If your group is predisposed to one game or play-type, that's just fine, easy writing.
But that doesn't mean I won't go looking for another group to try the experimental stuff burning a hole through my bookshelf. There's so many different flavors of game I can't imagine sticking to just one.
"Go down, kick ass, and set yourselves up as gods, that's our Prime Directive!"
What I want, one day, is a high fantasy RPG which lets you play powerful high fantasy beings like Mages who can shatter castle walls and fighters who can slaughter a hundred men
But without classes or levels, without being horrendously unbalanced, without being super-tied to any setting, and without being entirely shit
Godbound sounds about 95% of what you want.
It's awesome, it's incredibly flexible, there are no classes, and a hundred normal soldiers is a low-level enemy. It does have an included setting, but it's super-easy to port the concepts over (I've been toying with a 'Gods of the Old West' thing, where it's an alternate-history American West but with godbound thrown in. No other magic or super-science or anything, just the old west with demigods roaming around.)
There are levels, but with no classes, 'level' is just an abstract measure of power; and in Godbound, in order to gain levels, you are required to both earn an appropriate number of experience points and spend an appropriate number of Dominion points. You have to earn the Dominion too, but you can't just stockpile it, you have to actually spend it, and the spending of Dominion reflects you using your divine power and will to make changes in the world. So it's impossible to be a high-level Godbound character who has not made a mark on the world (though it would be totally possible to be a Hephaestus-like reclusive smith who just sends artifacts into the world anonymously).
On classes and levels: I'm not entirely sold on either class/level or any of the replacements I've seen for it. Every system I've seen for character advancement has its flaws, I don't think there's a perfect way to do it, and it's really just a matter of which one you as a group prefer. The big advantage of class/level is that it's simpler than the other alternatives; you don't have to constantly alter your character and you don't have to pick from an enormous level of detail every time, by limiting your options and restricting your power gains to specific points it makes it much easier. Conversely, however, by limiting your options and restricting your power gains to specific points it limits your ability to customize. I don't think this is a thing that can be 'solved'; it's really just a matter of where on that continuum any specific solution falls.
On 5E bards/multiclassing: I think what bards really show off is when the MC system fails. When the MC system is good, bard as a class doesn't need to exist. You've got some magic, you've got some thievery, you've got some fighting; you should be a multiclass character, your class is based on the idea that you're good at everything but not especially good at any one thing. This is the reason why I dislike bards in almost every D&D edition (ironically, given my general feelings on 4E, I think 4E had the best bard of all editions except possibly the 1E version where it was a proto-prestige class). I do think it's bad when a class becomes too generic; classes shouldn't be hyper-specialized, because then they are not as useful and you need to have a ton of similar classes and it's bad, but they also shouldn't be too broad because then they are no longer useful. It's a line to walk; if saying your class name does not give people a good concept of what your class powers should be, then it's too broad. On the other hand, if your class can't support a reasonable number of subclasses within its umbrella (I would say that 2-3 is the minimum number of subclasses to support, and while I'm using the 5E terminology because it's great and I love the subclass idea, this is a generic statement about the viability of all classes in all systems), then it's probably too narrow.
Anyone have an opinion on running a one-on-one game using Mage the Ascension? I have a signed copy that I got in a past CF Secret Santa that I've been wanting to crack open for a while. Thinking about running a little something for my girlfriend.
Mage works fine one-on-one. It's probably a little easier in fact, because you can focus on the way the one character's belief system doesn't mesh with the world around them, without also having to reconcile their belief system with all the other belief systems of the other party members. The Council of Nine Traditions has pretty flimsy unity at the best of times, and it can be quite a juggling act figuring out why, aside from Storyteller fiat, all these people from vastly different backgrounds would endure each other.
Big things to keep in mind about Mages, assuming you're running the Council of Nine Traditions as the protagonists:
1.) They can be very good at slicing through mysteries. Hidden information doesn't stay hidden for long, if a Mage wants to find it. The trick in a mystery game is always making them jump through the hoops to find the evidence in a way that's valuable to non-mages, because the results of their scrying ritual aren't admissable in court or whatever.
2.) They are not very sturdy at all. Unlike Vampires and Werewolves, they are not inherently much more tough to kill than just some normal human. Healing magic is a hell of a gamble, since so many credible threats can just one-shot you. And proactive defensive magic is difficult to sustain for long. The one place using magic to defend yourself really shines is defending against other magic. You don't get in a Wizard's Duel with a mage if you can sneak up and shoot him instead.
3.) Mages have a tendency to turn into hidden spymaster types, secure in a well-warded location, casting magic at a distance. The more EXP they have to put into Spheres, the harder it becomes to lure them out into the world. Be cautious about making tutors in the Correspondence sphere too easy to find. Unless they're a Virtual Adept obviously, in which case bunkering down in a control room somewhere is the whole schtick.
4.) Sphere Magic is incredibly flexible. Your player will do things that you did not anticipate. Your player will do things that make the most brilliant tale of improvisation from a D&D session sound like just another Tuesday. You can not account for all the things that even a beginning Sphere Mage can get up to. Keep your story plans extremely loose, and focus more on interesting NPCs and factions who could be entertaining to interact with in a wide variety of situations, rather than those who only matter if a specific sequence of events happen.
5.) If the character invests heavily in the Spirit Sphere, that can present a burden for you as the Storyteller at first, because now you have a whole alternate reality to populate with entities and locations. Depending on the edition of Mage you have, the writers may have noticed this problem and dramatically over-corrected for it in the form of the Avatar Storm. I recommend using the spirit world sparingly, but not cutting it off entirely. It can be a shortcut, a hiding place, a destination for an adventure, but it shouldn't become Home Base. The spirit world is often more nakedly dangerous than the material world, and even masters of the Spirit Sphere should never feel 100% comfortable there. Even if the Spirit World doesn't feature heavily in your story though, figure out who the major personalities are in the local Umbra and have them interact with the material world in ways your player can notice now and then. It'll go a long way to reminding them that the world is bigger and more complicated than it looks on the surface.
6.) It can be easy to make the Technocracy an insurmountable foe. Just remember, they look like the all-knowing government surveillance bogeyman because appearing omniscient is the keystone of their propaganda efforts. Try to make the actual Technocrats a few degrees less competent than their press releases would imply. They are not Agents in the Matrix, capable of appearing immediately whenever a reality deviant acts in public, but they have expended a great deal of effort convincing everyone that they are.
7.) Resist the temptation to make a comedy relief Marauder. Marauders should be upsetting. Make sure you know how your player feels about depictions of mental illness in their recreation activities before featuring them heavily.
8.) Rounding out the antagonist trinity, use the Nephandi extremely sparingly. They're a lot like Horror Movie Monsters, in that they become a lot less scary if you ever see them with any clarity. At that point a lot of storytellers will try to compensate by cranking up the gore and atrocities, but that tends to backfire by making them more gross than scary.
9.) Figure out now how you think Coincidental Magic should work. For example. My dude reaches into his standard issue 90's action hero trenchcoat and pulls out a Katana. He says he has had a Katana in there the whole time, but he is lying. Actually, he used Correspondence to pull his Katana through a wormhole from his apartment, or he used Matter to fabricate one out of a rolled up newspaper he had in there, or he used Prime to conjure one literally out of nothing. There is an interpretation of the rules where this is Coincidental, because maybe he really did have a Katana in there you don't know for sure, and there is an interpretation where this is Vulgar Without Witnesses, because what happens in his trenchcoat still happens and is still impossible within the bounds of the dominant reality paradigm. This is a goofy as hell argument, and the Mage books never really figured out where they stood on the matter, so decide an interpretation for yourself in advance. The most important thing is that you're consistent about the logic underlying your rulings on different spells, so your players will be able to pick up the pattern.
10.) As a first time mage ST, I'd strongly suggest avoiding including crossovers with any of the other supernatural protagonist types. Vampires and Werewolves and Ghosts and Faeries all carry their own metaphysical implications that can severely alter the tone and flavor of a Mage game. And to be frank, the crossover rules are easily the most half-assed part of a notoriously sloppy system.
Realizing lately that I don't really trust or respect basically any of the moderators here. So, good luck with life, friends! Hit me up on Twitter @DesertLeviathan
+2
Options
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
edited September 2017
Classes as narrative archetype are great because it pretty much nips things like "Why isn't there a Samurai class???" in the bud.
Like. What kind of samurai? The armored mounted warrior that uses a bow? The Daimyo? The wandering kenshi who values honor above all else? Supernaturally-skilled swordsman who only wears a robe? The cultured poet-duellist?
I just am glad that at this point in time there are games that cater to all our tastes, or pretty damn close and with the internet allow us access to players across the globe.
The 80s and 90s were rough if you weren't down for d&d or a handful of other games that were popular enough to get stocked at the local game store. Or even worse is if they had your particular jam but you couldn't find a group to play it. I had a couple different RPG books growing up, but nobody to play them with.
I wish my DM was willing to branch out a bit. He is an amazing DM but 3, 3.5 and 5th edition D&D is all he's ever known and is comfortable with. I love the group I'm in, but I would like a bit of variety too.
I'm in the opposite realm.
I sincerely don't believe my players would invest the energy to learn any system that isn't D&D.
Man I'd be thrilled if my players invested any energy into learning any game that we play.
I just am glad that at this point in time there are games that cater to all our tastes, or pretty damn close and with the internet allow us access to players across the globe.
The 80s and 90s were rough if you weren't down for d&d or a handful of other games that were popular enough to get stocked at the local game store. Or even worse is if they had your particular jam but you couldn't find a group to play it. I had a couple different RPG books growing up, but nobody to play them with.
I wish my DM was willing to branch out a bit. He is an amazing DM but 3, 3.5 and 5th edition D&D is all he's ever known and is comfortable with. I love the group I'm in, but I would like a bit of variety too.
I'm in the opposite realm.
I sincerely don't believe my players would invest the energy to learn any system that isn't D&D.
Man I'd be thrilled if my players invested any energy into learning any game that we play.
I ran Shadowrun 5E for a year and a half of weekly games.
I am still the only member of that group who knows how to play it.
Hey so, I really dig social systems in games and I think you should consider that the problem isn't 'persuasion solves everything social' and more that the system doesn't actually support good social play.
.
It supports the kind of social play that it supports.
That's not good for everyone--but it's fantastic for the people who like it.
Mechanizing social play more or in different ways is better for people who are socially different.
Playing with smart creative people who agree with you on things that 'make sense' makes for a really great group, but if you can all agree on how things should work each time, you don't really need the ruleset to begin with.
No, it quite helps to have a ruleset even if you do improvise in the blndspots.
Rules aren't just there to ensure fairness, they are also there to take the burden of consistency (and therefore the reliability of cause and effect needed to plan tactics) off the players and GM.
Everything takes about 10 times as long if you have to make up every spell description and weapon profile on the spot and write it down and unless you do write it down it's hard to plan in advance. Does the crossbow do d8 or not? Do you need to reload it? It's nice to know in advance, and helpful.
This seems somewhat contrary to your conceit that the Fighter following the rules and attacking with a crossbow will lead to an party wipe thanks to orcs insta-killing two of four party members via "good GMing"
If attacking is the worst option and making up effects for those sacks of flour that I'm hauling around is more effective and better for aiding the party in their quest, then I do not need to know how much damage a crossbow does, I need to know how to persuade my GM that carrying bags of flour for blinding enemies is more practical than wielding swords for disabling foes.
It's not contrary: you need to know both.
I didn't say "attacking is the worst option" I said "ALWAYS attacking in the same way is not always optimal"
And once you use it, the sack of flour can't go around forcing a Dex save on some occasions and being an insta-blind on others.
0
Options
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
Or for people who don't think their GM should be forced to arbitrate how charismatic they're pretending to be, or how compelling their argument is to a character the GM literally made up 30 seconds ago.
and this
...is better for people who are socially different.
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
As a very social and charismatic (and not very humble) person, that feels really reductive.
I want more fleshed out social systems in games because I like playing face type characters because I like to talk. I don't want everything to be based around the fact that I'm good at talking through problems and getting my way - that's boring as hell, and removes the point of playing a game.
Honestly I feel like throwing a bag of flour at someone is a maneuver that a rogue would excel at, as opposed to a fighter
If you want to go around throwing flour at people to blind them you should probably play a rogue instead
That might be a smart move for the rogue in a different situation--like one where they had surprise on the orcs or were hidden.
In the situation I describe it could be dumb for the typical rogue in a high-lethality game because it would leave them exposed to likely less benefit than a thrown weapon.
The fighters job in that first round--as I described--is to reduce the orcs' ability to hurt the other PCs as much as possible in the first round so the rogue et al can get to better positions.
0
Options
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
edited September 2017
There's a huge difference between saying the fiction should affect the mechanics of persuasion, and saying that the fiction should be the mechanics of persuasion. I absolutely agree that the way you approach a social situation in an RPG should effect what you're rolling, the chances it will succeed, the results of failure/partial success, and anything else that your game supports, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't go "I'm not sure what's going to happen here -- let's go to the dice!"
Honestly I feel like throwing a bag of flour at someone is a maneuver that a rogue would excel at, as opposed to a fighter
If you want to go around throwing flour at people to blind them you should probably play a rogue instead
That might be a smart move for the rogue in a different situation--like one where they had surprise on the orcs or were hidden.
In the situation I describe it could be dumb for the typical rogue in a high-lethality game because it would leave them exposed to likely less benefit than a thrown weapon.
The fighters job in that first round--as I described--is to reduce the orcs' ability to hurt the other PCs as much as possible in the first round so the rogue et al can get to better positions.
Wait, if this flour thing is not going to be as good as throwing a weapon, why is the fighter even bothering? Why don't they just attack?
Honestly I feel like throwing a bag of flour at someone is a maneuver that a rogue would excel at, as opposed to a fighter
If you want to go around throwing flour at people to blind them you should probably play a rogue instead
That might be a smart move for the rogue in a different situation--like one where they had surprise on the orcs or were hidden.
In the situation I describe it could be dumb for the typical rogue in a high-lethality game because it would leave them exposed to likely less benefit than a thrown weapon.
The fighters job in that first round--as I described--is to reduce the orcs' ability to hurt the other PCs as much as possible in the first round so the rogue et al can get to better positions.
If the Orcs can insta-kill the wizard and thief, again, as you described, why can't the fighter insta-kill the Orcs? Or the rogue striking from stealth, or the cleric casts a defensive ward?
Why is shoving the Orc a better option than just killing it?
Or else learn to make a better case--and that's a skill and it's a skill you signed up to have tested if you're trying to play that way.
I think the source of this entire argument is that you are saying that you have ALWAYS signed up to play that way, and everyone else is saying that's not the case.
That's not what happened that's pretty much the opposite--
Someone said the fighter has but one option in D&D.
I said they don't and gae 8 examples.
Someone else said some of them "depend on GM fiat".
I said they do not and that "GM Fiat" isn't a thing because the GM has no special abilities.
The first person is maintaining a stance that requires ALL D&D players to have their GM.
I am maintaining a stance which simply says SOME people do it differently.
Your softball analogy also only works if you took the position that it's ok to turn softball into calvinball. Yeah, if people signed up for calvinball. But they probably didn't, they probably want softball.
Softball has an umpire. If your umpire doesn't work for you, you have a conversation about it.
"Calvinball" is not relevant here--that's a game where one player makes up the rules, which is not what we're talking about. Even in pick-up softball you have to make communal decisions about things like the infield fly rule, slow pitch vs fast pitch etc.
Decisions about rules in D&D are always communal and players ratify them by accepting them or not.
And the words "D&D" do not demand a default playstyle, just as the words "softball" do not demand that one or the other team play defense first.
You have to have a conversation about how you're going to play (or at least be able to articulate it if it comes up) and not assume a default.
Honestly I feel like throwing a bag of flour at someone is a maneuver that a rogue would excel at, as opposed to a fighter
If you want to go around throwing flour at people to blind them you should probably play a rogue instead
That might be a smart move for the rogue in a different situation--like one where they had surprise on the orcs or were hidden.
In the situation I describe it could be dumb for the typical rogue in a high-lethality game because it would leave them exposed to likely less benefit than a thrown weapon.
The fighters job in that first round--as I described--is to reduce the orcs' ability to hurt the other PCs as much as possible in the first round so the rogue et al can get to better positions.
If the Orcs can insta-kill the wizard and thief, again, as you described, why can't the fighter insta-kill the Orcs? Or the rogue striking from stealth, or the cleric casts a defensive ward?
Why is shoving the Orc a better option than just killing it?
I discussed that explicitly in the original example:
You have 4 orcs.
If you might insta kill one orc but that still leaves 3 to attack your glass cannons in the next round.
That's a crucial round because neither party has surprise, so the party's not in good positions. The Wizard and thief aren't in cover or hidden or behind chokepoints, etc
So the best move for the fighter in round 1 might not be instantly take out 1 guy but rather distract as many orcs as possible for one round.
Someone said that mechanically, supported by the rules written in the book, the fighter has a minimal selection of options round to round and generally just attack-moves.
You responded by saying that improv is an essential skill for playing a fighter and that they are mechanically equipped to improv better than any other class because of a larger Hit Die.
I responded that that's a load of shit because you seemingly play your games vaguely tangential to the actual rules of the game.
Rainfall on
+3
Options
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
I would say that this relevant excerpt from the 5e DMG pretty clearly defines the existence of GM Fiat
The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game. That said, your goal isn't to slaughter the adventurers but to create a campaign world that revolves around their actions and decisions, and to keep your players coming back for more! If you're lucky, the events of your campaign will echo in the memories of your players long after the final game session is concluded.
As a very social and charismatic (and not very humble) person, that feels really reductive.
I want more fleshed out social systems in games because I like playing face type characters because I like to talk. I don't want everything to be based around the fact that I'm good at talking through problems and getting my way - that's boring as hell, and removes the point of playing a game.
You're assuming that just because you like to talk your GM will always set the difficulty at a level where it's easy.
What I want, one day, is a high fantasy RPG which lets you play powerful high fantasy beings like Mages who can shatter castle walls and fighters who can slaughter a hundred men
But without classes or levels, without being horrendously unbalanced, without being super-tied to any setting, and without being entirely shit
Kingdom death?
Kingdom Death has a really slick art style and super detailed minis and is apparently a pretty decent game but also costs £300 for a base game
Which is a lot
Also you cannot buy it fresh and new
You can soon pre-order 1.5 core box.
Why
Why do you hate me so to tell me this
We actually love you and want you to join our happy cult family.
Honestly I feel like throwing a bag of flour at someone is a maneuver that a rogue would excel at, as opposed to a fighter
If you want to go around throwing flour at people to blind them you should probably play a rogue instead
That might be a smart move for the rogue in a different situation--like one where they had surprise on the orcs or were hidden.
In the situation I describe it could be dumb for the typical rogue in a high-lethality game because it would leave them exposed to likely less benefit than a thrown weapon.
The fighters job in that first round--as I described--is to reduce the orcs' ability to hurt the other PCs as much as possible in the first round so the rogue et al can get to better positions.
Wait, if this flour thing is not going to be as good as throwing a weapon, why is the fighter even bothering? Why don't they just attack?
Because it's the better option in some situations and not in others.
Every fight is a different situation.
0
Options
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
As a very social and charismatic (and not very humble) person, that feels really reductive.
I want more fleshed out social systems in games because I like playing face type characters because I like to talk. I don't want everything to be based around the fact that I'm good at talking through problems and getting my way - that's boring as hell, and removes the point of playing a game.
You're assuming that just because you like to talk your GM will always set the difficulty at a level where it's easy.
A challenge is a challenge.
How do you define a challenge in a social situation?
What I want, one day, is a high fantasy RPG which lets you play powerful high fantasy beings like Mages who can shatter castle walls and fighters who can slaughter a hundred men
But without classes or levels, without being horrendously unbalanced, without being super-tied to any setting, and without being entirely shit
Kingdom death?
Kingdom Death has a really slick art style and super detailed minis and is apparently a pretty decent game but also costs £300 for a base game
Which is a lot
Also you cannot buy it fresh and new
You can soon pre-order 1.5 core box.
Why
Why do you hate me so to tell me this
We actually love you and want you to join our happy cult family.
Yay I love cults families
Kingdom Death is a little too pin-up-y for me
BUT at the same time it does remind of Dark Souls and fuck me I love Dark Souls so much
Or for people who don't think their GM should be forced to arbitrate how charismatic they're pretending to be, or how compelling their argument is to a character the GM literally made up 30 seconds ago.
and this
...is better for people who are socially different.
is a really fuckin' shitty thing to say.
You seem to have taken that to a place far different than what I said:
"Some people like x because they're Y kind of people. Some people like Z because they're W kind of people. This isn't a failure to support, it's offering good support if you're Y."
0
Options
Captain Ultralow resolution pictures of birdsRegistered Userregular
edited September 2017
when I gm, if someone isn't comfortable speaking in character, I usually at least try to make them give me the tack that they're taking with their diplomacy roll. Its become kind of a running joke that if you're just trying to get them to like you, its by "name repetition, personality mirroring, and positive reinforcement through nods and smiles"
Captain Ultra on
+6
Options
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
Or for people who don't think their GM should be forced to arbitrate how charismatic they're pretending to be, or how compelling their argument is to a character the GM literally made up 30 seconds ago.
and this
...is better for people who are socially different.
is a really fuckin' shitty thing to say.
You seem to have taken that to a place far different than what I said:
"Some people like x because they're Y kind of people. Some people like Z because they're W kind of people. This isn't a failure to support, it's offering good support if you're Y."
I dunno what kind of interpretation you were looking for with "socially different" but sure, that's fine.
"Different people should play different games with different systems" is pretty much the whole point that you started arguing with in the first place, so I'm not sure why you're now dropping this like it's a knowledge bomb.
When I GM I expect people do try to play their character and that means if they're supposed to be charismatic and gregarious it's going to be hard for that to get across if they're a wallflower
However I also would say in that situation (which is the default example for this discussion but honestly I don't think I've ever really seen it in real life) that I'd let them roll their skill check, just like I'd let anyone else roll their skill check. I'd ask them what tack they are going to take and maybe add in some modifiers based on that, but if they're too shy or reserved to really say it out loud then okay, maybe give it a go next time, but sure roll the dice.
Typically I encourage people to play characters that will suit them however. And generally speaking, people tend to do that naturally. I don't usually play characters who are not comfortable with talking, because I'm very chatty. It just would be difficult for me to roleplay satisfactorily for myself, so I don't try. Actually I did once and that was fun but as a novelty more than anything. I had to keep forcing myself to shut up and not be expressive.
What I want, one day, is a high fantasy RPG which lets you play powerful high fantasy beings like Mages who can shatter castle walls and fighters who can slaughter a hundred men
But without classes or levels, without being horrendously unbalanced, without being super-tied to any setting, and without being entirely shit
Kingdom death?
Kingdom Death has a really slick art style and super detailed minis and is apparently a pretty decent game but also costs £300 for a base game
Which is a lot
Also you cannot buy it fresh and new
You can soon pre-order 1.5 core box.
Why
Why do you hate me so to tell me this
We actually love you and want you to join our happy cult family.
Yay I love cults families
Kingdom Death is a little too pin-up-y for me
BUT at the same time it does remind of Dark Souls and fuck me I love Dark Souls so much
What's the dealio with this 1.5 then?
1.5 is the updated/revised edition of the game. It includes both errata and revisions since the initial printing, and will also include some new events and weapons and stuff.
The 1.5 Kickstarter had an 1.5 update set that people who have the original release of the game to update, while all pre-orders that will be available will be the updated 1.5 version.
0
Options
Larlarconsecutive normal brunchesModerator, ClubPAmod
When I GM I expect people do try to play their character and that means if they're supposed to be charismatic and gregarious it's going to be hard for that to get across if they're a wallflower
However I also would say in that situation (which is the default example for this discussion but honestly I don't think I've ever really seen it in real life) that I'd let them roll their skill check, just like I'd let anyone else roll their skill check. I'd ask them what tack they are going to take and maybe add in some modifiers based on that, but if they're too shy or reserved to really say it out loud then okay, maybe give it a go next time, but sure roll the dice.
Typically I encourage people to play characters that will suit them however. And generally speaking, people tend to do that naturally. I don't usually play characters who are not comfortable with talking, because I'm very chatty. It just would be difficult for me to roleplay satisfactorily for myself, so I don't try. Actually I did once and that was fun but as a novelty more than anything. I had to keep forcing myself to shut up and not be expressive.
This is why I never play smart characters clearly. :rotate:
As a very social and charismatic (and not very humble) person, that feels really reductive.
I want more fleshed out social systems in games because I like playing face type characters because I like to talk. I don't want everything to be based around the fact that I'm good at talking through problems and getting my way - that's boring as hell, and removes the point of playing a game.
You're assuming that just because you like to talk your GM will always set the difficulty at a level where it's easy.
A challenge is a challenge.
How do you define a challenge in a social situation?
The NPC wants a thing or set of things that can only be discerned by...
...(if it's a non-system-mastery player challenge) a player who was paying attention to clues given by the NPCs speech, history or environment. If the player's good at these the GM can make the game more challenging by making the clues more obscure or require more questions.
The player who is up to the challenge makes an appeal to things the NPC cares about, even if these cares are hidden.
A good talker is a good listener--they know their audience.
If it's a system-mastery-based challenge or a character-skill based challenge then you'd do it in a different way.
Or for people who don't think their GM should be forced to arbitrate how charismatic they're pretending to be, or how compelling their argument is to a character the GM literally made up 30 seconds ago.
and this
...is better for people who are socially different.
is a really fuckin' shitty thing to say.
You seem to have taken that to a place far different than what I said:
"Some people like x because they're Y kind of people. Some people like Z because they're W kind of people. This isn't a failure to support, it's offering good support if you're Y."
I dunno what kind of interpretation you were looking for with "socially different" but sure, that's fine.
"Different people should play different games with different systems" is pretty much the whole point that you started arguing with in the first place, so I'm not sure why you're now dropping this like it's a knowledge bomb.
I am dropping it because it is exactly the opposite of what another person said which was that D&D's social system wasn't "good for certain people" they said it was "poorly designed".
Honestly I feel like throwing a bag of flour at someone is a maneuver that a rogue would excel at, as opposed to a fighter
If you want to go around throwing flour at people to blind them you should probably play a rogue instead
That might be a smart move for the rogue in a different situation--like one where they had surprise on the orcs or were hidden.
In the situation I describe it could be dumb for the typical rogue in a high-lethality game because it would leave them exposed to likely less benefit than a thrown weapon.
The fighters job in that first round--as I described--is to reduce the orcs' ability to hurt the other PCs as much as possible in the first round so the rogue et al can get to better positions.
Wait, if this flour thing is not going to be as good as throwing a weapon, why is the fighter even bothering? Why don't they just attack?
Because it's the better option in some situations and not in others.
Every fight is a different situation.
Okay but in the hypothetical Four Orcs Adventures scenario you presented, wherein it was posited that throwing a bag of flour might be a better option for the fighter because it could buy the squishies time to find cover: The fighter should throw flour because it's better than attacking and it will give the rogue time to hide, but the rogue shouldn't throw flour because it isn't better than attacking and wouldn't give the rogue time to hide?
And all of this is to highlight that a fighter has plenty of choices and they're not a one-trick pony, because they have more hit points?
Fun fact: in 5E a Wizard with the Mage Hand cantrip can drop 10lb bags of flour on opponents to blind them from 30ft reliably.
Which is a good tactic if they don't need to run a full move in round one to get out of the way of the orcs arrows on round one because they're so squishy and playing a high-lethality game.
0
Options
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
As a very social and charismatic (and not very humble) person, that feels really reductive.
I want more fleshed out social systems in games because I like playing face type characters because I like to talk. I don't want everything to be based around the fact that I'm good at talking through problems and getting my way - that's boring as hell, and removes the point of playing a game.
You're assuming that just because you like to talk your GM will always set the difficulty at a level where it's easy.
A challenge is a challenge.
How do you define a challenge in a social situation?
The NPC wants a thing or set of things that can only be discerned by...
...(if it's a non-system-mastery player challenge) a player who was paying attention to clues given by the NPCs speech, history or environment. If the player's good at these the GM can make the game more challenging by making the clues more obscure or require more questions.
The player who is up to the challenge makes an appeal to things the NPC cares about, even if these cares are hidden.
A good talker is a good listener--they know their audience.
If it's a system-mastery-based challenge or a character-skill based challenge then you'd do it in a different way.
So it's completely arbitrary, then? Like, the GM chooses all of these things behind the screen, and relies on the player being able to figure them out and use them in their improvised speech?
Isn't that kind of like GM fiat though? What gives the GM the power to say that the player's speech worked?
When I GM I expect people do try to play their character and that means if they're supposed to be charismatic and gregarious it's going to be hard for that to get across if they're a wallflower
However I also would say in that situation (which is the default example for this discussion but honestly I don't think I've ever really seen it in real life) that I'd let them roll their skill check, just like I'd let anyone else roll their skill check. I'd ask them what tack they are going to take and maybe add in some modifiers based on that, but if they're too shy or reserved to really say it out loud then okay, maybe give it a go next time, but sure roll the dice.
Typically I encourage people to play characters that will suit them however. And generally speaking, people tend to do that naturally. I don't usually play characters who are not comfortable with talking, because I'm very chatty. It just would be difficult for me to roleplay satisfactorily for myself, so I don't try. Actually I did once and that was fun but as a novelty more than anything. I had to keep forcing myself to shut up and not be expressive.
This is why I never play smart characters clearly. :rotate:
Playing a smart character is often a bit different I think
Because, like, well playing someone who is a genius in terms of plans an intuition and stuff can be tricky, but playing someone who is very intelligent in a sense of easily picking stuff up and understanding complex matters, being highly educated in technical fields etc etc etc, that's really just like playing a master swordsman or whatever; Buy a high skill and apply that to the role. Of course knowing how, like, the scientific method works is useful but typically playing say a genius Engineer comes down to "I need to fix the hyperdrive! Fortunately I'm a genius Engineer! I roll my Engineer skill and smash the difficulty!"
Posts
But that doesn't mean I won't go looking for another group to try the experimental stuff burning a hole through my bookshelf. There's so many different flavors of game I can't imagine sticking to just one.
Godbound sounds about 95% of what you want.
It's awesome, it's incredibly flexible, there are no classes, and a hundred normal soldiers is a low-level enemy. It does have an included setting, but it's super-easy to port the concepts over (I've been toying with a 'Gods of the Old West' thing, where it's an alternate-history American West but with godbound thrown in. No other magic or super-science or anything, just the old west with demigods roaming around.)
There are levels, but with no classes, 'level' is just an abstract measure of power; and in Godbound, in order to gain levels, you are required to both earn an appropriate number of experience points and spend an appropriate number of Dominion points. You have to earn the Dominion too, but you can't just stockpile it, you have to actually spend it, and the spending of Dominion reflects you using your divine power and will to make changes in the world. So it's impossible to be a high-level Godbound character who has not made a mark on the world (though it would be totally possible to be a Hephaestus-like reclusive smith who just sends artifacts into the world anonymously).
On classes and levels: I'm not entirely sold on either class/level or any of the replacements I've seen for it. Every system I've seen for character advancement has its flaws, I don't think there's a perfect way to do it, and it's really just a matter of which one you as a group prefer. The big advantage of class/level is that it's simpler than the other alternatives; you don't have to constantly alter your character and you don't have to pick from an enormous level of detail every time, by limiting your options and restricting your power gains to specific points it makes it much easier. Conversely, however, by limiting your options and restricting your power gains to specific points it limits your ability to customize. I don't think this is a thing that can be 'solved'; it's really just a matter of where on that continuum any specific solution falls.
On 5E bards/multiclassing: I think what bards really show off is when the MC system fails. When the MC system is good, bard as a class doesn't need to exist. You've got some magic, you've got some thievery, you've got some fighting; you should be a multiclass character, your class is based on the idea that you're good at everything but not especially good at any one thing. This is the reason why I dislike bards in almost every D&D edition (ironically, given my general feelings on 4E, I think 4E had the best bard of all editions except possibly the 1E version where it was a proto-prestige class). I do think it's bad when a class becomes too generic; classes shouldn't be hyper-specialized, because then they are not as useful and you need to have a ton of similar classes and it's bad, but they also shouldn't be too broad because then they are no longer useful. It's a line to walk; if saying your class name does not give people a good concept of what your class powers should be, then it's too broad. On the other hand, if your class can't support a reasonable number of subclasses within its umbrella (I would say that 2-3 is the minimum number of subclasses to support, and while I'm using the 5E terminology because it's great and I love the subclass idea, this is a generic statement about the viability of all classes in all systems), then it's probably too narrow.
DIESEL
Against the Fall of Night Playtest
Nasty, Brutish, and Short
Mage works fine one-on-one. It's probably a little easier in fact, because you can focus on the way the one character's belief system doesn't mesh with the world around them, without also having to reconcile their belief system with all the other belief systems of the other party members. The Council of Nine Traditions has pretty flimsy unity at the best of times, and it can be quite a juggling act figuring out why, aside from Storyteller fiat, all these people from vastly different backgrounds would endure each other.
Big things to keep in mind about Mages, assuming you're running the Council of Nine Traditions as the protagonists:
2.) They are not very sturdy at all. Unlike Vampires and Werewolves, they are not inherently much more tough to kill than just some normal human. Healing magic is a hell of a gamble, since so many credible threats can just one-shot you. And proactive defensive magic is difficult to sustain for long. The one place using magic to defend yourself really shines is defending against other magic. You don't get in a Wizard's Duel with a mage if you can sneak up and shoot him instead.
3.) Mages have a tendency to turn into hidden spymaster types, secure in a well-warded location, casting magic at a distance. The more EXP they have to put into Spheres, the harder it becomes to lure them out into the world. Be cautious about making tutors in the Correspondence sphere too easy to find. Unless they're a Virtual Adept obviously, in which case bunkering down in a control room somewhere is the whole schtick.
4.) Sphere Magic is incredibly flexible. Your player will do things that you did not anticipate. Your player will do things that make the most brilliant tale of improvisation from a D&D session sound like just another Tuesday. You can not account for all the things that even a beginning Sphere Mage can get up to. Keep your story plans extremely loose, and focus more on interesting NPCs and factions who could be entertaining to interact with in a wide variety of situations, rather than those who only matter if a specific sequence of events happen.
5.) If the character invests heavily in the Spirit Sphere, that can present a burden for you as the Storyteller at first, because now you have a whole alternate reality to populate with entities and locations. Depending on the edition of Mage you have, the writers may have noticed this problem and dramatically over-corrected for it in the form of the Avatar Storm. I recommend using the spirit world sparingly, but not cutting it off entirely. It can be a shortcut, a hiding place, a destination for an adventure, but it shouldn't become Home Base. The spirit world is often more nakedly dangerous than the material world, and even masters of the Spirit Sphere should never feel 100% comfortable there. Even if the Spirit World doesn't feature heavily in your story though, figure out who the major personalities are in the local Umbra and have them interact with the material world in ways your player can notice now and then. It'll go a long way to reminding them that the world is bigger and more complicated than it looks on the surface.
6.) It can be easy to make the Technocracy an insurmountable foe. Just remember, they look like the all-knowing government surveillance bogeyman because appearing omniscient is the keystone of their propaganda efforts. Try to make the actual Technocrats a few degrees less competent than their press releases would imply. They are not Agents in the Matrix, capable of appearing immediately whenever a reality deviant acts in public, but they have expended a great deal of effort convincing everyone that they are.
7.) Resist the temptation to make a comedy relief Marauder. Marauders should be upsetting. Make sure you know how your player feels about depictions of mental illness in their recreation activities before featuring them heavily.
8.) Rounding out the antagonist trinity, use the Nephandi extremely sparingly. They're a lot like Horror Movie Monsters, in that they become a lot less scary if you ever see them with any clarity. At that point a lot of storytellers will try to compensate by cranking up the gore and atrocities, but that tends to backfire by making them more gross than scary.
9.) Figure out now how you think Coincidental Magic should work. For example. My dude reaches into his standard issue 90's action hero trenchcoat and pulls out a Katana. He says he has had a Katana in there the whole time, but he is lying. Actually, he used Correspondence to pull his Katana through a wormhole from his apartment, or he used Matter to fabricate one out of a rolled up newspaper he had in there, or he used Prime to conjure one literally out of nothing. There is an interpretation of the rules where this is Coincidental, because maybe he really did have a Katana in there you don't know for sure, and there is an interpretation where this is Vulgar Without Witnesses, because what happens in his trenchcoat still happens and is still impossible within the bounds of the dominant reality paradigm. This is a goofy as hell argument, and the Mage books never really figured out where they stood on the matter, so decide an interpretation for yourself in advance. The most important thing is that you're consistent about the logic underlying your rulings on different spells, so your players will be able to pick up the pattern.
10.) As a first time mage ST, I'd strongly suggest avoiding including crossovers with any of the other supernatural protagonist types. Vampires and Werewolves and Ghosts and Faeries all carry their own metaphysical implications that can severely alter the tone and flavor of a Mage game. And to be frank, the crossover rules are easily the most half-assed part of a notoriously sloppy system.
Like. What kind of samurai? The armored mounted warrior that uses a bow? The Daimyo? The wandering kenshi who values honor above all else? Supernaturally-skilled swordsman who only wears a robe? The cultured poet-duellist?
Those were already in the game*.
*in 4e at least
Man I'd be thrilled if my players invested any energy into learning any game that we play.
I ran Shadowrun 5E for a year and a half of weekly games.
I am still the only member of that group who knows how to play it.
DIESEL
Against the Fall of Night Playtest
Nasty, Brutish, and Short
Ugh. Everything just blurred together into kind of a mess of "say how you're a badass, okay now roll a d10 for damage"
There's some conceits that I liked but it didn't do anything for me in play. I haven't been that bleh about a system since Dresden Files.
It supports the kind of social play that it supports.
That's not good for everyone--but it's fantastic for the people who like it.
Mechanizing social play more or in different ways is better for people who are socially different.
It's not contrary: you need to know both.
I didn't say "attacking is the worst option" I said "ALWAYS attacking in the same way is not always optimal"
And once you use it, the sack of flour can't go around forcing a Dex save on some occasions and being an insta-blind on others.
and this
is a really fuckin' shitty thing to say.
I want more fleshed out social systems in games because I like playing face type characters because I like to talk. I don't want everything to be based around the fact that I'm good at talking through problems and getting my way - that's boring as hell, and removes the point of playing a game.
That might be a smart move for the rogue in a different situation--like one where they had surprise on the orcs or were hidden.
In the situation I describe it could be dumb for the typical rogue in a high-lethality game because it would leave them exposed to likely less benefit than a thrown weapon.
The fighters job in that first round--as I described--is to reduce the orcs' ability to hurt the other PCs as much as possible in the first round so the rogue et al can get to better positions.
Wait, if this flour thing is not going to be as good as throwing a weapon, why is the fighter even bothering? Why don't they just attack?
If the Orcs can insta-kill the wizard and thief, again, as you described, why can't the fighter insta-kill the Orcs? Or the rogue striking from stealth, or the cleric casts a defensive ward?
Why is shoving the Orc a better option than just killing it?
That's not what happened that's pretty much the opposite--
Someone said the fighter has but one option in D&D.
I said they don't and gae 8 examples.
Someone else said some of them "depend on GM fiat".
I said they do not and that "GM Fiat" isn't a thing because the GM has no special abilities.
The first person is maintaining a stance that requires ALL D&D players to have their GM.
I am maintaining a stance which simply says SOME people do it differently.
Softball has an umpire. If your umpire doesn't work for you, you have a conversation about it.
"Calvinball" is not relevant here--that's a game where one player makes up the rules, which is not what we're talking about. Even in pick-up softball you have to make communal decisions about things like the infield fly rule, slow pitch vs fast pitch etc.
Decisions about rules in D&D are always communal and players ratify them by accepting them or not.
And the words "D&D" do not demand a default playstyle, just as the words "softball" do not demand that one or the other team play defense first.
You have to have a conversation about how you're going to play (or at least be able to articulate it if it comes up) and not assume a default.
I discussed that explicitly in the original example:
You have 4 orcs.
If you might insta kill one orc but that still leaves 3 to attack your glass cannons in the next round.
That's a crucial round because neither party has surprise, so the party's not in good positions. The Wizard and thief aren't in cover or hidden or behind chokepoints, etc
So the best move for the fighter in round 1 might not be instantly take out 1 guy but rather distract as many orcs as possible for one round.
You responded by saying that improv is an essential skill for playing a fighter and that they are mechanically equipped to improv better than any other class because of a larger Hit Die.
I responded that that's a load of shit because you seemingly play your games vaguely tangential to the actual rules of the game.
You're assuming that just because you like to talk your GM will always set the difficulty at a level where it's easy.
A challenge is a challenge.
We actually love you and want you to join our happy cult family.
Because it's the better option in some situations and not in others.
Every fight is a different situation.
How do you define a challenge in a social situation?
Yay I love cults families
Kingdom Death is a little too pin-up-y for me
BUT at the same time it does remind of Dark Souls and fuck me I love Dark Souls so much
What's the dealio with this 1.5 then?
You seem to have taken that to a place far different than what I said:
"Some people like x because they're Y kind of people. Some people like Z because they're W kind of people. This isn't a failure to support, it's offering good support if you're Y."
I dunno what kind of interpretation you were looking for with "socially different" but sure, that's fine.
"Different people should play different games with different systems" is pretty much the whole point that you started arguing with in the first place, so I'm not sure why you're now dropping this like it's a knowledge bomb.
However I also would say in that situation (which is the default example for this discussion but honestly I don't think I've ever really seen it in real life) that I'd let them roll their skill check, just like I'd let anyone else roll their skill check. I'd ask them what tack they are going to take and maybe add in some modifiers based on that, but if they're too shy or reserved to really say it out loud then okay, maybe give it a go next time, but sure roll the dice.
Typically I encourage people to play characters that will suit them however. And generally speaking, people tend to do that naturally. I don't usually play characters who are not comfortable with talking, because I'm very chatty. It just would be difficult for me to roleplay satisfactorily for myself, so I don't try. Actually I did once and that was fun but as a novelty more than anything. I had to keep forcing myself to shut up and not be expressive.
1.5 is the updated/revised edition of the game. It includes both errata and revisions since the initial printing, and will also include some new events and weapons and stuff.
The 1.5 Kickstarter had an 1.5 update set that people who have the original release of the game to update, while all pre-orders that will be available will be the updated 1.5 version.
That's way more practical than the 10lb cakes my mummy wizard was always baking a safe distance away from the heat source.
A trio of wizards acting from stealth can make for a really good 10lb juggling act!
This is why I never play smart characters clearly. :rotate:
The NPC wants a thing or set of things that can only be discerned by...
...(if it's a non-system-mastery player challenge) a player who was paying attention to clues given by the NPCs speech, history or environment. If the player's good at these the GM can make the game more challenging by making the clues more obscure or require more questions.
The player who is up to the challenge makes an appeal to things the NPC cares about, even if these cares are hidden.
A good talker is a good listener--they know their audience.
If it's a system-mastery-based challenge or a character-skill based challenge then you'd do it in a different way.
I am dropping it because it is exactly the opposite of what another person said which was that D&D's social system wasn't "good for certain people" they said it was "poorly designed".
Okay but in the hypothetical Four Orcs Adventures scenario you presented, wherein it was posited that throwing a bag of flour might be a better option for the fighter because it could buy the squishies time to find cover: The fighter should throw flour because it's better than attacking and it will give the rogue time to hide, but the rogue shouldn't throw flour because it isn't better than attacking and wouldn't give the rogue time to hide?
And all of this is to highlight that a fighter has plenty of choices and they're not a one-trick pony, because they have more hit points?
Which is a good tactic if they don't need to run a full move in round one to get out of the way of the orcs arrows on round one because they're so squishy and playing a high-lethality game.
So it's completely arbitrary, then? Like, the GM chooses all of these things behind the screen, and relies on the player being able to figure them out and use them in their improvised speech?
Isn't that kind of like GM fiat though? What gives the GM the power to say that the player's speech worked?
Playing a smart character is often a bit different I think
Because, like, well playing someone who is a genius in terms of plans an intuition and stuff can be tricky, but playing someone who is very intelligent in a sense of easily picking stuff up and understanding complex matters, being highly educated in technical fields etc etc etc, that's really just like playing a master swordsman or whatever; Buy a high skill and apply that to the role. Of course knowing how, like, the scientific method works is useful but typically playing say a genius Engineer comes down to "I need to fix the hyperdrive! Fortunately I'm a genius Engineer! I roll my Engineer skill and smash the difficulty!"