• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!
Sign in to follow this  
Pharaoh RutinTutin

NP Monday January 28, 2019

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, mlooney said:

Yeah, making this into a D&D dungeon.

There would need to be few more puzzles to "disappear" all of adventurers gear and weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could blame the hips, and everything else.

Scratch that, I blame the random VWM, which went to the hips...

I blame the cave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, hkmaly said:

There would need to be few more puzzles to "disappear" all of adventurers gear and weapons.

Nonsense. All it takes is a sufficiently cruel DM. Back in the days of yore Gary Gygax stripped his team down to the skivvies before dropping them into the Pits of the Slavelords. All their +5 suits of armor, shields, weapons and spellbooks, gone. And down there you could only find feeble and improvised gear to aid in your escape and give you a minimal fighting chance to survive.

Of course, by then his players were wise to him so one of the wizards always carried two teleport spells memorised. This guy teleported home to the group's magical holding chest, grabbed all their spare +4 suits of armor, shields, weapons and backup spellbooks, and teleported back. And then the group was back in business butchering their way through the hapless dungeon at top speed all the while complaining about how mean Gary was to totally deprive them of a whole plus on their to hit, damage and saving throws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Nonsense. All it takes is a sufficiently cruel DM. Back in the days of yore Gary Gygax stripped his team down to the skivvies before dropping them into the Pits of the Slavelords. All their +5 suits of armor, shields, weapons and spellbooks, gone. And down there you could only find feeble and improvised gear to aid in your escape and give you a minimal fighting chance to survive.

Of course, by then his players were wise to him so one of the wizards always carried two teleport spells memorised. This guy teleported home to the group's magical holding chest, grabbed all their spare +4 suits of armor, shields, weapons and backup spellbooks, and teleported back. And then the group was back in business butchering their way through the hapless dungeon at top speed all the while complaining about how mean Gary was to totally deprive them of a whole plus on their to hit, damage and saving throws.

Adaptability beats everything else.

No plan survives contact with enemy, so should DM really be surprised when players force him to improvize?

Also, seriously, people may complain about genre-savvy players who abuse out-of-character knowledge, but if YOU would ever get to situation like this, wouldn't you do everything possible to prevent it repeating? Players only play the game, characters LIVE through it (and, sometimes, die) and have lot of time thinking about what went wrong and how to prevent it. If anything, PC are TOO CARELESS taking into account what they lived through.

(Not speaking about the fact that elf wizard with int 18 has likely higher IQ than even the biggest nerds playing the game ... and that's BEFORE you add the +5 for the gear. Anything player can come up with after ten minutes of thinking can be realistically assumed to be something he gets immediately.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hkmaly said:

Adaptability beats everything else.

Yeah, it's been what h. sapiens sapiens has mainly had going for itself for quite a few millenniae now. ^_^

1 minute ago, hkmaly said:

No plan survives contact with enemy, so should DM really be surprised when players force him to improvize?

Hell no! In fact a good DM should not only welcome it, he should embrace it with open arms! Clever players are a treasure beyond compare, predictable players are entertaining only as a source of malicious pleasure from watching as they stagger confusedly through the game world into disaster after disaster.

Not that I am knocking malicious pleasure, mind you! It is just that I feel that there ought to be more to life than just that. :danshiftyeyes:

5 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Also, seriously, people may complain about genre-savvy players who abuse out-of-character knowledge, but if YOU would ever get to situation like this, wouldn't you do everything possible to prevent it repeating? Players only play the game, characters LIVE through it (and, sometimes, die) and have lot of time thinking about what went wrong and how to prevent it. If anything, PC are TOO CARELESS taking into account what they lived through.

I do not at all complain about them. I should perhaps mention that I told that story mainly as an amusing anecdote and not in order to prove a point of any kind. Genre savviness is a thing and it is perfectly valid to use as a playstyle. I seem to remember that there are terms for styles such as 'gamist' and 'immersionist' (among others) where the gamists prize efficiency and optimal use of game resources where immersionists feel that it is more important to roleplay the character even if this leads to making mechanically bad decisions. Both styles are valid and neither is better than the other; it all depends on what you get the most fun from. The critical part is that you are able to live with other players having a different playstyle than yours and that people in your group are willing to compromise if conflict arises between styles.

11 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

(Not speaking about the fact that elf wizard with int 18 has likely higher IQ than even the biggest nerds playing the game ... and that's BEFORE you add the +5 for the gear. Anything player can come up with after ten minutes of thinking can be realistically assumed to be something he gets immediately.)

Absolutely agreed. As a DM I would be willing to let a player with a high INT character get some extra time to ponder a problem. I might tell the player of the very low INT barbarian to hush if he thinks of something to do after some time has passed, mind you. At least if I were feeling cruel that day.

To quote SF Debris: "Too good for them, I say!" :demonicduck:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Old Hack said:
3 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Adaptability beats everything else.

Yeah, it's been what h. sapiens sapiens has mainly had going for itself for quite a few millenniae now. ^_^

3 hours ago, hkmaly said:

No plan survives contact with enemy, so should DM really be surprised when players force him to improvize?

Hell no! In fact a good DM should not only welcome it, he should embrace it with open arms! Clever players are a treasure beyond compare, predictable players are entertaining only as a source of malicious pleasure from watching as they stagger confusedly through the game world into disaster after disaster.

Not that I am knocking malicious pleasure, mind you! It is just that I feel that there ought to be more to life than just that. :danshiftyeyes:

3 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Also, seriously, people may complain about genre-savvy players who abuse out-of-character knowledge, but if YOU would ever get to situation like this, wouldn't you do everything possible to prevent it repeating? Players only play the game, characters LIVE through it (and, sometimes, die) and have lot of time thinking about what went wrong and how to prevent it. If anything, PC are TOO CARELESS taking into account what they lived through.

I do not at all complain about them. I should perhaps mention that I told that story mainly as an amusing anecdote and not in order to prove a point of any kind. Genre savviness is a thing and it is perfectly valid to use as a playstyle. I seem to remember that there are terms for styles such as 'gamist' and 'immersionist' (among others) where the gamists prize efficiency and optimal use of game resources where immersionists feel that it is more important to roleplay the character even if this leads to making mechanically bad decisions. Both styles are valid and neither is better than the other; it all depends on what you get the most fun from.

While we are in agreement, my point was that this wasn't even example of genre savviness.

3 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

The critical part is that you are able to live with other players having a different playstyle than yours and that people in your group are willing to compromise if conflict arises between styles.

While there are people who find hard to live with other players having a different playstyle (based on internet comments they leaving behind them), the problem of players with not just different but almost opposite styles playing the same game at same time is harder.

Not unsolvable, though, BECAUSE those styles are just ALMOST opposite.

3 hours ago, The Old Hack said:
3 hours ago, hkmaly said:

(Not speaking about the fact that elf wizard with int 18 has likely higher IQ than even the biggest nerds playing the game ... and that's BEFORE you add the +5 for the gear. Anything player can come up with after ten minutes of thinking can be realistically assumed to be something he gets immediately.)

Absolutely agreed. As a DM I would be willing to let a player with a high INT character get some extra time to ponder a problem. I might tell the player of the very low INT barbarian to hush if he thinks of something to do after some time has passed, mind you. At least if I were feeling cruel that day.

Yeah.

GM: "So, it's late anyway, so we will continue on Monday. Barbarian will say what he will do as next step now, the wizard have whole weekend to think about it." :)

EDIT:

Barbarian: "Hey, I already know that smashing it with axe is stupid but I'm sure my barbarian would not realize it. So I'm smashing it with axe."

Cleric: "You don't. I predicted you will do it and took the axe out of your hands while you were thinking."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

While we are in agreement, my point was that this wasn't even example of genre savviness.

This is true.

7 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

While there are people who find hard to live with other players having a different playstyle (based on internet comments they leaving behind them), the problem of players with not just different but almost opposite styles playing the same game at same time is harder.

Not unsolvable, though, BECAUSE those styles are just ALMOST opposite.

Usually I find that it has less to do with compability of playing styles and more to do with whether players can manage to meet each other halfway and respect their differences. But yes, the more styles diverge, the greater demand on the players.

8 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Yeah.

GM: "So, it's late anyway, so we will continue on Monday. Barbarian will say what he will do as next step now, the wizard have whole weekend to think about it." :)

Barbarian: "Hey, I already know that smashing it with axe is stupid but I'm sure my barbarian would not realize it. So I'm smashing it with axe."

:laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Not unsolvable, though, BECAUSE those styles are just ALMOST opposite.

In the Heavy Gear game I played, we had one player who joined when we had another player bow out due to scheduling, the new player created a character that was supposed to be primarily a medic, but also had some leadership skills. At some point during the campaign the player started to put more and more emphasis on the leadership stuff to the detriment of the team, we already had someone playing a command character but that didn't seem to stop him from questioning orders, or insisting on doing things their way. In terms of story telling, having a little friction between characters doesn't have to be a bad thing, but in this case, the player was rubbing soo hard the wrong way that our commanding officer basically did what any commanding officer would do, have the guy court martialed for disobeying direct orders, and when the player refused to accept it, we told him not to come to another session.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally never saw a conflict between gamist and immersionist styles in RPGs. I usually did both, simultaneously. A character doesn't have just a class, he also has a particular role in the party which may differ from character to character and party to party, even if the classes and levels are identical. A minmaxer will maximize certain abilities available to the class, and define the character's role to fit; an immersionist will let the role develop and maximize the abilities needed for that role - the result is about the same, with a character whose abilities are well tuned to his precise role in the party.

Where I saw a conflict was when the player had one idea of their character's role in the party, and another player tried to push them into a different role.

(Note: D&D4E categorized classes into roles - but that isn't what I mean as those roles are FAR too general. As becomes apparent when one considers a large party. Your two Wizards will both be effective but in different ways. Your two Rogues will have different specialties. And so on. Your two Leaders, a Cleric and a Warlord, will be vastly different.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Don Edwards said:

I personally never saw a conflict between gamist and immersionist styles in RPGs. I usually did both, simultaneously. A character doesn't have just a class, he also has a particular role in the party which may differ from character to character and party to party, even if the classes and levels are identical. A minmaxer will maximize certain abilities available to the class, and define the character's role to fit; an immersionist will let the role develop and maximize the abilities needed for that role - the result is about the same, with a character whose abilities are well tuned to his precise role in the party.

I would say you are lucky. A conflict can develop if the minmaxer goes so overboard the result can't be explained in-story - and he doesn't even try - while the immersionist will insist on "optimizing" his character for stuff which is useless for party, leaving the part that if his character would be like that they would probably not let him in the party in first place out of his "immersion".

Granted, both require not only different gaming styles but also not really good players. Because yes, good player can do both simultaneously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

A conflict can develop if the minmaxer goes so overboard the result can't be explained in-story

Insufficiently creative in building a backstory.

The closest thing to a seriously minmaxed character I had was a two-blade Ranger who was all about mobility and multi-attacks. D&D 4E gives a character 3 actions during his turn: a movement, a major, and a minor. He'd move on all three of them and between the major and the minor would get in at least three attacks - routinely. Backstory? Temple dancer. With a lot more going on as well - the name he goes by honors a murdered lover, and he won't name his family, his country, the temple he trained in, or the gods he once worshiped. (And I know why. I could write quite a long story leading up to his  beginning his adventuring career - at one point I had about the first five pages of it written, but it got lost somewhere along the years.)

51 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

and he doesn't even try - while the immersionist will insist on "optimizing" his character for stuff which is useless for party

Insufficiently intelligent in building a character and backstory that makes sense. There's a place for the adventurer with minimal adventuring skills: a campaign deliberately designed for PCs who are beginners and forced by circumstances to become adventurers, rather than choosing it from among other viable options and properly training for it before setting out. But other than that -- sure, a 7th level fighter might also be a gourmet chef, either left over from a previous career or chosen as a hobby and a way to get something more interesting than purple-worm-and-ochre-jelly sandwiches again... but he also needs to have been effective enough often enough as a fighter to reach 7th level, so there's no way for him to plausibly be worthless as a fighter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Don Edwards said:

Insufficiently creative in building a backstory.

1 hour ago, Don Edwards said:

Insufficiently intelligent in building a character and backstory that makes sense.

Yes. Not really good players as well, IMHO. Lack of creativity and intelligence CAN be overcame with effort and enough humility to ask for help.

1 hour ago, Don Edwards said:

There's a place for the adventurer with minimal adventuring skills: a campaign deliberately designed for PCs who are beginners and forced by circumstances to become adventurers, rather than choosing it from among other viable options and properly training for it before setting out.

True. However, that can only be the FIRST campaign (for characters, not necessarily players). Well, TWO if the GM is really creative. If someone gets forced twice to be adventurer and survives, insisting it can't happen again so much there is no need to prepare borders with mental illness. (Sure, there are games where characters with mental illness are not only possible but likely, Call of Cthulhu for example, but generally it makes too unlikely they will be capable of function in the adventure itself).

1 hour ago, Don Edwards said:

But other than that -- sure, a 7th level fighter might also be a gourmet chef, either left over from a previous career or chosen as a hobby and a way to get something more interesting than purple-worm-and-ochre-jelly sandwiches again... but he also needs to have been effective enough often enough as a fighter to reach 7th level, so there's no way for him to plausibly be worthless as a fighter.

Exactly. For player, making character on 7th level may be question of few minutes, but the character must've spend lot of time on it, and it doesn't make sense he would do it badly.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Yes. Not really good players as well, IMHO. Lack of creativity and intelligence CAN be overcame with effort and enough humility to ask for help.

Humility? From players? BWAHAHAHAHA! :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps. Where I grew up (Silicon Valley), pretty much EVERY group interaction between young males revolved around the struggle for dominance. Any guy who tried to opt out of the battle was considered cannon fodder at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems like a great opportunity for a GURPS type Character Disadvantage

OBEDIENCE - The Player must accept any and every decision, direction, or ruling of the GM concerning the Player Character without argument, complaint, or protest.  Once per hour of game session, the Player may POLITELY request the GM to reconsider one decision regarding the PC.  The GM is under no obligation to change said ruling.  Any violation by the Player will result in immediate penalties to the PC or Party in the manner of the BAD LUCK, CURSED, JINXED, or WIERDNESS MAGNET Disadvantages.

Now, what kind of point value should be applied?

Edit:

Yes, I know many game players who believe this type of behavior should be assumed. 
But for those who don't, it can help to have it written out on the character sheet.

Edited by Pharaoh RutinTutin
Posted before I was finished writing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, ijuin said:
On 31/01/2019 at 2:38 AM, hkmaly said:

Yes. Not really good players as well, IMHO. Lack of creativity and intelligence CAN be overcame with effort and enough humility to ask for help.

Humility? From players? BWAHAHAHAHA! :laugh:

"Enough humility to ask" might not be THAT much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2019 at 7:38 PM, hkmaly said:

True. However, that can only be the FIRST campaign (for characters, not necessarily players). Well, TWO if the GM is really creative. If someone gets forced twice to be adventurer and survives, insisting it can't happen again so much there is no need to prepare borders with mental illness. (Sure, there are games where characters with mental illness are not only possible but likely, Call of Cthulhu for example, but generally it makes too unlikely they will be capable of function in the adventure itself).

Years ago, the hometown gaming convention did a Dungeon Masters' Workshop every year, and the guys who ran it always had the best stories to illustrate their points,  One guy told about how he'd taken a bunch of players who tended not to roleplay in favor of roll-playing, and he had each of them create a charscter who was a teenager, just leaving their family for the first time, be it to seek their fortune, escape a villain, search for enough gold or power to save their family, it varied.  But he had each of them do a one-on-one session with him before the actual game, in which they roleplayed saying goodbye to all their friends and family.  It really got them into character, and they followed those same characters through years of gaming and many levels.

An example of the DM's sense of humor -- to keep them from roll-playing, the DM kept their character sheets himself, so they didn't even know their stats at first.  One of the youngsters was a budding fighter, especially young and innocent.  During his prep session, at one point he nobly declared, "I have the strength of ten, because my heart is pure!"  The GM duly noted down the kid's STR as 10.  (He was an untrained kid, he grew and trained, so it didn't stay 10.)

 

The other thing your comment reminds me of is the current Team TARDIS, and most of the other Companions of the Doctor, who generally are completely unprepared when they have their first adventures.  Some of them become much more prepared over time, some less so.  Graham complained in an early episode about their having to leave a restaurant without lunch, with no plans of finding any anywhere else, which seemed to happen far too often.  A few episodes later, he offers a hungry girl a sandwich, as he's taken to carrying a couple around, knowing he'll inevitably need one.  :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this