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 - Mishihari

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17
First off, I do "science" every day, for a living.  And the near-religious reverence you seem to have for the slanted pronouncements by politicians in the name of science shows you know nothing about the subject.  Science is a process, not a product.  In science, you can do everything right 100 times, and still get the "wrong" answer, for many reasons.  Sometimes because you are asking the wrong question, or the right question in the wrong way.  Sometimes because something you've never considered is confounding the issue.  And sometimes because people's biases affect the results (unintentionally, and intentionally).  I'd bet money I've read more peer-reviewed science articles in my professional capacity than you can name journals, and 75+% of them get contradicted within 6 months.  Science is not the Bible.  Scientists are not priests.  They have no "special" knowledge that ordinary people do not, except that gained through years of study or experience.  But they are wrong more than they are right, and they are people.  So appeals to science are nothing but masked appeals to authority.

Which takes us to the heart of the argument.  When you declare certain ideas to be objectively true, due to your (limited) understanding and your faith in "science," you also implicitly allow others to assert the same.  So whoever has the "best" authority wins.  And in this day and age, all of those authorities that are quoted by the media are both woke, and willing to lie to get what they want.

I, on the other hand, don't believe that I should have the power to force you to live according to the pronouncements of my "authorities," be they religious or political.  But that is what you advocate (you started off talking about your politicians and Navy, both of whom exist to FORCE others to do what is demanded!).  The reality is that NOTHING is settled beyond dispute.  Even if you could prove the Earth was warming (which depends on a LOT of assumptions.  For example, what is the proper temperature to measure?  The highest during the day?  The lowest?  The average?  A weighted average of all of the temps in 24 hours?  Even if we could measure these things, look into it and you'd be surprised how little temperature data is actually available, even to scientists who study it... I had a friend at UVA that did it for a living), the decision as to what to do is political.  And you have joined the side of those who believe that their "science" gets to tell you what to do to "fix" the problem.  I believe that we all need to decide what trade-offs we are willing to live with.

That was really well said, in fact I'm saving that to paraphrase the next time I have to discuss these issues with some fool who has religious faith in science but no actual clue as to what it is.

The problem with recent Doctor Who isn't that it's woke.  It's that it's shit.

I have noticed a correlation between those two attributes though.


What's the STR/CON checks for how 2e handles it? If there's a way to do it in 5e without it turning into a slog then I'm game.

I thought OD&D was the one that mainly did retreats, where you run blindly through different hallways and might be doomed.

AD&D 2e, PHB, Time and Movement chapter, p. 120 (earliest printing). It's an Optional Rule in a blue box.  :)

By core rules Human MV is typically 12, which is x10 in feet indoors, and x10 in yards outdoors.

You can go up to 5x your MV: 1x is basic Move (as above), 2x is Jog and freely available without STR/CON checks. 3x 4x and 5x are all Run and require STR/CON checks.

Run 3x is STR check (no add'l mods) to reach, and CON check -1 cumulative each round (e.g. 1st rd is -1, 2nd rd is -2, 3rd rd is -3, etc.).

Run 4x is STR check -4 to reach, and CON check -2 cumulative each round (e.g. 1st rd is -2, 2nd rd is -4, 3rd rd is -6, etc.).

Run 5x is STR check -8 to reach, and CON check -3 cumulative each round (e.g. 1st rd is -3, 2nd rd is -6, 3rd rd is -9, etc.).


Wow.  I played 2E for a decade and didn't know that was even in there.  I didn't actually believe you until I checked my book.  How does that happen?

I know quite a lot of SJWs really playing RPG's in Poland.
I played with them (though I think they have not know I'm quite right-wingish) they were generally good roleplayers.

Which should... be not surprising, as this board, and overall all apolitical quasi-libertarian opposition in RPG hobby claims politics races and so on does not matter.
So SJWs can play just as well, at least until you trigger them too much.

They might even be better, with all the practice they have living in a fantasy world.

I checked the op date and was surprised to see that this wasn't an old, old thread.  Yes they're following's path and have been doing so for a long time.  I left several years ago when Morrus incorporated wokeness into the official forum rules.  It's quite a shame, really.  I was part of the community since (I think) 1998, and once upon a time it was a great place to hang out.

If you're willing to use 3d6, the system from ICE's Silent Death (also found in Polyversal) is pretty elegant. Damage ratings are Low, Medium-Low, Medium-High and High.

Low: damage is the lowest die.
Medium-Low or -High: damage is the middle die.
High: damage is the highest die.

I was interested enough to run the distribution on this.  Here it is, for anyone who may be interested

                 Mean          1                    2                 3                  4                   5                  6
Low           2.04          42.1%        28.2%         17.1%           8.8%            3.2%            0.5%
Medium     3.50          7.4%          18.5%          24.1%          24.1%          18.5%          7.4%
High          4.96          0.5%          3.2%            8.8%            17.1%          28.2%          42.1%

I propose that we change the term for SJWs in the gaming industry to "SJC," for "social justice crusader," 1) because it's thematic, 2) because it accurately ascribes to them the characteristics they ascribe to the real-world historic crusades, and 3) because it will really irritate them.

Damage can be recorded and totaled after the fact until the numbers look like they might be getting close (sidebar: I also find it easier to just add up damage dealt instead of subtracting it from the starting hit points; there's mechanically zero difference between a monster dropping when damage dealt equals its hit points and a monster dropped because you've reduced its hit points to 0).

I'm doing the same thing with my game, and found there are small mechanical differences, in that you can add slightly different mechanics on top of damage.  As an example, when a PC's damage reaches his health he gets the disabled status.  There's a physician skill that can restore some health, and the difficulty check is based on the damage, which I like for several reasons.  You can do something similar with standard damage mechanic, but it's a lot clumsier, meaning it's too complicated to be fun in play.

Similarly, I deliberately kept the variable portion of damage rolls to a single die precisely so the biggest bit of math will be adding 12 to your bonus from a maxed result on a d12 (so 1-in-6 rolls of a d12 require a tiny bit of double digit math and even then its just as easy to do +10, then +1 or +2).

The result is to keep the math from getting overwhelming, even for my pre-teen niece and godkids who served as some of my earliest playtesters.

I'm using 1d6 as the only roll in the game, because it's primarily aimed at kids who have never played before.

Looking at the above posts, I suspect the difficulty has to do with how much math is involved.  My experience in this area is limited, but I can share what I have seen.  I've run the game I'm designing four times, I think, with its target audience, my 12 year old son and his friends.  Three times I GM'ed and once my son did.  The players don't have to do any math, they just roll.  If the roll is higher than the target the Narrator (GM) needs to do one subtraction or check if the margin is high enough to trigger a special effect.  It's run fast and smooth even with a 12 year old running the game.  After reading the above, though, I feel like I should do some additional testing to make sure this approach works okay before I proceed much further.

Edit:  I should add that the system is designed from scratch around the MoS mechanics; it's not something tacked onto a standard D&D version.

I've made it work for my own generic system homebrew, but that has the advantage that I stepped away from the "hit point total" model almost completely, where the multiplied totals are compared to set Wound Level thresholds instead of subtracted from a running total. If the goal is to preserve the feel of most D20 games that's less of an option.

I've used that approach before, and found quite a lot to like about it.  However it does create the possibility that a character will be taken out of action quite suddenly and unexpectedly.  While this is realistic and a good fit for some genres, it is not a good fit for the preference of many groups.  Have you found this to be the case as well?  And if so, did you try to ameliorate this issue? 

I like the idea of using margin of success for damage quite a lot; in fact that’s the approach I’m using for my current design project.  I like having margin of success matter, and I like speeding things up by removing a step from the process.

I’ve heard mentioned here and elsewhere that rolling another die is faster.  That hasn’t been my experience.  In my game at least, totals rarely go over 20.  I can subtract numbers in this range in my head faster than I can speak the result, and so can most of the folks I play with, even the kids.

As for the point about giant weapons etc, that doesn’t really fit with my intuition.  A blow to the neck of a totally healthy person with either a pocket-knife or a 20 foot long swords will kill that person equally dead in both cases.  The giant long sword has lots of advantages - reach, ability to parry, blade speed, difficulty to parry, and so on, but in the end it doesn’t kill a person any deader than the pocket knife, it just makes it easier to get that killing blow.  It’s not like people actually have ablative invisible armor that must be hammered to pieces before they can be hurt.  AFAIAC high damage for big weapons is just a gamist artifact of hit points that I don’t mind discarding.

And for just liking to roll dice ... okay, you got me there.  If you like rolling more dice you should go ahead and keep your damage roll.

As others have mentioned, I see the strengths of class based design as

1)   Learning a game and getting to play quickly
2)   Easy character creation
3)   Reduce decision overload
4)   Easy character advancement
5)   Niche protection
6)   Support familiar archetypes (“I want to play Han Solo...”)

and the weaknesses as

1)   Difficulty or inability to create certain imagined characters with existing classes/mechanisms
2)   Limiting imagination in character design/development
3)   The work of creating new classes when necessary
4)   Illogical and unintuitive mechanics ( “I can’t hold a sword because I’m a magic-user?!” )
5)   Limiting character development choices

My preference then is to start with skill based mechanics and try to recreate the strengths of class systems.

Providing optional, initial templates helps with most of these, and I consider these pretty much essential for a skill based system.

For the rest of it, my preference is to include mechanics that reward taking and improving skills that are related.

In a previous, abandoned game design project, I did this by adding bonuses and reduced learning costs for skills depending on the ones you already had.  There were “tight groups” for closely related skills and “loose groups” for those somewhat less so.  As an example, If you had +10 skill in a long sword, that gave you a bonus +2 skill in any other sword and a bonus +1 skill in any weapon.  Similar mechanics affected the XP costs of learning related skills.  Like much of the rest of that system it’s mathematically elegant and produced exactly the results I wanted, but was more work than I cared to do at the gaming table.

In my current project, there are 6 talents, akin to D&D’s ability scores, which are attack, defense, athletics, magic, guile, and perception.  A combination of 1 or two of these gives a rough match for most archetypes I can think of.  Each skill depends on exactly one of the talents, so it usually makes sense to develop skills that are related to the ones you already have, which provides niche protection.  For example, if you’re a sword striker then getting another +1 in sword skill provide a really important increase in your primary function.  Putting that skill point into a magical art instead will might mean going from useless to slightly less useless in that skill.  That’s something you might want to do occasionally for flexibility or a specific problem, but usually an inferior approach.  It provides much the same benefits mechanically as the other system and is much simpler to implement.

I liked Miles Morales a lot in the movies and the console game, and I'm about as non-woke as it gets.  And this is after expecting to hate him because most woke media is objectively terrible and pushes evil and/or stupid agendas.  He's a likable character, it's a good story, and the stories aren't really woke otherwise.  I haven't read the books though, so I can't speak to that.

Quote from: ”Samsquantch”
They seem to forget that phobia means fear….

“phobia” also means to be repulsed by something, such as hydrophobicity in chemistry.

Social justice re-defines terms for their own useage. They don't mean fear or repulsion. They mean some social hegemony nonsense.

Relevance: SJW terminology making it's way into RPG texts.

It's almost like they read "1984" and decided it was utopian rather than dystopian.

It's interesting how players that can role-play in a role-playing game are often called "cosplayers/ren-faire/indie-RPG types who are into RPGing."

Yeah nope.
Role-playing is not the same as acting. Role-playing is creating decisions and actions of character in believable way considering who this person is, acting is well playing out those decisions in a way like in TV or theatre. You can be great acting and terrible role-playing, or great role-player without shed of acting - referring to your PC's action in third person's laconic manner.
And yes while it's perfectly acceptable to choose table where all people are good actors - it can also become quite toxic, when One True Wayist try to imply only good acting is good role-playing and try to demean and lessen players without acting chops. And those guysa re toxic shitlord and madonnas, and kill them with fire.

So many of the players interrupt with comments or actions based on things their characters cannot possibly be aware of, or involved in. Face to Face you can "quiet chat" or hidden note things but in online sessions everyone hears everything and tries to respond to what they hear.  Both DMs and players need to be more conscious of this.

Exactly like on most real-life tables so...

I wouldn't diss people who don't want to act at the game table, but I don't really want to play with them either.  I want to both roleplay and act and I want to play with folks who do the same.  It's not one-true-wayist to tell someone they're not a good fit for my game.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17