I mean, if 51% of the people prefer A over B, does that mean you should never make B? That's still a lot of people that want that thing!

Not every game is for everyone. And pleasing the most people isn't necessarily a design goal.

PhoenixPhyre

2017-07-30, 07:42 PM

My "fight me" trigger is when people override legitimate, interesting discussion about game design with "decide on a case-by-case basis" or "whatever works best at your table!"

When you are designing games, your job is to figure out something with which to decide these cases, and create a system that will work well at most tables. Yes, people can, and should, create houserules, but that's troublesome. If you can't decide, you should create a list of detailed options with explanations about what sort of table each is likely to fit into. Saying "just do it case-by-case" is lazy and shuts down discussion.

As long as you can create a good definition for "work well", go ahead. I have issues when things that are matters of taste are elevated to objective "x is better than y" status.

This is easier the more tightly defined the game is. "Special Forces RPG" is probably easier to define and agree on than "generic fantasy heros rpg".

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-30, 08:02 PM

I do agree what "it's the GM's call" or "the GM can fix it" are sometimes grossly over-used by certain game systems, and come up too often in discussions.

Drynwyn

2017-07-30, 09:45 PM

Draconi Redfir

2017-07-30, 09:52 PM

kyoryu

2017-07-30, 10:18 PM

I agree with what's been said in response to my earlier post- my complaint is more that it's the designers job to decide what that particular system will value, or failing that clearly explain the implications of different options to the potential users of the game with regards to certain things that are close-to-equally valued by the genre and game- or possibly do something else, and the decisions involved in this make for interesting discussion, as shown here. My fight me happens when people say that discussion of this type is invalid, because specific changes will be made by individual tables.

That's fair. And I absolutely agree. That said, there are certain areas where I feel like saying "it's up to the table" is perfectly fine, because they're areas that don't really impact the core design specifically and might vary based on the table or even the specific setting/genre of the game.

Vitruviansquid

2017-07-30, 10:30 PM

thinking about it, i'd have to say that mine is shooting down big, elaborite plans in favor of either just a "that won't work" or "how about just this X spell?"

like i asess the situation, count our resources, figure out what we do or don't have, and think "Hmm, okay, so if i take over the healing for a bit, then this player uses this bird of theirs to diliver a message for us, we might be able to get a letter to this ally we know who can send reinforcements for us, and all we'd have to do is hold out for just a few more hours or days heroically until they show up and save the day."

and the other players respond with "how about we just use this one spell to kill them all immidiately?" or the DM respons with "your freind and ally would never send you reinforcements like that."

Similarly, throwing gold at a problem to solve it. We had to give some items to a woman in order to get acess to a mcguffin we needed. so i started looking through my posessions. that sword was useful, but i can give it up, and this haversack could be replaced with this magic box of mine..." next thing i know the other players are all talking about how we're going to the place we can't get too without the mcguffin. i look up and ask what's going on. apparently they all just gave the woman 5000gp rather then the interesting and emotional sacrifice of giving up one of our prized posessions as payment. :/

This post really speaks to me as someone who is usually a GM and not a player.

When the players propose anything complicated in my games, I am so happy because that means they are invested. When there is an avenue to add complication, I am all for it. Complication is where you can get emerging story, emerging roleplay, all the things that make your games interesting and memorable. Even if your GM was already considering having the party give gold to the woman, the moment a player talked about giving away a precious possession, he should've seen it would be better for the story and quickly changed tracks.

Draconi Redfir

2017-07-30, 10:44 PM

Even if your GM was already considering having the party give gold to the woman, the moment a player talked about giving away a precious possession, he should've seen it would be better for the story and quickly changed tracks.

eh, it was a stupid thing. we were in a prison plane where there was very little gold so there was more of a trade/barter system in place. all we were told was we had to give her "one thousand GP worth of something". idk if i'm the only one who interprited that as items, but evidently regular old gold worked fine?

2D8HP

2017-07-30, 11:06 PM

This post really speaks to me as someone who is usually a GM and not a player.

When the players propose anything complicated in my games, I am so happy because that means they are invested.

Ah yes, https://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/images/comic_lotr103.jpg
Just say what to stab

InvisibleBison

2017-07-31, 12:06 AM

Similarly, throwing gold at a problem to solve it. We had to give some items to a woman in order to get acess to a mcguffin we needed. so i started looking through my posessions. that sword was useful, but i can give it up, and this haversack could be replaced with this magic box of mine..." next thing i know the other players are all talking about how we're going to the place we can't get too without the mcguffin. i look up and ask what's going on. apparently they all just gave the woman 5000gp rather then the interesting and emotional sacrifice of giving up one of our prized posessions as payment. :/

I don't understand your example. Why would you want to make an emotional sacrifice if there's an easy alternative?

Draconi Redfir

2017-07-31, 12:54 AM

I don't understand your example. Why would you want to make an emotional sacrifice if there's an easy alternative?

Exact same reason why Gandalf didn't just summon the eagles to drop the ring into Mordor: Easy solutions make terrible stories.

Guizonde

2017-07-31, 05:02 AM

To Guizonde: That is a more reasonable view. I do agree there are some overly sensitive people out there but I also see some people lash out at anyone who is less than some sort of unflinching paragon of cold courage. I don't that is a healthy attitude either.

Also why I have your attention, I would like to ask, why don't you use capital letters?

i've got issues that'd make webmd tell me my brain should've exploded. i've been followed by mental health professionals for a decade. smells can reduce me to tears, loud noises make me jump. until a few years ago, i could not go into crowded areas alone and unarmed, and then for less than 10 minutes. i'm not insensitive by any stretch of the imagination. i am not brave at all. i've gotten angry at both camps (the stone killers and the gossamers) for not listening to each other. to the robots, i tell them to listen to their emotions. to the whiny kids on the internet, i tell them to think about the big things, and not how a tv show is making you "clinically depressed". believe me, depression is a lot more serious than that.

you might say that on my way to becoming a functional human being, i'm kind of slightly peeved that people lack empathy towards the plight of others. i might have stated it in a very angry manner, but all i want for others is to be happy and ok.

as for the "no-caps" thing, there was a reason originally, but i forgot. so instead, i'll go with the classic "i've done it for so long, it's become my trademark way of identifying me across the internet". same username, usually same avatar, same "no-caps" policy. it's me, not some impostor. iirc, i've been doing this since at least 2004. blue is sarcasm, caps is MY SCREAMING VOICE!! perhaps i should throw this in an extended sig or something, it'd save all of us the trouble of asking and answering.

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-31, 06:36 AM

Exact same reason why Gandalf didn't just summon the eagles to drop the ring into Mordor: Easy solutions make terrible stories.

While I'm sure there are in-story reasons why that's not a solution that's as easily and simple as all that.... the more important consideration is that the PCs in an RPG aren't characters in a story. A story might be told about what they do after the fact, but "what makes the better story" isn't something the PCs should be thinking, with a few rare exceptions.

In one campaign, one of the PCs was a bard, and he was obsessed with "finding better stories", and often made decisions based on what would make for the better telling later, and often flat-out made things up when telling NPCs about our exploits afterwards. To a person, the PCs (and a couple of the players) wanted to strangle that damn bard.

CharonsHelper

2017-07-31, 08:01 AM

Exact same reason why Gandalf didn't just summon the eagles to drop the ring into Mordor: Easy solutions make terrible stories.

While I'm sure there are in-story reasons why that's not a solution that's as easily and simple as all that.... the more important consideration is that the PCs in an RPG aren't characters in a story.

Plus - there are a LOT of really easy to come up with reasons that wasn't done.

For one thing, the wraiths were around before the ring was destroyed and could have likely intercepted the eagles.

Heck, for all we know Sauron's Eye had the Middle Earth equivalent of AA guns.

Plus - until Aragorn & Friends pulled them all out to the gate, there were a LOT of orcs around Mount Doom and in the passes into Mordor, many of them with bows. As Sauron died etc., they were rather distracted.

Heck - Gandalf might have magicked protection for the eagles to get through at all, but there's no way that would have held up with Sauron were still active.

Maybe giant eagles are super susceptible for the temptation of The Ring.

etc. (it's not difficult)

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-31, 08:41 AM

Plus - there are a LOT of really easy to come up with reasons that wasn't done.

For one thing, the wraiths were around before the ring was destroyed and could have likely intercepted the eagles.

Heck, for all we know Sauron's Eye had the Middle Earth equivalent of AA guns.

Plus - until Aragorn & Friends pulled them all out to the gate, there were a LOT of orcs around Mount Doom and in the passes into Mordor, many of them with bows. As Sauron died etc., they were rather distracted.

Heck - Gandalf might have magicked protection for the eagles to get through at all, but there's no way that would have held up with Sauron were still active.

Maybe giant eagles are super susceptible for the temptation of The Ring.

etc. (it's not difficult)

Yeah, that was my "in-story reasons" clause -- considering the situation it's pretty easy to see why the eagles might not have been an easy fix.

Hell, the giant eagles, being sort of "paragons", probably stand out far more than a pair of desperate, struggling hobbits in terms of Sauron's "good and evil and power" sensitivity.

Sadly, if the players in a game came up with a "giant eagles solution", and the GM had an NPC explain why the eagles would not work... some players would accuse the GM of "railroading", because of the aforementioned way in which the meaning of "railroading" has been deliberately blurred by extremists on both ends of that issue.

CharonsHelper

2017-07-31, 08:50 AM

Yeah, that was my "in-story reasons" clause -- considering the situation it's pretty easy to see why the eagles might not have been an easy fix.

Sorry - I wasn't trying to imply my post was contradicting yours. It was more of a +1 & extrapolation.

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-31, 09:07 AM

Sorry - I wasn't trying to imply my post was contradicting yours. It was more of a +1 & extrapolation.

No worries, I think we're vigorously agreeing... (Also, expanded the post with some added thoughts.)

Draconi Redfir

2017-07-31, 12:50 PM

While I'm sure there are in-story reasons why that's not a solution that's as easily and simple as all that.... the more important consideration is that the PCs in an RPG aren't characters in a story. A story might be told about what they do after the fact, but "what makes the better story" isn't something the PCs should be thinking, with a few rare exceptions.

In one campaign, one of the PCs was a bard, and he was obsessed with "finding better stories", and often made decisions based on what would make for the better telling later, and often flat-out made things up when telling NPCs about our exploits afterwards. To a person, the PCs (and a couple of the players) wanted to strangle that damn bard.

Except it is a story. it's a story you are taking part in shaping and a story the DM is telling. do your D&D games have you immidiately win every encounter on the first round with no loss? no? Wjhy not? Because that would be boring!

Entertainment is struggling to find a solution, facing challenges and overcoming them through the skin of your teeth! if every proplem had an easy solution, then why even bother playing? may as well just listen to the DM talk.

Plus - there are a LOT of really easy to come up with reasons that wasn't done.

For one thing, the wraiths were around before the ring was destroyed and could have likely intercepted the eagles.

Heck, for all we know Sauron's Eye had the Middle Earth equivalent of AA guns.

Plus - until Aragorn & Friends pulled them all out to the gate, there were a LOT of orcs around Mount Doom and in the passes into Mordor, many of them with bows. As Sauron died etc., they were rather distracted.

Heck - Gandalf might have magicked protection for the eagles to get through at all, but there's no way that would have held up with Sauron were still active.

Maybe giant eagles are super susceptible for the temptation of The Ring.

etc. (it's not difficult)

You are over-analaizing an example. this is uneccicary.

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-31, 01:07 PM

Except it is a story. it's a story you are taking part in shaping and a story the DM is telling. do your D&D games have you immidiately win every encounter on the first round with no loss? no? Wjhy not? Because that would be boring!

So? This is also entirely tangential to the "story" question.

(Speaking of hills I'll plant my banner on and fight all challengers...)

If you personally want to approach an RPG as a deliberate act of storytelling, that's fine, I'm not going to bash your fun.

But this "collaborative storytelling" aspect is not inherent to the nature of an RPG. It is not inherent to the design of systems, the design of campaigns, or the design of characters. It is not a necessary part of RPGs.

The issue of "is this too easy" -- that is, appropriate and entertaining types and degrees of challenge -- can be addressed and analyzed without any reference to or reliance on "RPGs as collaborative storytelling".

I don't care about the question of "what will make the best story?" It's entirely meaningless to why I game and what makes gaming interesting to me. It's never a question I'm going to ask when making a decision for my PC, or for an NPC when I'm the GM. A story may emerge, or it may not. I AM interested in the game not being boring, but that has nothing to do with "storytelling" in any way. Setting, characters, coherent events flowing from cause and effect and character/setting interaction, those are the things I'm interested in, but those are coincidental drivers of emergent stories, NOT the result of caring about "story" as such. I intensely loath "narrative causality" (things happen because "the story" needs them to), with all its setting discontinuitities and character incoherences.

Also, I haven't played D&D in over 20 years, it's a system I find inherently unfun. The irony for your question is that D&D is one of the least "story-focused" systems in existence, it's one of the most "game-focused" systems, and yet everything is designed around challenge levels and resource management.

You are over-analaizing an example. this is uneccicary.

Or rather, we're demonstrating how answering "why not have the eagles do it?" doesn't require even a moment's consideration of "what makes a better story?"

BRC

2017-07-31, 01:07 PM

Except it is a story. it's a story you are taking part in shaping and a story the DM is telling. do your D&D games have you immidiately win every encounter on the first round with no loss? no? Wjhy not? Because that would be boring!

Entertainment is struggling to find a solution, facing challenges and overcoming them through the skin of your teeth! if every proplem had an easy solution, then why even bother playing? may as well just listen to the DM talk.

Difference between a PC and a Player.

The PC (As in, the character in the story) probably doesn't care about what makes a better story. They have their own goals, personality, values, hang-ups, and methods.

The PLAYER (The person controlling the character) DOES care about what makes a better story.

The PC would love to win every encounter on the first round with no losses, get all the gold, and go home. Unless their goal is to either create a good story, or seek out a Challenge, they would love nothing more than an easy victory.

The PLAYER would find that boring, and so that doesn't happen.

It's up to the GM and the Players to avoid situations where there is a trivial, boring solution that makes an easy victory. Either because such a solution simply doesn't exist, or because something about the Character prevents them from using it. If there is a place where the GM has presented a boring solution, and the Player can't find a reason their PC wouldn't take it, then something has gone wrong.

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-31, 01:14 PM

Difference between a PC and a Player.

The PC (As in, the character in the story) probably doesn't care about what makes a better story. They have their own goals, personality, values, hang-ups, and methods.

The PLAYER (The person controlling the character) DOES care about what makes a better story.

The PC would love to win every encounter on the first round with no losses, get all the gold, and go home. Unless their goal is to either create a good story, or seek out a Challenge, they would love nothing more than an easy victory.

The PLAYER would find that boring, and so that doesn't happen.

It's up to the GM and the Players to avoid situations where there is a trivial, boring solution that makes an easy victory. Either because such a solution simply doesn't exist, or because something about the Character prevents them from using it. If there is a place where the GM has presented a boring solution, and the Player can't find a reason their PC wouldn't take it, then something has gone wrong.

Well said.

(Although quite often as a player I find myself sympathizing far more with the character's rather natural desire to get what they want for the lowest risk of death or maiming, rather than with the "what makes a better story?" question.)

E: really, why should the characters give a fig about "what makes the better story?" It might "make a better story" if I walked out of my job today and packed up my car and went on a year-long road trip with zany situations dealing with living out of a car on the road, stretching what's in my bank account. But I'm sure a hell not going to do any such thing.

I've come to kinda resent anything that treats the characters as narrative elements, rather than could-be-real people. As a creator-of-fiction, if you want a character to do certain things for the sake of the story you want to tell, make the character someone who would do those sorts of things from the very start -- anything else is contrivance and sacrificing the internal coherence of the character on the altar of "The Story". If you want certain things to be possible in a setting for the sake of the story you want to tell, make the setting a place where those sorts of things naturally and coherently happen -- anything else is sacrificing internal consistency on the altar of "The Story".

Draconi Redfir

2017-07-31, 01:27 PM

Or rather, we're demonstrating how answering "why not have the eagles do it?" doesn't require even a moment's consideration of "what makes a better story?"

ex·am·ple
iɡˈzampəl/Submit
noun
1.
a thing characteristic of its kind or illustrating a general rule.

"Having an easy solution, makes a bad story. makes it un-interesting. therefore, do not have an easy solution, make it a challenge. if there is no challenge, then it will be boring. Try hacking Dark souls to have god-mode on. you can never be hurt or die, you fly over pits, and enemies and bosses die in one hit. See how much fun you have after awhile."

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-31, 01:29 PM

ex·am·ple
iɡˈzampəl/Submit
noun
1.
a thing characteristic of its kind or illustrating a general rule.

"Having an easy solution, makes a bad story. makes it un-interesting. therefore, do not have an easy solution, make it a challenge."

What makes "send the giant eagles to drop it in the crack of doom" a non-working solution doesn't have anything to do with "The Story".

The problem isn't that we're over-analyzing the example, it's that the example doesn't require consideration of the question you want it to.

BRC

2017-07-31, 01:30 PM

Well said.

(Although quite often as a player I find myself sympathizing far more with the character's rather natural desire to get what they want for the lowest risk of death or maiming, rather than with the "what makes a better story?" question.)

That sounds like an issue with the characters you're playing.

There is an unspoken social contract with games, which is that it is the GM's job to present an acceptable adventure, and the Player's job to find reason to accept it. Just as you shouldn't make a character who is disruptive to the party, you shouldn't make a character who is reluctant to Adventure, or whose personality makes them disinclined to generate good stories/gameplay.

If the campaign is about fighting monsters for treasure, don't make a character that just wants to go back to the family farm and never touch a sword again.
That said "I don't want to die horribly" isn't an unreasonable character trait. But, it's the GM's job to put "What your character wants" on the far side of a good deal of death and/or maiming. Such that, even after the character uses whatever strategies they can to minimize that risk, what's left is still enough to make a good story. Or, if they manage to completely negate the risk, their solution is novel and exciting enough that it makes good story in of itself, even without any chance of a horrible demise.

That said, an easy trap is for the GM to put their "Trivial Solutions" on the other side of what they assume to be an unacceptable choice. Something like "The Bandits offer to bribe you if you let them escape", assuming that their Heroic Adventurer PC's will reject such an offer and bring the Bandits to justice. Only to find the Players going "Hey, Loot with no risk? Sweet. We'll take that bribe!"

Which could be the fault of the GM for assuming Heroism on the part of the PC's. Or it could be the fault of the Players for forgetting that their playing presumably heroic characters and slipping into Murderhobo mode the moment it becomes convenient.

Edit: The Eagles are a bad example of this sort of thing, as the Fellowship never really CHOSE to not use the Eagles. They never made a stupid Choice because it made a better story. They made lots of stupid decisions that led to better stories, but those decisions had well-justified reasons behind them, because they were people, not perfectly analyzing logic-machines.

We know that the Eagles existed, but all it takes is for us to assume that they had a good reason not to volunteer their services before then. As we don't know the whole story.

As an Author, JRR Tolkein's single Goal was to make a better story. Using the Eagles would have made a bad story. So would have been letting Gandalf teleport them, or letting Gimili Smash the ring at Rivendelle. The difference is, an Author is a single person with total control over the story and world. A Player and GM have total control over neither.

So, "Tolkien didn't have the Eagles fly them, and never got around to explaining why" is not comparable to "A PC shouldn't use the Eagles, because it would make a bad story".

It would also have been a bad story had the Fellowship intentionally refused the Eagle's Aid.

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-31, 01:43 PM

That sounds like an issue with the characters you're playing.

There is an unspoken social contract with games, which is that it is the GM's job to present an acceptable adventure, and the Player's job to find reason to accept it. Just as you shouldn't make a character who is disruptive to the party, you shouldn't make a character who is reluctant to Adventure, or whose personality makes them disinclined to generate good stories/gameplay.

If the campaign is about fighting monsters for treasure, don't make a character that just wants to go back to the family farm and never touch a sword again.
That said "I don't want to die horribly" isn't an unreasonable character trait. But, it's the GM's job to put "What your character wants" on the far side of a good deal of death and/or maiming. Such that, even after the character uses whatever strategies they can to minimize that risk, what's left is still enough to make a good story. Or, if they manage to completely negate the risk, their solution is novel and exciting enough that it makes good story in of itself, even without any chance of a horrible demise.

That said, an easy trap is for the GM to put their "Trivial Solutions" on the other side of what they assume to be an unacceptable choice. Something like "The Bandits offer to bribe you if you let them escape", assuming that their Heroic Adventurer PC's will reject such an offer and bring the Bandits to justice. Only to find the Players going "Hey, Loot with no risk? Sweet. We'll take that bribe!"

Which could be the fault of the GM for assuming Heroism on the part of the PC's. Or it could be the fault of the Players for forgetting that their playing presumably heroic characters and slipping into Murderhobo mode the moment it becomes convenient.

I added the following to the post you were replying to while you were replying, for expanded clarity, but I'll put it here to for ease of reply:

E: Really, why should the characters give a fig about "what makes the better story?" It might "make a better story" if I walked out of my job today and packed up my car and went on a year-long road trip with zany situations dealing with living out of a car on the road, stretching what's in my bank account. But I'm sure a hell not going to do any such thing.

I've come to kinda resent anything that treats the characters as narrative elements, rather than could-be-real people. As a creator-of-fiction, if you want a character to do certain things for the sake of the story you want to tell, make the character someone who would do those sorts of things from the very start -- anything else is contrivance and sacrificing the internal coherence of the character on the altar of "The Story". If you want certain things to be possible in a setting for the sake of the story you want to tell, make the setting a place where those sorts of things naturally and coherently happen -- anything else is sacrificing internal consistency on the altar of "The Story".

And to further expand on that in light of your latest post (to which I am replying), there is a vast almost infinite space between a character who is driven by the metagame needs of "The Story" to do dangerous things, and a character who refuses to do dangerous things and goes home to the farm. A space filled with characters who have real motivations and complex personalities and conflicting desires.

Edit: The Eagles are a bad example of this sort of thing, as the Fellowship never really CHOSE to not use the Eagles. They never made a stupid Choice because it made a better story. They made lots of stupid decisions that led to better stories, but those decisions had well-justified reasons behind them, because they were people, not perfectly analyzing logic-machines.

We know that the Eagles existed, but all it takes is for us to assume that they had a good reason not to volunteer their services before then. As we don't know the whole story.

As an Author, JRR Tolkein's single Goal was to make a better story. Using the Eagles would have made a bad story. So would have been letting Gandalf teleport them, or letting Gimili Smash the ring at Rivendelle. The difference is, an Author is a single person with total control over the story and world. A Player and GM have total control over neither.

So, "Tolkien didn't have the Eagles fly them, and never got around to explaining why" is not comparable to "A PC shouldn't use the Eagles, because it would make a bad story".

It would also have been a bad story had the Fellowship intentionally refused the Eagle's Aid.

Exactly.

BRC

2017-07-31, 01:55 PM

Yeah.
Bad:
"My Character charges in and Challenges the Warlord in single combat!"
"Why?"
"Because it makes a better story."

vs
"My Character Charges in and challenges the Warlord to single combat!"
"Why?"
"Because my character is brash, arrogant, and wants to personally slay the warlord"
"Why is your character like that?"
"Because it makes a better story"

This is why a lot of systems ask for, or even require, character flaws. They give the GM a guide to predicting how this character will act, and encouraging Players to make "Stupid" in-character choices that lead to better stories. It makes producing good stories a lot easier than asking the GM to stick only to situations where the most rational solution still produces a thrilling tale.

Airk

2017-07-31, 02:50 PM

This is why a lot of systems ask for, or even require, character flaws. They give the GM a guide to predicting how this character will act, and encouraging Players to make "Stupid" in-character choices that lead to better stories. It makes producing good stories a lot easier than asking the GM to stick only to situations where the most rational solution still produces a thrilling tale.

Maybe that's why the systems suggest them, but the usual reason players TAKE them is "more character generation points" - which leads to them doing their damndest to AVOID those moments in the game.

This is why "Flaws for chargen points" is terrible design and the Fate Point model of "You only get paid if it makes trouble for you." works better.

CharonsHelper

2017-07-31, 10:31 PM

This is why "Flaws for chargen points" is terrible design and the Fate Point model of "You only get paid if it makes trouble for you." works better.

I'll +1 that.

Fate points can run into issues too (I'm still not a fan - but I can see the draw), but they're not nearly as bad as "flaws = bonus character points".

Edit: Probably the worst example I can remember is d20 BESM. I remember one 'flaw' where you could basically purchase all abilities for a 10% discount if you could only use them in your 'transformed state' or whatnot. Only... there was NO LIMIT on how much you were transformed. >.< (bigger discounts if there actually was a limit)

ImNotTrevor

2017-07-31, 10:45 PM

I'll +1 that.

Fate points can run into issues too (I'm still not a fan - but I can see the draw), but they're not nearly as bad as "flaws = bonus character points".

And then in Burning Wheel you have to SPEND POINTS to acquire flaws, because they get you bonus stuff later.

That's right. And the more crippling the flaw, THE MORE EXPENSIVE IT IS. Being blind costs more than being an alcoholic.

Koo Rehtorb

2017-07-31, 10:51 PM

That's right. And the more crippling the flaw, THE MORE EXPENSIVE IT IS. Being blind costs more than being an alcoholic.

Nah. Blind and Alcoholic are both 1 point traits. Ditto for Lame. Most negative traits are 1 point, really.

The cost is more a way to make you prove that you're committed to the character concept enough to spend resources on it and you're not doing it as a gimmick.

Max_Killjoy

2017-07-31, 11:03 PM

ImNotTrevor

2017-08-01, 07:49 AM

Another hill I'll plant my banner on like Jet Li at the end of The One...

Character-driven decisions are not exclusively part "story-focus" games/gaming.

I keep seeing posts claiming or implying that making decisions as the character would make them is inherently and exclusively a "story" or "narrative" element.

It's not.

It's entirely tangential.

I would argue that it is not tangential at all. Characters making decisions that are sensical and in-character for them is very much a part of good narrative.

They're not the exclusive territory of that goal, but they are not tangential. In the same way that ice cream sales and hot weather are not exclusive to one another, but they correlate highly.

And, on the other hand, it is almost always a Fiction Layer decision (aka one not influenced by the mechanics), which does still keep that tie-in alive.

BRC

2017-08-01, 09:03 AM

Another hill I'll plant my banner on like Jet Li at the end of The One...

Character-driven decisions are not exclusively part "story-focus" games/gaming.

I keep seeing posts claiming or implying that making decisions as the character would make them is inherently and exclusively a "story" or "narrative" element.

It's not.

It's entirely tangential.

I'm pretty sure I've recounted my viewpoint/personal version of Threefold theory here before, but I'll do it again.
Every player is three things all at once: The Gamer, the Actor, and the Storyteller

The Gamer Wants to Win.

The Actor Wants to do what their character would do.

The Storyteller wants to produce a good story.

These three roles are often encouraging the same thing. A story where the characters stay true to their personalities is a good story, so the Actor and the Storyteller are rarely in conflict, but they are distinct roles.

Max_Killjoy

2017-08-01, 09:34 AM

I'm pretty sure I've recounted my viewpoint/personal version of Threefold theory here before, but I'll do it again.
Every player is three things all at once: The Gamer, the Actor, and the Storyteller

The Gamer Wants to Win.

The Actor Wants to do what their character would do.

The Storyteller wants to produce a good story.

These three roles are often encouraging the same thing. A story where the characters stay true to their personalities is a good story, so the Actor and the Storyteller are rarely in conflict, but they are distinct roles.

Here's the thing... as a player, I don't care about "The Story". At all. A story will emerge, or it won't, and if a good one emerges, cool... but "The Story" is never my concern and never enters into my decision making. My character doesn't care about or even know about "The Story". They have no notion of entertaining some audience somewhere.

As the GM, I have to have some notion of story, but if I'm doing my job then it's just a piece of the informative puzzle, and not anything major.

Good stories might emerge from characters staying true, consistent (as consistent as people are), coherent, etc. Good stories might emerge from adherence to a sort of in-setting cause-and-effect.

But as soon as decisions start to be made for the sake of "The Story", then we have narrative causality (the idea that things happen because "The Story" needs them to).

BRC

2017-08-01, 10:00 AM

Here's the thing... as a player, I don't care about "The Story". At all. A story will emerge, or it won't, and if a good one emerges, cool... but "The Story" is never my concern and never enters into my decision making. My character doesn't care about or even know about "The Story". They have no notion of entertaining some audience somewhere.

As the GM, I have to have some notion of story, but if I'm doing my job then it's just a piece of the informative puzzle, and not anything major.

Good stories might emerge from characters staying true, consistent (as consistent as people are), coherent, etc. Good stories might emerge from adherence to a sort of in-setting cause-and-effect.

But as soon as decisions start to be made for the sake of "The Story", then we have narrative causality (the idea that things happen because "The Story" needs them to).
I think that is where you differ from me and most of the players I've met, who DO have "Make a good story" as a priority. In fact, it's often a top priority.

But, "Narrative Causality" never really comes up, because the things that happen have other explanations. Sure, at the meta-level they're happening because they make a good story, but the internal logic of the world isn't twisted out of shape. The Duke betrays the Kingdom, joining the Invader's army. Why? Because the Evil Emperor promised him that he could rule the kingdom in the Empire's name. Why did he accept? Because he's ambitious and envious. Why is he Ambitious and Envious? Because it makes a better story.

I will agree that, as you said "Character-driven decisions are not exclusively part "story-focus" games/gaming". But I can't agree that every example of Trying To Craft A Good Story is "Narrative Causality".

Like, it technically is. But, that term only really comes up in the context of "This was poorly written, and there was no explanation for it except that the story needed it to happen".
Like, let's define a "Good Story" as "Dramatic, but Logical". Which is to say, it's exciting and thrilling, but everything that happens makes sense.

"Narrative Causality" usually comes up when something is Dramatic, but not Logical. Technically it just means "It's happening because the story needs it to", which implies "It's happening ONLY because the story needs it to".

Not to put words into your mouth, but it seems like you're saying "Don't try to tell a good story. If one happens, that's fine. But you shouldn't be TRYING for one".

Tinkerer

2017-08-01, 10:34 AM

Max_Killjoy

2017-08-01, 10:38 AM

Hmm, I wasn't going to get involved in this part of the discussion since it seems really off topic but I would like to point out that any character who has as a part of their motivation "To make a name for themselves" or "To go down in history" or "Boredom" or a hundred other character motivations that I've seen people use "Because it's a good story" as a perfectly good driving force to make a decision based on. Hell I know several people who use that as their primary driving force in life and they are some of the most successful and happy people that I know.

In short, though it may be a tautology, most adventurers want adventure.

The old group once had a bard PC who consciously had the motivation of living and retelling "the best stories" possible. So he deliberately did things he though were dramatic, made decisions that complicated things and "made them interesting", etc. By the end of the campaign all the other PCs (and a couple of players) wanted to kill that bard, and would have plead self-defense.

It's fine if a particular character has that sort of motivation ("it will make a good story"), but that's not the same as wanting adventure, or fighting boredom, and it's not going to be a common motivation.

CharonsHelper

2017-08-01, 10:51 AM

The old group once had a bard PC who consciously had the motivation of living and retelling "the best stories" possible. So he deliberately did things he though were dramatic, made decisions that complicated things and "made them interesting", etc. By the end of the campaign all the other PCs (and a couple of players) wanted to kill that bard, and would have plead self-defense.

Yeah - that sounds kind of annoying.

I have a bard who adventures for glory as "The Greatest of All Pathfinders", but he's not an idiot.

He does things which he thinks will make him look good, but he won't make things more difficult for no reason. If the story needs to be a bit better, he'll just embellish things later.

Tinkerer

2017-08-01, 05:09 PM

Yes I forgot to mention one of the key things that makes a good story is that you are still around to tell it. If you are talking about intentionally self sabotaging themselves for the sake of a good story well... that's not a good story. I wouldn't guess that player is an example of someone looking to tell a good story, I'd guess they were an ******* using that as an excuse to be disruptive.

This discussion did remind me of one hill I'd plant my flag on though.

Threads should stay on topic.

FIGHT ME!!!!

ImNotTrevor

2017-08-01, 09:30 PM

Quertus

2017-08-02, 01:24 PM

I don't care about the question of "what will make the best story?" It's entirely meaningless to why I game and what makes gaming interesting to me. It's never a question I'm going to ask when making a decision for my PC, or for an NPC when I'm the GM.

Here's the thing... as a player, I don't care about "The Story". At all. A story will emerge, or it won't, and if a good one emerges, cool... but "The Story" is never my concern and never enters into my decision making.

I'll plant a flag very close to yours on this one.

Difference between a PC and a Player.

The PC (As in, the character in the story) probably doesn't care about what makes a better story. They have their own goals, personality, values, hang-ups, and methods.

The PLAYER (The person controlling the character) DOES care about what makes a better story. .

Um, actually, no, I really don't.

Now, after the fact, what stories I can tell about it is cool, but that still doesn't excuse Marty's behavior in making the SUE Files, let alone make him a model GM for how awesome a story the SUE Files are, for example.

Excuse you, it is vital to me that I know who would win in a fight between 20 duck-sized horses and 1 horse-sized duck.

LET THE DERAIL BEGIN!

20 duck-sized horses. My minecraft character would have killed and eaten the horse sized duck. :smalltongue:

BRC

2017-08-02, 04:04 PM

Um, actually, no, I really don't.

Some players don't, and that's fine. Most of the players I've played with enjoy it when the campaign produces a good story, and make some choices to that end. Some players have very different ideas about what defines a "Good Story".

And I guess it's certainly possible that I've played with people who honestly don't care at all, and just want to roll dice and/or explore a role. But, it's never really come up that they're opposed to a game telling a good story, or the GM/other players trying to make that happen.

Now, after the fact, what stories I can tell about it is cool, but that still doesn't excuse Marty's behavior in making the SUE Files, let alone make him a model GM for how awesome a story the SUE Files are, for example.

How are the SUE files at all relevant here? Because the GM was trying to tell a good story? Because people enjoyed reading about the train-wreck afterwards?

Okay, let me break things down. A story must be judged by, and tailored to, the medium it is experienced through. Watching a film, and reading the script of a film, are very different experiences, even if they both communicate the same Story. A Film needs good Visuals, while a Book could consist entirely of people sitting around in identical beige cubicles talking to one another.

A good RPG story is different from a good Novel story. A key part of how an RPG story exists is that it's crafted by the players at the table and the whims of the dice.

A Good RPG story is not always one that sounds good on the retelling. It's not always a story that looks good written out on paper.

Let me tell you a great RPG story.

This was from our Rise of Tiamat 5e campaign.

My character was a pirate whose ship had been destroyed by a Blue dragon, one working for the Cult of Tiamat. I washed ashore on what was left of the mast, clutching a Rapier that had belonged to my best friend. During the first session, we're discussing how magic items in 5e are supposed to be special. How the 3.5 "Magic Item Mart" is gone, how each item is supposed to have a story behind it.
"So" I said. "If I kill the dragon that destroyed my ship with this sword, would that count for making it a Magic Item?"

"Yeah, sure" my GM says.

Cut to 12 levels, and over a year later. We're fighting the Blue Dragon that destroyed my ship. The party buffs me up with Flight and Invisibility, and I close in. Closing to Melee, I cling to the Dragon and spend every resource I have, stabbing the dragon over and over again with the perfectly mundane rapier I started the campaign with. After a round or two of this (we'd already peppered it at range for a few rounds) the Dragon falls as I stab it through the eye. It crashes to the ground, knocking me out. Once my Party picks me back up again, my nonmagical, PHB-standard Rapier is now Closure, an indestructible Dragonslaying Sword.

So, here's the thing. Seeing it written out like that, it's a pretty lame Story. "Dude carries a sword for a while, kills the dragon who sank his ship, and then the sword is Magic".

But, in that moment, it felt like one of the greatest things I'd ever done in a game. Using that sword for a year real-time, remembering that conversation in the first session. Trading quips with the Dragon in the final moment. Getting a crit in the final rounds. Hearing the other players (Whose characters were NOT clinging to the dragon, and so were too far away to contribute at this point) cheering me on. The knowledge that, not only had this thing happened, but that I had planted the seeds of this moment back when I picked a Blue Dragon to be the one that destroyed my ship? That I had made it possible by closing to melee, allowing me to get the final blow with THAT sword rather than peppering from a range with my longbow (Or using a different, Magic rapier I had since picked up). All that was part of the experience that made that moment great.

It wouldn't have been the same had I gotten my revenge a month into the campaign. It wouldn't have worked had my victory been assured. It wouldn't have worked had I been able to pick up a Dragonslayer Rapier by throwing 8000 GP at a magic item store. It wouldn't have worked nearly as well had it not just been me and the dragon, dueling in the desert sky during those final moments.

And that story could easily have never happened at all. The GM could have decided that it was a different Blue Dragon that destroyed my ship. I could have never seen that particular dragon again, never gotten my Revenge. Nothing in the setting or campaign book would indicate that the blue dragon that destroyed this random pirate ship I made up would be the same one to attack the party in the desert. It wouldn't have happened had I decided to hang back and pepper the dragon with my Longbow. It wouldn't have happened if, instead of casting fly on Me, the spellcasters cast it on the Barbarian, whose magic Greatsword hit harder in melee than I did anyway, and who dealt less damage at range than my Dex based fighter.

So, when people say things like "Telling a good story should never factor into somebody's decisions". What I hear is "You should never have seen that Dragon again". Campaigns should consist solely of cause-and-effect relations and statistically probable outcomes, without so much as a finger on the scale to send things down the path that lets people have a good time.

Stuff like Heavy Railroading, Flagrant disregard for the established rules of the game and setting, 10-minute NPC Monologues, Characters throwing aside their pre-established personalities, Deus-Ex-Machina solutions, NPC's taking precedence over PCs, ect, all hurt the story being told. Even if they produce a sequence of events that would be more fun to read about on paper, they hurt the experience of those sitting around the table, and therefore are not justified by "Telling a Good Story".