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 - Thjalfi

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 20
Help Desk / Ok - Here's the Deal - the Pundit's Greatest Challenge.
« on: August 22, 2006, 11:55:34 AM »
Fuck this shit.

Quote from: Cyclotron
No, I mean to say that my DM didn't pull and choose the fun stuff from the setting, and thought that the silly ass shit was the fun stuff.  We were 12 geeks.  We didn't know any better.

pssh, excuses.

Honestly though, I recently thought that running a pseudo-spelljammer game in conjunction with Green Ronin's Skull & Bones pirate supplement (ala the movie Treasure Planet) would be pretty cool.

good man. It really does have some worthwhile stuff going for it, and the different sphere supplements / adventures weren't completely full of the stupid shit. you might check out practical planetology for some fun and odd ideas for exploration ala treasure planet.

aaah, I see.

Cyclotron, you mean to say that you didn't pull and choose the fun stuff from the setting, and thought that the silly ass shit was the setting.

I think +3 is about right, honestly.

We are not amused.

Quote from: Cyclotron
I bought the Spelljammer boxed set...  and thought it was really cool.



Silence. Spelljammer is *STILL* really cool.

Help Desk / NPC contest?
« on: July 21, 2006, 05:45:46 PM »
Quote from: obryn
So I've noticed the NPC contest is still front & center, but it doesn't seem like anything happened with it for 3 months.

I didn't enter or anything, but have there been any results?


It's been over for months, but there hasn't really been anything else that's been going on. Gunhilda tried to do a demon contest and had about as much response as I did.

The problem is that there doesn't seem to be much interest in the idea, so it's not worth pursuing right now.

Design, Development, and Gameplay / Rethinking BAB
« on: July 20, 2006, 07:52:01 PM »
Quote from: Cynosure
What bothers me about that is, the leap from 1 attack per round, to 2 attacks per round, is a big leap; suddenly, with the gaining of one level (e.g. for a fighter, from 5th level to 6th), you're combat effectiveness is practically doubled.

What if instead, we had a more graduated number of attacks per round. For fighter characters, we'd have a table like this...

Code: [Select]
[FONT=Courier New][B]Figher Level ... Attacks Per Odd/Even Numbered Rounds[/B]
   1-4  ... 1/1
   5-8  ... 1/2
   6-12 ... 2/2
  13-16 ... 2/3
  17-20 ... 3/3[/FONT]

Similar tables would exist for the other classes, as well as for monsters.

Then, the DM would lay out some kind of large marker in front of his DM's screen, for all the players to see. One side of the marker would say "ODD", the other, "EVEN". A combat encounter, on round 1, would begin with the "ODD" side facing up. Then, at the beginning of each successive round, the DM would flip the marker over.

not a bad idea, but I want fewer dice rolled overall. howbout.... letting them have two attacks per round at 9th level, and 3 at 18th, and chucking the standard action / full attack options? yes, it's a doubling in combat effectiveness, but engineer the increases to happen at points when viable encounters start getting nastier, and it means that the increased effectiveness is needed.

I think I am going for increased speed of play through minimalism at the moment, as a philosophy. don't worry, I'll get over it soon. :p

Quote from: Radu the Wanderer

This isn't an attack on roleplayers, it's a refutation of Power Gamers and Drama Queens.  Power Gamers need to add some life to their stat blocks, and Drama Queens need to give their avatars some backbone.  I'm sick of players who refuse to do one or the other.


Design, Development, and Gameplay / armor rules
« on: July 18, 2006, 10:42:40 AM »
Quote from: Cyclotron
Of course, you'd probably have to do the same with weapons, then...  

Simplify them down to "Light", "One-handed", "Two-handed" and "Ranged".  Maybe with the damage types -- slashing, bludgeoning and piercing -- tossed in to boil it all down to just a dozen weapons.

yeah. I want my one handed 2d6 18-20x3 criting weapon. :D

weapons are all over the place for that kind of reason.

Wizards ran a "save my game" article recently that has been striking a chord in me for some time.

here's some excerpts:

Quote from: Middle bits
Real-life, in-person D&D isn't like that. It requires you and everyone else in your gaming group to perform the same level of assessment, prioritization, and reallocation of time/life resources and to coordinate that activity so that everyone is on the same page at the same time. Something that scrambles one or two people's schedules (a friend comes in from out of town, someone gets sick, had to work late, burned out and tired from a rough week at work, kids have a sleepover, celebrating Uncle Ted's birthday, big paper due next week, have to finish the flooring before company comes over tomorrow) can be enough to derail the game for everyone else. Then what do you do? You individually have arranged your schedule to game, but now there's no game.

The solution might be to find new friends who are more reliable. This is a point where the economic model of D&D as an activity breaks down, because D&D is not a discrete and interchangeable commodity. D&D is a social activity with friends, a context for relationship, shared experience, and group storytelling. You can't just say, "Well, Friday 7:00-11:00 is my D&D time, but since my group isn't meeting, I'll go play D&D somewhere else." You could go ahead and play with two people in a campaign designed for five (or however large your group is), but most players and DMs in my experience have a certain sense of quorum they like to meet before agreeing to game. We're all busy and have other things that need doing, and if we feel like the game will not be as fun with a skeleton crew, we'd rather bag it and come back next time with the full group (we hope).

Quote from: The Conclusion
Think about how much you want to game, how long of a break you want to take, or whether you need to find a new group that can match your schedule. Heck, this is why many gaming parents teach their kids D&D, so they can combine doing things with the kids with getting to play. But if your kids aren't interested (or if only one is and the others aren't), do you play with just the two of you? What do you do with the others in the meantime, and what do you do with them as a dedicated activity in the way that gaming with your one aspiring gamer is?

There are no easy answers and no simple methods for organizing your life. D&D makes things more complicated because it is a social, team game. What you can do and when you can do it has to match up with a bunch of other people. It's also something we love to do. That's why we're reading an advice column on a D&D website.

Don't confuse commitments with cop-outs or excuses with reasons. If you'd rather be doing something else than playing D&D, go for it. But don't pack your hobbies in the attic without taking a good hard look at what you have, what you do, and what you want.

so, what does everyone think? how do you personally go about dealing with groups that just aren't reliable for playing with?

Quote from: Radu the Wanderer

It was a little surprising, and inspired the first post.  I have since found the responses to be quite amusing, especially the story about the sorcerer who just wouldn't listen.  It reminds me of some of my early play experiences with 3rd ed, which I'm glad to have put behind me.  

Trust me, it may sound amusing from the outside, but dealing with it from the inside... And still dealing with it... and still dealing with it.... Is just fucking annoying.

Design, Development, and Gameplay / Rethinking BAB
« on: July 15, 2006, 12:13:23 PM »
Here's my basic premise: the more dice that are rolled in a round, the longer combat takes, and the more clunky it feels.

Honestly, on some levels I feel that 2nd edition had it right. don't tie the number of attacks you get per round to your bonuses, but to your class levels. only high level members of the warrior group got in 2 attacks / round, and it never went beyond that.

I think that multiple attacks per round should be a class perk, somewhat like weapon specilization. I also feel like significantly reducing the effectiveness of two-weapon fighting by dropping it back down to only one off-hand attack per round, period, is a good idea. I feel like a 20th level fighter should be very happy if he manages to get four attacks in one round. perhaps making multiple attacks linked to a feat that requires a certain base attack bonus in order to get.

The BAB mechanic itself is basically a thac0 progression, just presented a little differently. It's a solid simplification mechanic, and I definetly like it. I think that adding fractional BAB into the game as a standard rule (from Unearthed arcana) would help the viability of multiclassing. I like the unified "roll high on a d20" concept - keeping that around means keeping ac in the positives and keeping BAB as an ascending bonus.

In the same vein, I think reducing the number of possible attacks of opportunity in any given round is a good thing - specifically, I think that removing all AoO's tied to movement would significantly reduce their impact. leave them in for spellcasting, attacking with a ranged weapon while threatened, and standing up.

Willpax - I think that, given the ammount of damage high level fighters dish out, it's a bit redundant togive them even further damage bonus. yes, the kind of changes I'm talking about do require a massive game rebalance, but I'm considering it in a 4th edition kind of way - massive rebalance will be needed anyway. Since I dislike the standard/move/swift/free action method of dividing up a round (as it encourages the stand back and prepare an attack when the enemy moves into range philosophy), reducing the number of attacks per round but making it a basic perk of high level fighting classes seems like a decent compromise.

Sobek - I'm quite willing to talk about AC as DR, but on some odd level I like the hit points mechanic, as opposed to WP/VP. what do you have in mind there?

1) no reavers yet.

2) colonization wars - competing colonies on the same planet/moon trying for some kind of resource - water is always a good one in the old west, though mining rights are pretty solid too.

3) the characters can get caught in some kind of political setup that the alliance is building - they encourage piracy and crime of all kinds in the rim, giving them an excuse to come in and "stablize" the region.

4) the beginnings of the browncoats - weapons smuggling / theft from alliance supply posts. dangerous but lucrative crime...

5) a corporation, unfettered by inconvenient laws, sets up shop on the rim and does whatever it feels like - and one of the character's families is caught in the middle.

Other Games / What is everyone playing?
« on: June 22, 2006, 04:57:50 PM »
running through GTA: San Andreas. again.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 20