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!"
Yeah, I think stuff like how to handle 'excellent tactician' or 'incredible investigator' are always rather interesting questions. Because that sort of mental work is usually the sort of thing that is up to player (not character) agency and a good roll usually just means the GM is put on the spot, not the player.
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.
Whether the passage is well-written or not, the fact remains there is literally no force on earth that makes the players accept any given person as a DM.
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 is true that the same rough statistics are available to all characters who decide to invest into combat powers in Godbound, but that's largely because of both classlessness and noncombat characters actually being viable.
If you're going to play a game of dungeon delving or other standard D&D adventure-types, I agree, Godbound is terrible at it. I probably should have mentioned that!
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.
Whether the passage is well-written or not, the fact remains there is literally no force on earth that makes the players accept any given person as a DM.
That's not the point.
You stated that the GM has no special powers.
That passage directly contradicts what you've said.
Yeah, the players can choose to get up and leave the game, but we've now exited the world of playing Dungeons and Dragons. That is completely outside of the context of the game, and therefore has absolutely no relevance in the conversation at hand.
0
Options
MaddocI'm Bobbin Threadbare, are you my mother?Registered Userregular
I encourage people to play characters that are outside of their comfort zone if they'd like, because the rules and mechanics exist to facilitate the act of playing a character that you are not and whose capabilities and experiences are different from your own. I don't give people a first aid pop quiz or pull out the CPR dummy when they make a Heal check, and they are not required to convince my cat to warm up to them upon performing a Handle Animal check.
It can be cool when people are able to bring their own personal experiences and skills into their character, but it's far from necessary.
Different groups are going to handle social challenges differently because that's how group dynamics affect the game.
I rarely call for social skill rolls -- I prefer my players to come up with a convincing argument, clever solution, or otherwise play the role they've adopted. If it's someone who isn't comfortable speaking I'm going to encourage them to try it anyway. If they can't handle it with some encouragement, I'll let them use the dice.
Once they give it a try, I'll consider it from the perspective of whomever they're targeting. If it's a good argument, they'll probably succeed. If it's not, the target may counter them, in which case they can either try to riposte or they can ask to roll off.
Some people resist, but I can't recall anyone who stuck around that didn't eventually get comfortable trying to do the quick-talking themself, for example.
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?
No. It's not all or nothing:
The Charisma stat and its related skills are very useful.
A player, by talking alone using player skill, can describe:
What a PC says
What they (the player) notice about the NPCs
How they say it (depending on acting skill)
What logic they use
What they offer in exchange
etc.
A player cannot accurately and totally describe (and thus must rely on a PC's charisma stats) for:
Whether that appeal does or does not match the PC's appearance (some comedians can get away with some jokes because of their appearance that aren't funny coming out of older, younger, fatter, skinnier people etc) since the appearance only "appears" to fictional characters.
Whether the NPC are in a mood to listen or have hidden factors that make them less or more inclined to suspicion
The die and character sheet number represents the randomness of those last 2 factors (at the least) but can be modified by the other factors that the player can describe.
Zak Sabbath on
0
Options
Captain Ultralow resolution pictures of birdsRegistered Userregular
I encourage people to play characters that are outside of their comfort zone if they'd like, because the rules and mechanics exist to facilitate the act of playing a character that you are not and whose capabilities and experiences are different from your own. I don't give people a first aid pop quiz or pull out the CPR dummy when they make a Heal check, and they are not required to convince my cat to warm up to them upon performing a Handle Animal check.
It can be cool when people are able to bring their own personal experiences and skills into their character, but it's far from necessary.
I actually usually prefer people not to bring in their personal skills when it comes to their character. (My buddy, a chemist, playing an alchemist convinced me of that). You might know how biology works here on Earth, but there are dragons and owlbears and all that. I'd be cooler with it in games that actually take place on Earth instead of Oerth or Golarion or y'know, whatever.
+3
Options
MaddocI'm Bobbin Threadbare, are you my mother?Registered Userregular
I encourage people to play characters that are outside of their comfort zone if they'd like, because the rules and mechanics exist to facilitate the act of playing a character that you are not and whose capabilities and experiences are different from your own. I don't give people a first aid pop quiz or pull out the CPR dummy when they make a Heal check, and they are not required to convince my cat to warm up to them upon performing a Handle Animal check.
It can be cool when people are able to bring their own personal experiences and skills into their character, but it's far from necessary.
I actually usually prefer people not to bring in their personal skills when it comes to their character. (My buddy, a chemist, playing an alchemist convinced me of that). You might know how biology works here on Earth, but there are dragons and owlbears and all that. I'd be cooler with it in games that actually take place on Earth instead of Oerth or Golarion or y'know, whatever.
I was actually going to mention that I've seen people be extremely obnoxious about that too, but I felt like that would just be getting nit-picky, but yes I agree with you on some level.
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.
So where would I be able to buy this fabled 1.5 set?
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?
The specific idea is that: here in round one where everyone's out in the open and nobody's in a chosen position, the fighter has many options.
This was to address two specific statements:
1 The fighter can/should only do one thing in a fight (not true), then later
2 "If you want to throw flour you are better off being a rogue" (not true in this specific situation I described, which I chose bc it was the most boring tactical set-up imaginable )
Does anyone else remember the book of weaboo fightan magic
Because there was a reason why people loved that book and it wasn't because it meant fighters got to sit there and swing el swordo all day and all night long
+1
Options
MaddocI'm Bobbin Threadbare, are you my mother?Registered Userregular
Like I'm just saying, if the EMT I play with wanted to treat an injury to a player or NPC or something and wanted to describe the proper procedure instead of rolling a Heal check, he wouldn't get any further than the person who crafted a well reasoned and compelling argument for why that guard should let them into the Duke's palace without rolling a persuade check.
I mean, I thought the argument was pretty good, but what's the guard think? Let's ask the dice!
I still own a copy of the dbz adventure game rulebook.
0
Options
MaddocI'm Bobbin Threadbare, are you my mother?Registered Userregular
So I mentioned this earlier, but I'll elaborate on it more
5e Fighter might be the perfect class, because the archetypes are laid out in such a way that you can fine tune exactly how many combat options you want to think about. Champion is extremely simple and allows people to play a very old school fighter that hits things with a weapon and passively gets more powerful as he levels, Battle Master and Eldritch Knight give you active improvements that give you more options in combat in various ways.
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
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.
Incorrect--they said the only thing a fighter should do is "move to optimal position--attack" .
You responded by saying that improv is an essential skill for playing a fighter
No i said that the fighter had other good options besides the one described above.
and that they are mechanically equipped to improv better than any other class because of a larger Hit Die.
No I said they were better equipped for certain kinds of improv in open combat, and I described 8 examples, some of which require improv and some don't/
I responded that that's a load of shit because you seemingly play your games vaguely tangential to the actual rules of the game.
The "rules of the game" and the "list of pre-written moves on your character sheet" are two different things.
A PC can take off one of their boots. That's allowed in the rules. It's just not listed as a pre-statted option in terms of (for example) how long it takes on their character sheet.
I also pointed out that PCs doing effective things not described in mechanical detail on their character sheet is not only in the rules but a common practice, and gave examples.
I didn't ever say you had to play this way--only that it's supported and gives you options.
None of that about improv is even necessary to accept to get the premise that even the fighter has more than one good option in even the dullest fight (since only a few of the options involved what you called "improv").
0
Options
MaddocI'm Bobbin Threadbare, are you my mother?Registered Userregular
You can always tell an argument has gone one hundred percent completely down the shitter once people start breaking out individual statements in posts to refute them individually.
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
So FATE then
Speaketh not of such blasphemies in my presence, fiend!
0
Options
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
I feel like all of these hypotheticals have a lot of information that's being hidden from everyone else in the conversation for the sake of having a quick rebuttal.
Also there is going to be a revised edition of the netrunner core set apparently?
Looks like it's just going to be the core set, minus some cards, plus some cards from data packs that are getting cycled out
So it's entirely possible that if you play Netrunner, you'll already have all the cards
Although the new art for Santiago is WAY WAY BETTER
I never kept up with it. We got some of the data packs but not all and only a 2 big expansions.
I feel like the competitive Meta got out of hand really fast. In a way that I couldn't keep up anyway. I don't like games with high skill ceilings to the point where you can easily get blasted by a player with much more knowledge of the cards because they have more time and energy to spend on it than you. Kinda defeats the purpose of the living card game thing for me.
Look I'm just saying, FATE gives you relativistic power curves, very little mechanical progression which both solves the levels and balance issues, and has absolutely no setting requirements.
It's not the most incredible RPG system on the planet but it will absolutely deliver what you're asking for, because your input and output is textured to look however you want it to; the dice are just telling you degrees of success.
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.
Whether the passage is well-written or not, the fact remains there is literally no force on earth that makes the players accept any given person as a DM.
That's not the point.
You stated that the GM has no special powers.
That passage directly contradicts what you've said.
I said they have no special powers to enforce their decisions.
Like: the Cleric player has the "special power" to control what the cleric says and the thief has the "Special power" to control what the thief says and the GM has the "special power" to make rules calls, but none of them have any power in real life to force the other players to accept any of these things if they are irritating.
So the idea of "GM fiat" implying the GM call is a baseless tyranny that endangers the game or limits it is like saying letting the cleric player decide what comes out of the clerics mouth is a baseless tyranny that endangers the game or limits it.
The GM's "fiat" is only as bad as the GM is as a person. A bad cleric player can have their pc be wildly anti-semitic, this is a problem not because of the power given to the cleric player, it's a problem that that person is a jerk. And there is nothing that compels you to stick around if someone is using the role given to them to make the game less fun.
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?
The specific idea is that: here in round one where everyone's out in the open and nobody's in a chosen position, the fighter has many options.
This was to address two specific statements:
1 The fighter can/should only do one thing in a fight (not true, then later
2 "If you want to throw flour you are better off being a rogue" (not true in this specific situation I described, which I chose bc it was the most boring tactical set-up imaginable )
Yup I follow.
So why isn't it true in the specific situation you described? Why is it a good choice for the fighter, but not for the rogue, when the outcome for either is "buy the rogue time to hide"? Put another way, why shouldn't the rogue cause the distraction (likely having a better attribute/skill combo for achieving the desired effect) while the fighter kills something (likely having a better attribute/skill combo for achieving the desired effect).
Do you think maybe your hypothetical scenario doesn't really address the idea that started this whole thing (which is that in D&D, attacking and doing as much damage as possible is usually the most tactically sound option for a fighter)?
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
So FATE then
Speaketh not of such blasphemies in my presence, fiend!
uh seriously, though, you just made up a perfectly valid FATE setting that you could run with the core rulebook and a few character sheets.
FATE does have levels, technically, but you can just ignore them if you want.
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.
Whether the passage is well-written or not, the fact remains there is literally no force on earth that makes the players accept any given person as a DM.
That's not the point.
You stated that the GM has no special powers.
That passage directly contradicts what you've said.
I said they have no special powers to enforce their decisions.
Like: the Cleric player has the "special power" to control what the cleric says and the thief has the "Special power" to control what the thief says and the GM has the "special power" to make rules calls, but none of them have any power in real life to force the other players to accept any of these things if they are irritating.
So the idea of "GM fiat" implying the GM call is a baseless tyranny that endangers the game or limits it is like saying letting the cleric player decide what comes out of the clerics mouth is a baseless tyranny that endangers the game or limits it.
The GM's "fiat" is only as bad as the GM is as a person. A bad cleric player can have their pc be wildly anti-semitic, this is a problem not because of the power given to the cleric player, it's a problem that that person is a jerk. And there is nothing that compels you to stick around if someone is using the role given to them to make the game less fun.
We can't place the strength of the system entirely on the strength of the GM. That is deeply unfair to both parties.
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.
If it's a high lethality game then they're probably packing Mage Armor to give themselves an AC comparable to a low level fighter in heavy armor, not a huge deal, and Shield for emergencies.
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?
The specific idea is that: here in round one where everyone's out in the open and nobody's in a chosen position, the fighter has many options.
This was to address two specific statements:
1 The fighter can/should only do one thing in a fight (not true, then later
2 "If you want to throw flour you are better off being a rogue" (not true in this specific situation I described, which I chose bc it was the most boring tactical set-up imaginable )
Yup I follow.
So why isn't it true in the specific situation you described?
The rogue can die easily in the first round because they're out in the open. The rogue could easily die in roudn one soI reposted the situation below.
Do you think maybe your hypothetical scenario doesn't really address the idea that started this whole thing (which is that in D&D, attacking and doing as much damage as possible is usually the most tactically sound option for a fighter)?
Not at all, I address exactly that explicitly and repeatedly. Here it is:
....the fighter's high hp support them doing a LOT of things that aren't written down on their character sheet that are risky for other players.
The heart of a challenge-based game is exactly doing things that aren't on your character sheet that nevertheless are better for your PC to do than the others.
Lets take a look at a really boring (but high-lethality) fight (if we used an interesting one, the fighters choices might artificially be more interesting).
Party--
Fighter, Thief, Wizard, Cleric, all in the open
Enemies--
4 humanoids with the same HD as the low-level party. We'll say orcs (without reference to any specific edition's orcs--just assume they're maybe a little worse than your fighter), also all in the open. None have classes, etc. In a dungeon.
Neither party gets surprise or knows about the other ahead of time.
Fighter's turn:
Ok, we have immediately a terrible situation--the orcs have a decent chance of one-shotting your wizard and maybe your thief.
Things to remember:
1. If you just engage and (decent chance) kill one orc (that is: take optimal position, roll hit, damage--the "boring fighter" option) you've done your job, but you still left the orcs a very good chance of killing your pals.
2. All these options are technically available to other PCs but WAY more likely to kill them because the fighter has the higher hp. Also in many cases these are less likely to work because the fighter's more likely to hit what they aim at.
3. This is merely the most boring scenario I could think of--as soon as it becomes more complex by even a fraction, the fighter's option grow from here. Nearly every single combat you'll have has more options than this
So, some super-basic options before even getting into creative stuff:
Melee the biggest guy (you're tying him up in melee so he can't hurt your friends).
Go for the littlest guy (best chance of one-shotting the orc and thus erasing their ability to cause damage in the next round).
Go full movement and run past the orcs to whatever room they came out of. If they're protecting something then they've got to turn around and chase you. If it's really valuable they might send 2 guys, thus giving your glass cannon classes a turn to move to a position that's tactically optimal (thief hidden, wizard sniping with spells from cover).
Use a grappling hook, 10' pole or other area-denial tactic (not to do damage) but to try to prevent at least 2 orcs from getting any meleeing. (Again, giving your glass cannon classes a turn to move to a position that's tactically optimal.)
Throw a big bag of flour or something somewhere where it blocks vision for at least 2 of them. (Again, giving your glass cannon classes an extra turn to move to a position that's tactically optimal.)
Attack the middle-position orc with a loud and extra insulting curse, trying to convince as many of their fellows to concentrate this round on just the fighter (ie tank as hard as possible).
Grapple the guy in the back, thus causing at least one other to come help him out or respond to a hostage situation. (They're orcs so maybe they don't care about hostages. But even if you just successfully grapple you've denied the orc the ability to attack your friends undeniably for one round--they need to break the grapple before they attack--thus making it in many cases better than just hitting him, since if you hit him and don't kill him (one more roll required than grappling in most systems) he might just turn and shoot an arrow at your wizard anyway.)
Set a fire between the orcs and the party.
That's 8 things to do that even the most boring situation offers. Once there are trees, or traps, or one party sees the other first or the fighter has any kind of unusual toy to play with, or anyone in the party is anywhere other than the most expected place in a regular rectangular room, if there's a doorway or chokepoint, or if the initiative order means team attacks can be set up, or the enemies are any more varied or have any more complex abilities or weaknesses, these options expand.
Why can't the wizard/rogue/cleric do anything to lock down the opponents, why is it solely the fighter's job? You keep saying 'the fighter has more HP' as if they can't also be one-shotted by an orc with a greataxe at level one just like anyone else.
Rainfall on
+2
Options
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
I've played a lot of rogues over the years, and let me tell you, my first action of combat has never been "run for cover"
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.
Whether the passage is well-written or not, the fact remains there is literally no force on earth that makes the players accept any given person as a DM.
That's not the point.
You stated that the GM has no special powers.
That passage directly contradicts what you've said.
I said they have no special powers to enforce their decisions.
Like: the Cleric player has the "special power" to control what the cleric says and the thief has the "Special power" to control what the thief says and the GM has the "special power" to make rules calls, but none of them have any power in real life to force the other players to accept any of these things if they are irritating.
So the idea of "GM fiat" implying the GM call is a baseless tyranny that endangers the game or limits it is like saying letting the cleric player decide what comes out of the clerics mouth is a baseless tyranny that endangers the game or limits it.
The GM's "fiat" is only as bad as the GM is as a person. A bad cleric player can have their pc be wildly anti-semitic, this is a problem not because of the power given to the cleric player, it's a problem that that person is a jerk. And there is nothing that compels you to stick around if someone is using the role given to them to make the game less fun.
We can't place the strength of the system entirely on the strength of the GM. That is deeply unfair to both parties.
There are upsides and downsides to creating situations that require a lot of adjudication.
Some people want those upsides and so risk the downsides. Some people do not want those upsides enough to rave the downsides.
Again: most professional game designers on big games and most of the GMs you'll see on popular livestreams of the game have chosen to go with GM-calls as common. This doesn't make it better or more common, but it does point out it isn't some rare martian playstyle or something that must always result in a trainwreck.
I've played a lot of rogues over the years, and let me tell you, my first action of combat has never been "run for cover"
Legit.
How lethal is your game?
0
Options
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
Also, pretty much all of those options are still things that another class can do just as well, if not better. Plus the additional options that they get from their class.
That's the point. Fighters only have basic options, and even if you're adding in bags of flour and Molotov cocktails, those aren't options specific to the fighter.
Zak, your entire scenario is predicated on the idea that only the fighter can stop the orcs from hurting your party and that's just completely incorrect. The Wizard can cast a spell(Sleep is great!) the Rogue can hide, the cleric can cast a spell or engage with an equally high AC as the fighter.
Also, 'high lethality' is bullshit, if you're playing a game where anyone can die to any one attack, you're just rolling dice because you cannot be invested in your character, it takes more time to generate a character and concept than it does for them to die. It's one of the most significant complaints and frequent fixes with regards to 5E that I've seen(and smooths out around level 3+, deliberately. Heroes don't die on a moment's notice, and modern D&D is about playing heroes)
Posts
Yeah, I think stuff like how to handle 'excellent tactician' or 'incredible investigator' are always rather interesting questions. Because that sort of mental work is usually the sort of thing that is up to player (not character) agency and a good roll usually just means the GM is put on the spot, not the player.
Whether the passage is well-written or not, the fact remains there is literally no force on earth that makes the players accept any given person as a DM.
It is true that the same rough statistics are available to all characters who decide to invest into combat powers in Godbound, but that's largely because of both classlessness and noncombat characters actually being viable.
If you're going to play a game of dungeon delving or other standard D&D adventure-types, I agree, Godbound is terrible at it. I probably should have mentioned that!
DIESEL
Against the Fall of Night Playtest
Nasty, Brutish, and Short
That's not the point.
You stated that the GM has no special powers.
That passage directly contradicts what you've said.
Yeah, the players can choose to get up and leave the game, but we've now exited the world of playing Dungeons and Dragons. That is completely outside of the context of the game, and therefore has absolutely no relevance in the conversation at hand.
It can be cool when people are able to bring their own personal experiences and skills into their character, but it's far from necessary.
I rarely call for social skill rolls -- I prefer my players to come up with a convincing argument, clever solution, or otherwise play the role they've adopted. If it's someone who isn't comfortable speaking I'm going to encourage them to try it anyway. If they can't handle it with some encouragement, I'll let them use the dice.
Once they give it a try, I'll consider it from the perspective of whomever they're targeting. If it's a good argument, they'll probably succeed. If it's not, the target may counter them, in which case they can either try to riposte or they can ask to roll off.
Some people resist, but I can't recall anyone who stuck around that didn't eventually get comfortable trying to do the quick-talking themself, for example.
No. It's not all or nothing:
The Charisma stat and its related skills are very useful.
A player, by talking alone using player skill, can describe:
What a PC says
What they (the player) notice about the NPCs
How they say it (depending on acting skill)
What logic they use
What they offer in exchange
etc.
A player cannot accurately and totally describe (and thus must rely on a PC's charisma stats) for:
Whether that appeal does or does not match the PC's appearance (some comedians can get away with some jokes because of their appearance that aren't funny coming out of older, younger, fatter, skinnier people etc) since the appearance only "appears" to fictional characters.
Whether the NPC are in a mood to listen or have hidden factors that make them less or more inclined to suspicion
The die and character sheet number represents the randomness of those last 2 factors (at the least) but can be modified by the other factors that the player can describe.
I actually usually prefer people not to bring in their personal skills when it comes to their character. (My buddy, a chemist, playing an alchemist convinced me of that). You might know how biology works here on Earth, but there are dragons and owlbears and all that. I'd be cooler with it in games that actually take place on Earth instead of Oerth or Golarion or y'know, whatever.
I was actually going to mention that I've seen people be extremely obnoxious about that too, but I felt like that would just be getting nit-picky, but yes I agree with you on some level.
So where would I be able to buy this fabled 1.5 set?
The specific idea is that: here in round one where everyone's out in the open and nobody's in a chosen position, the fighter has many options.
This was to address two specific statements:
1 The fighter can/should only do one thing in a fight (not true), then later
2 "If you want to throw flour you are better off being a rogue" (not true in this specific situation I described, which I chose bc it was the most boring tactical set-up imaginable )
Because there was a reason why people loved that book and it wasn't because it meant fighters got to sit there and swing el swordo all day and all night long
I mean, I thought the argument was pretty good, but what's the guard think? Let's ask the dice!
5e Fighter might be the perfect class, because the archetypes are laid out in such a way that you can fine tune exactly how many combat options you want to think about. Champion is extremely simple and allows people to play a very old school fighter that hits things with a weapon and passively gets more powerful as he levels, Battle Master and Eldritch Knight give you active improvements that give you more options in combat in various ways.
So FATE then
A list of things, should you be of the gifting persuasion
Looks like it's just going to be the core set, minus some cards, plus some cards from data packs that are getting cycled out
So it's entirely possible that if you play Netrunner, you'll already have all the cards
Although the new art for Santiago is WAY WAY BETTER
Incorrect--they said the only thing a fighter should do is "move to optimal position--attack" .
No i said that the fighter had other good options besides the one described above.
No I said they were better equipped for certain kinds of improv in open combat, and I described 8 examples, some of which require improv and some don't/
The "rules of the game" and the "list of pre-written moves on your character sheet" are two different things.
A PC can take off one of their boots. That's allowed in the rules. It's just not listed as a pre-statted option in terms of (for example) how long it takes on their character sheet.
I also pointed out that PCs doing effective things not described in mechanical detail on their character sheet is not only in the rules but a common practice, and gave examples.
I didn't ever say you had to play this way--only that it's supported and gives you options.
None of that about improv is even necessary to accept to get the premise that even the fighter has more than one good option in even the dullest fight (since only a few of the options involved what you called "improv").
Speaketh not of such blasphemies in my presence, fiend!
I never kept up with it. We got some of the data packs but not all and only a 2 big expansions.
I feel like the competitive Meta got out of hand really fast. In a way that I couldn't keep up anyway. I don't like games with high skill ceilings to the point where you can easily get blasted by a player with much more knowledge of the cards because they have more time and energy to spend on it than you. Kinda defeats the purpose of the living card game thing for me.
It's not the most incredible RPG system on the planet but it will absolutely deliver what you're asking for, because your input and output is textured to look however you want it to; the dice are just telling you degrees of success.
A list of things, should you be of the gifting persuasion
I made a fairly classical superhero, and I think all my other friends made the monster squad?
Like it's going to be a speedster, a zombie detective, a ghost, and a plant monster
It's just I personally have an irrational hate of FATE. I have a rational dislike of it, too, but also an irrational hate of it :P
I said they have no special powers to enforce their decisions.
Like: the Cleric player has the "special power" to control what the cleric says and the thief has the "Special power" to control what the thief says and the GM has the "special power" to make rules calls, but none of them have any power in real life to force the other players to accept any of these things if they are irritating.
So the idea of "GM fiat" implying the GM call is a baseless tyranny that endangers the game or limits it is like saying letting the cleric player decide what comes out of the clerics mouth is a baseless tyranny that endangers the game or limits it.
The GM's "fiat" is only as bad as the GM is as a person. A bad cleric player can have their pc be wildly anti-semitic, this is a problem not because of the power given to the cleric player, it's a problem that that person is a jerk. And there is nothing that compels you to stick around if someone is using the role given to them to make the game less fun.
Yup I follow.
So why isn't it true in the specific situation you described? Why is it a good choice for the fighter, but not for the rogue, when the outcome for either is "buy the rogue time to hide"? Put another way, why shouldn't the rogue cause the distraction (likely having a better attribute/skill combo for achieving the desired effect) while the fighter kills something (likely having a better attribute/skill combo for achieving the desired effect).
Do you think maybe your hypothetical scenario doesn't really address the idea that started this whole thing (which is that in D&D, attacking and doing as much damage as possible is usually the most tactically sound option for a fighter)?
I had a very similar thing happen for a superhero game once. People love their monster squads I guess.
uh seriously, though, you just made up a perfectly valid FATE setting that you could run with the core rulebook and a few character sheets.
FATE does have levels, technically, but you can just ignore them if you want.
We can't place the strength of the system entirely on the strength of the GM. That is deeply unfair to both parties.
If it's a high lethality game then they're probably packing Mage Armor to give themselves an AC comparable to a low level fighter in heavy armor, not a huge deal, and Shield for emergencies.
The rogue can die easily in the first round because they're out in the open. The rogue could easily die in roudn one soI reposted the situation below.
Not at all, I address exactly that explicitly and repeatedly. Here it is:
....the fighter's high hp support them doing a LOT of things that aren't written down on their character sheet that are risky for other players.
The heart of a challenge-based game is exactly doing things that aren't on your character sheet that nevertheless are better for your PC to do than the others.
Lets take a look at a really boring (but high-lethality) fight (if we used an interesting one, the fighters choices might artificially be more interesting).
Party--
Fighter, Thief, Wizard, Cleric, all in the open
Enemies--
4 humanoids with the same HD as the low-level party. We'll say orcs (without reference to any specific edition's orcs--just assume they're maybe a little worse than your fighter), also all in the open. None have classes, etc. In a dungeon.
Neither party gets surprise or knows about the other ahead of time.
Fighter's turn:
Ok, we have immediately a terrible situation--the orcs have a decent chance of one-shotting your wizard and maybe your thief.
Things to remember:
1. If you just engage and (decent chance) kill one orc (that is: take optimal position, roll hit, damage--the "boring fighter" option) you've done your job, but you still left the orcs a very good chance of killing your pals.
2. All these options are technically available to other PCs but WAY more likely to kill them because the fighter has the higher hp. Also in many cases these are less likely to work because the fighter's more likely to hit what they aim at.
3. This is merely the most boring scenario I could think of--as soon as it becomes more complex by even a fraction, the fighter's option grow from here. Nearly every single combat you'll have has more options than this
So, some super-basic options before even getting into creative stuff:
Melee the biggest guy (you're tying him up in melee so he can't hurt your friends).
Go for the littlest guy (best chance of one-shotting the orc and thus erasing their ability to cause damage in the next round).
Go full movement and run past the orcs to whatever room they came out of. If they're protecting something then they've got to turn around and chase you. If it's really valuable they might send 2 guys, thus giving your glass cannon classes a turn to move to a position that's tactically optimal (thief hidden, wizard sniping with spells from cover).
Use a grappling hook, 10' pole or other area-denial tactic (not to do damage) but to try to prevent at least 2 orcs from getting any meleeing. (Again, giving your glass cannon classes a turn to move to a position that's tactically optimal.)
Throw a big bag of flour or something somewhere where it blocks vision for at least 2 of them. (Again, giving your glass cannon classes an extra turn to move to a position that's tactically optimal.)
Attack the middle-position orc with a loud and extra insulting curse, trying to convince as many of their fellows to concentrate this round on just the fighter (ie tank as hard as possible).
Grapple the guy in the back, thus causing at least one other to come help him out or respond to a hostage situation. (They're orcs so maybe they don't care about hostages. But even if you just successfully grapple you've denied the orc the ability to attack your friends undeniably for one round--they need to break the grapple before they attack--thus making it in many cases better than just hitting him, since if you hit him and don't kill him (one more roll required than grappling in most systems) he might just turn and shoot an arrow at your wizard anyway.)
Set a fire between the orcs and the party.
That's 8 things to do that even the most boring situation offers. Once there are trees, or traps, or one party sees the other first or the fighter has any kind of unusual toy to play with, or anyone in the party is anywhere other than the most expected place in a regular rectangular room, if there's a doorway or chokepoint, or if the initiative order means team attacks can be set up, or the enemies are any more varied or have any more complex abilities or weaknesses, these options expand.
There are upsides and downsides to creating situations that require a lot of adjudication.
Some people want those upsides and so risk the downsides. Some people do not want those upsides enough to rave the downsides.
Again: most professional game designers on big games and most of the GMs you'll see on popular livestreams of the game have chosen to go with GM-calls as common. This doesn't make it better or more common, but it does point out it isn't some rare martian playstyle or something that must always result in a trainwreck.
Legit.
How lethal is your game?
That's the point. Fighters only have basic options, and even if you're adding in bags of flour and Molotov cocktails, those aren't options specific to the fighter.
Also, 'high lethality' is bullshit, if you're playing a game where anyone can die to any one attack, you're just rolling dice because you cannot be invested in your character, it takes more time to generate a character and concept than it does for them to die. It's one of the most significant complaints and frequent fixes with regards to 5E that I've seen(and smooths out around level 3+, deliberately. Heroes don't die on a moment's notice, and modern D&D is about playing heroes)