This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
The message boards have been upgraded. Please log in to your existing account by clicking here. It will ask twice, so that it can properly update your password and login information. If it has trouble recognizing your password, click the 'Forgot your password?' link to reset it with a new password sent to your email address on file.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Shrieking Banshee

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 66
I love spelljammer! Id like a hard copy.

Wear a Guyver suit and pilot a giant hollowed out Gamera.

If I knew more what you were trying to do, I could help a bit.

Primarily Im playing Pathfinder (Or D&D 3e). Rag if you want, my players don't want anything else.
The setting is a world JUST about moving into the industrial revolution (late 1700s about). So the point in time where serfdom is less common, and wages would just about start being a thing.

I want to move away from the player facing magic item system and go into a more organic worldbuilding magic item system.
The idea I have is to have 2 categories of magic items. Lesser (magic items that are easy enough to produce and would be seen in common life if rarely) and Greater (the rare and powerful kind of magic stuff made by great heroes and legends that are unique to produce each time).

I'm not going for a 100% matching realism, but I want it to 'feel' psuedo realistic (because I mean the economy will be changed by the introduction of magic).

For instance you likely couldn't sell a '+5' weapon at its exorbitant cost of thousands of gold pieces even if it took that much to make because it would be useless for everybody but a niche crowd. And outside of trade in other 'useless but for a niche crowd' items you would have to lowball the price.

The players are agents of the government (think sort of like constabulary) so id like it to feel logical within that framework of a logical salary and requsition costs.

Dude, you weren't discussing one specific individual...

I was discussing the people I played my games with asshole. How I had not considered that high crunch may be more helpful to the autistic.

Get off your fucking high horse.

Fucking jackass.

No, I mean it's because the guy told me he was on the spectrum. I just didn't get the exact terminology of it or whatever.

Jesus cool your jets.

Personally, I don't know at this point but through pure iteration and time its D&D 3e.

After years of reading through 5e forums I became exhausted with its mother-may-I BS where everything needed to be codified in the rules in order to exist in the game.

I'd say that's more opposite. 'Mother May I' refers to the players asking permission for the GM for everything. And Id say 5e is not a game thats even close to being demanding of rules following since its like 50% unfinished.

I'm planning on a re-write of existing D&D 3e economics and magic item rules, for which Id like references to real history just for inspiration. I don't want to make a hyper-realistic economy just something that feels more real to me.

Anybody knows good reference material for knowing wages, and costs of living, and materials over the centuries?

The question here is, why make a character around a theme or a concept if the game mechanics in no way reflect your character's theme or concept? For example, if you want a character to be a nimble, quick witted, swashbuckler but the game mechanics don't distinguish between a nimble fighter and a tank.

I largely agree. I'm, not a low-crunch guy. I like good mechanics to make my character design feel significant. I hated D&D 5e for that reason. I was 15% different from everybody else at most. Horrible feeling.

It's more a case of I have been recently erring towards more flexible interpretational rules that put more decisions on me as a GM as opposed to a mechanical system. I thought this would also be easier for some players to understand, but some of them prefer dictate by a mechanical system because as I said -  mildly autistic and they find improvisation difficult.

While I would say I always like to make a character around a theme or concept more than around mechanics, I had just entered a discussion with somebody that prefers the character 'crunch' to help them make a character and understand the 'things you can do'.

I always attributed this behaviour to just power gaming or being munchkiny, but the person I had this conversation with is a good friend who has never been somebody like that.
It got me thinking about the other people I know or have played with that prefer high crunch because well...They probably have light autism.

I had recently been disavowing crunch in my games, but the nature of how higher crunch can be helpful to some has just got me thinking.

What do you think about the subject?

To be clear: I'm actually gravitating to OSR OD&D inspired games, away from D&D 3e and pathfinder. I'm actually not against houserules and the like.

But the emphasis on the inspired. If the rules are to fit on a postcard, its because they fit on a postcard. If the rules ask for improv: Its not because the writer referenced compendium G (when G doesn't exist).

The reason you don't understand is because you refuse to.  You have rejected out of hand the most probable reason for this.  The idea that wargamers feel that "mimicry of reality is ultimately aside from [the enjoyable] experience" is belied by many of the documents of the time.  Not only did wargames develop as a military tool specifically to realistically simulate military engagements, but also many of the players are doing so as a speculative exercise, dependent on the realism of the game.  The same people who wargame are the same people who argue about what would have happened had Pickett not charged, and they want their game to help represent those outcomes.

So armchair generals think that battlefield conditions can really accurately be gathered by the roll of a d8 (or 800 rolls of the d8). I guess things don't really change with age or time.

'Nathaniel! Put away your damn dolls!'
"Their not dolls ma! Their war miniatures to accurately simulate warfare!'

The amount of ego at play here is staggering.

Shrieking Banshee, is it fair to assume you’ve typed these questions without having played OD&D or even having read the rules recently?

Reading the rules recently after years of having it hyped up is what caused me to post these questions. Of course, what constitutes 'OD&D' rules changes massively within the first few years of release as the content was added and removed.

Often your talk about rules fitting on a postcard is accurate because the rules use vague terminology or just reference chainmail. That's not clever design nor does it speak too elegant minimalist rules.

Ah, but that is not a counter, you have shifted the statement from a question of taste into a judgement of them.

Almost all questions require a degree of judgment.

But perhaps more specifically: 'Why not get food that's more amicable to salt? You talk about just how much you like salt and how terrible all modern food is for not having enough salt in it when the food you loved to eat was watermelon. You just added the salt later. And if adding the salt later is all it takes, how can you judge modern food for not having enough salt in it? Its more a case of judging the modern diner for not adding enough salt to the food they eat".

I think the best context to understand the nuance here is with a parallel argument;

"If one likes to salt their food, wouldn't the logical conclusion be to simply have a Salt Lick?"

Il counter with:

'If one likes to salt their food, does the food itself have to be of poor quality? And indeed if the food's quality is irrelevant, then yes why not a salt lick?'

The reason folks like those vague and contradictory rules is because they like making up their own rules!

So why not have no rules, or a foundation of actual good rules (to ignore)?

Why insist to keep the bathwater with the baby?

Anyone who has ever houseruled is guilty of "ignor[ing] them or ma[king] up your own."  It's about what the rules are meant to represent and what you are trying to do with them.  I would argue, because the rules evolved from wargaming, that the original intent of the rules were to simulate reality, and that they rules grew and changed to simulate a particular fantasy "reality."  If you approach the rules as attempts to quantify the possible outcomes of a real problem, then no one ruleset is going to be able to effectively simulate those outcomes.  You will constantly have edge cases and "unrealistic" results from your rules that you will need to ignore or develop secondary mechanisms to handle.  Hence the "rulings, not rules" mentality you hear associated with "old school" gaming.

I find so much of this largely inaccurate. Because wargames mimick an enjoyable combat simulation meant to be fun for both players. Any mimicry of reality is ultimately aside from this experience.

So it's easy to understand why gamers who grew up viewing their rulesets as attempts to guide them through the resolution of "reality-based" situations would prefer systems where incompleteness and inadequacy are base assumptions of the ruleset.

I also find your assumptions on why people might like things more spelled out to be disconnected from why people ultimately like such systems or experiences. This is more a way to fluff up your own interests.

But ultimately you didn't answer my question. Which was:

Why do you prefer BAD rules, on the principle that you can ignore them? With all the touting of how 'Rulings not rules' OD&D was, one would think it would be a single page with 'I dunno roll a 20' on it. But it's not. Its pages and pages of contradictory (mostly just unfinished) resolution mechanics, with specific examples and things to do in multiple scenarious.

OD&D is far from rules-lite. It's more just fragmented. It's very rules-heavy in many ways. With pages and pages of how stuff interacts, specific effects, powers and abilities.

Media and Inspiration / Re: Snowpiercer TV Series (TNT)
« on: January 03, 2021, 09:48:18 AM »
Your objections seem to be more about the message being sent than about the medium being used to express the message.

My primary objection is about the execution. It's really stupid for how serious and self-respecting the movie is.

If I made a serious film about how cars are way better then horses, and then I had horses actually be monsters that shapeshift and eat people, thats the sort of thing Snowpiercer is.

This is something I'm having trouble understanding about people with a deific fondness for games that had rules but then you ignored them or made up your own. I won't lie and say that I haven't just fudged rules, or just rolled with whatever was happening to move the game along. But that was made on a foundation of rules I generally liked and could use as written most of the time. Because that was a product I paid for. Functional rules.

When I hear some people reminisce about old school games, the fact that the rules were such vague and contradicting, unfinished, unrefined, clusterfuck is talked about with deep fondness. That somehow having bad rules, or non-existent rules made it better because if it was bad, then you can ignore them and make your own. Or just improv all the time.

So wouldn't the logical endpoint just be an improv night without any rules at all? If consistent rules and character-building gets in the way of the DM telling the story he wants, why have any rules at all? Why not just write up a short story with some people occasionally assisting with minor suggestions for individual characters?

Fundamentally I believe everybody can have the fun they want. Really this is more conceptual confusion for me. Personally, I believe it's just nostalgia.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 66