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.
NOTICE: Some online security services are reporting that information for a limited number of users from this site is for sale on the "dark web." As of right now, there is no direct evidence of this, but change your password just to be safe.

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 - Doctor Jest

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 68
Quote from: Simlasa;818192
Yeah, didn't care for Gumshoe's solution to a non-problem either.
I'm still not getting why I'd want that... just seems like adding rules and jargon for stuff that doesn't need rules and jargon.

Why bother?

I don't see how that adds more fun... it actually sounds fucking annoying and nitpicky. Complicating something for no good reason.

You can say that about any kind of game rules, really, depending on what your priorities are.

Most games are built around the idea of adventure stories like Lord of the Rings or Conan. Those are great and fun things to play. I like those. And the rules for these games are centered around things like combat or exploration, because those things are central to adventure games. If interpersonal and personal psychological conflict comes up, it's handled either without explicit rules or a simple die roll, because that kind of conflict isn't terribly important in an adventure game.

Hillfolk/DramaSystem is built around the idea of character dramas, like A Song of Ice and Fire or Prince of Nothing. That also sounds like a fun thing to play. I like those too. And the rules are centered around things like interpersonal conflict and psychological turmoil because those things are central to character dramas. Combat and exploration are either handled without explicit rules or a simple mechanical resolution, because that kind of conflict isn't terribly important in a character drama.

Both kinds of games use mechanics to emphasize certain kinds of conflicts. Which one you'd play depends on what kind of game you want. A game of Dungeon Explorers in D&D will play out very differently than one in DramaSystem. The meaningful conflicts in the first are primarily physical ones against the environment, in the second it's primarily psychological and emotional ones  against the other player characters.

I think DramaSystem has a great potential for those of us who like really getting into characters' heads and being able to play that to the hilt. I am anxious to try it.

Pen and Paper Roleplaying Games (RPGs) Discussion / Hobgoblins (Pet Peeve)
« on: February 27, 2015, 02:27:02 PM »
Quote from: tuypo1;818098
i dont really like that idea when it comes to humanoids kitchen sink is the best way to go when you cut down on numbers things get boring fighting the same things constantly

Only if those things behave in a boringly consistent way. Orc tribes who continue to adapt their tactics and behaviors to a changing world are dynamic. Fighting the Iron Tooth Clan can be radically different than going up against the Stone Hammer Clan. You don't need to scratch out "Orc" and write in "Hobgoblin" to make them interesting. That's just lazy. Keep what you have interesting by making it interesting. Don't want to fight the same thing, stop making them exactly the same. Shaking things up by introducing a new name and slightly different stats is kinda cheap. A good GM should be able to serve up orcs 100 ways and have those each be 100 different experiences.

Pen and Paper Roleplaying Games (RPGs) Discussion / Hobgoblins (Pet Peeve)
« on: February 27, 2015, 02:15:41 PM »
Quote from: TristramEvans;818181
That entry is not accurate. I'm not at home to access my notes, but this is an area Ive done a lot of research on.

Every etymological source for the word puts it at the 16th century as a nickname for Robin Goodfellow. I can't find a single other source, credible or otherwise, that shows an alternate etymology. Can't wait to see your notes.

Pen and Paper Roleplaying Games (RPGs) Discussion / Hobgoblins (Pet Peeve)
« on: February 27, 2015, 02:02:01 PM »
Quote from: TristramEvans;818177
I cant find reference to him calling himself a hobgoblin prior to Shakespeare. Puck was, I suspect, just an Anglicized version of Pooka.

The first recorded use of the word "hobgoblin" is in the 1520s to describe the folklore character Robin Goodfellow. He's not only A hobgoblin, he's THE hobgoblin. Other characters were also described as hobgoblins after.


Pen and Paper Roleplaying Games (RPGs) Discussion / Hobgoblins (Pet Peeve)
« on: February 27, 2015, 01:46:45 PM »
Quote from: TristramEvans;818174
Harmless pranks are pretty low on the antagonism scale when it comes to faeries though. That's still "Seelie Court" stuff.

Harmless pranks in some stories. Not so much in others. It's in the latter stories when he became conflated with Puck that he became more light hearted.

Pen and Paper Roleplaying Games (RPGs) Discussion / Hobgoblins (Pet Peeve)
« on: February 27, 2015, 01:27:48 PM »
Quote from: TristramEvans;818054
Its a beneficial faerie rther than one out to screw you.

Not always, Robin Goodfellow was often antagonistic.

Also "hob" is just a short form for the name Robin or Robert. So it's the Goblin named Robin.

Isn't the tarring and feathering of those that don't tow their line SOP for these people? Does anyone take them seriously anymore?

Quote from: Omega;818010
Either that or written by someone whos never seen players play a character "sub optimally" as part of the character.

I might know that a troll is killed and stopped regenerating by fire or acid. But my character whos never seen or heard of a troll before sure as hell isnt going to cast fire or acid spells specifically to kill it. I'll start off with whatevers my go-to attack spell and if thats not fire or acid based well boo-hoo-hoo! If I see it regenerate I might try fire then as it makes sense in that cauterize the wound sort of way. I might never hit on acid as an option. And yes playing like that might get my character DOA.

Actually, Hillfolk's drama system doesn't cover character knowledge in any way. It's only used in dramatic relationships between characters, not in procedural stuff like "how to kill a troll". It never really addresses that kind of question.

It's not a proscriptive system where it's "correcting" someone's behavior, but more something that creates incentives for characters to engage with each other in emotionally fraught (drama) ways, based on the desires and relationships you've created for your character. If you know how to kill a troll or not isn't on the menu.

Quote from: Beagle;817889
I'm a bit skeptical that trying to emuate a TV series such as these is a good concept for an RPG. It boils down to "art imitating art imitating life" and that seems to include a rather rendundant step.

It doesn't really emulate a TV show mechanically unless you choose to use it's explicit "hard" scene framing rules (and even then it's not exactly a TV show, but more a structured narrative in the literary sense). It also has an option for "Immersive Play" where the scene frames are "soft", in other words pretty much how most RPGs use them already.

Besides, I don't like games that want to tell me how I have to feel, which makes quite a few "drama systems" a bit annoying. So, this is probably not a game for me (which is sad, because "Iron Age hunters and gatherers" sounds cool. In a propper, historic game).

I haven't played it, but I have read it, and I don't think it tells you how to feel at all. In fact, it's the opposite, it incentivises and rewards you to act on how you (your character, actually) feels (as decided by you). The drama point system is more about how important are your feelings on something rather than on what they are.

The procedural rules kinda blow, so I'd drop the drama rules onto another system.

The RPGPundit's Own Forum / The Afterlife of TRPG Social Justice
« on: February 26, 2015, 05:14:23 PM »
Quote from: Sacrosanct;817949
Did you not see my post above where I gave an entire bullet list of things that happening in our society that contributes to a rape culture?  Or are you just being willfully ignorant?

You don't realize those things are counter-culture?

The RPGPundit's Own Forum / The Afterlife of TRPG Social Justice
« on: February 26, 2015, 05:11:19 PM »
Quote from: TristramEvans;817946
There is a common theory that fictional depictions inspire action. Violent media causes violence, etc. This idea is at the heart of most calls for censorship of media. Moreover, this premise is accepted as fact by most SJW theory that levels critique at  everything from films, to videogames, to art, to rpgs. Its "reinforces" behaviours and attitudes is the common expression.

Well to be fair, the history of censorship has shown by censoring subjects it has always successfully eliminated them from society...

...oh wait, no it doesn't.

The problem with this is that it is not a foregone conclusion. Not even close. Almost every behavioural psychology study into the matter has provided evidence that its not true. Most suggest the opposite: people seek out media that engages an aspect of the human condition lacking in their lives. Violent people do not seek out violent media, people who are not violent are more accepting of violence as entertainment.

Actually a 2010 economic field study of the impact of violent movies on crime showed there was a non-trivial and statistically significant reduction in violent crime when violent movies were playing. This effect lasted for several days after the movie stopped showing.

Some violent people will apparently seek out violent media instead of committing crimes. They called this the "alternate activity effect"; people cannot both commit a violent crime and engage with violent media at the same time, and when provided with a choice, at least some will select violent media in lieu of violent acts.

They found no evidence whatsoever that the movies caused people to become violent.

Studies SJWs like to cite are arousal studies done in laboratories. This is where they display images to people then give them a somewhat trivial test to see if they've become more or less prone to being harsh towards others (something like not sharing a pen = being more violently inclined).

Aside from the problem of how they're equating a trivial behavior and a criminal one, and the problem that this is occuring in a controlled environment while being intensely observed, conditions completely unlike the real world, the larger probably is arousal doesn't mean anything. It's like a polygraph test, you get a result, but it takes a human being "interpreting" those results to assign any meaning to them, and different people can be evaluating the results with different ideas of what constitutes "normal". Arousal tests are thus not really proof of anything.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;817892
Nothing in philosophy can be solved by science.

Unfortunately philosophers tend to think everything in science can be solved by philosophy.

Quote from: Will;817869
My favorite is 'making an object invisible doesn't necessarily mean you can see anything on the other side of the object.'


That's one of the better WTFD&D? statements I've ever heard.

Also, there's the guy in a D&D 3.5 game who argued that he can cast water breathing on a red dragon to make it suffocate, and his GM didn't know what he was talking about when he said it doesn't work that way.

His GM was Jonathan Tweet.

The RPGPundit's Own Forum / The Afterlife of TRPG Social Justice
« on: February 26, 2015, 11:45:02 AM »
Quote from: Sacrosanct;817893
How would you know?  If something never gets reported, how would you know to count it in your data, since you were never aware of it?

Read it yourself.

EDIT: apparently I misread, I just read it again and saw I got it exactly backwards. My error, apologies. However, I will allow the link to stand for those interested in the topic.

The RPGPundit's Own Forum / The Afterlife of TRPG Social Justice
« on: February 26, 2015, 11:43:27 AM »
Quote from: Sacrosanct;817890
It's 24 in 1000.

I can believe that number, that would be 2.4 out of 100, or about two and a half percent. Which is definitely not 1 out of 4.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 68