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.

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Perkins is a doofus but I agree with him on number of classes; 1e AD&D got it about right IMO with classes & subclasses.

Then you open up Dragon and its a new class every 5 issues.

AD&D expanded classes slowly, much as 5e did. Fiend Folio and Oriental Adventures, and technically Dragonlance were about the only books to add new races or classes.

That all changed with 2e.
2
I don't want to defend anyone at WOTC, but I actually agree with Perkins on this. If I were designing the game, I'd take it down to 4 base classes (Fighter, Cleric, Mage, Rogue) and make everything else a variant on one of those. Either through subclasses or by feat selection. Then again, I bailed out of the 5E ship years ago.

heh-heh. Same here. And honestly alot of folk initially felt the barbarian should have been a fighter subclass.
3
Quirky in what way?

Like all non-humans? Thats as old as D&D, probably older.

Or they all had weird and overly elaborate backgrounds? Thats been around too. Just not as overwhelming as it feels modern games seem to obsess over.
4
The problem is the Skittle colored hair crowd thinks quirks and flaws are not as they are. They don't understand there are limits.

I would argue they simply don't want the actual flaws. They want the appearance of being disabled without actually having to play a disabled PC. Its virtue signaling retardation taken to its logical extreme. The stupid fucker that came up with the 'combat wheelchair' made sure that any such PC confined to one was better and more capable than a standard PC.

Theres also a fantisization of being handicapped. As if it is no hindrance at all. Movies, cartoons.

Or they think they will automatically get some compensation sense from it that will lessen it. Guess what. You aint! I've talked with alot of handicapped folk about this and way more than half ended up with no other sense enhanced.

I feel this comes from the overall push to gloss over the negatives of being handicapped. Which leaves some people unprepared for the harsh realities.
5
But at this point simply seeing a wheelchair is apparently just as triggering for yall as those hypothetical 'dogwhistles' the wokies keep complaining about.

I think you might have something there.
If one pops up in a game, I'm going to play that X-card.
6
In the opinion of those of you who actually run games, can a wheelchair bound character have an 18 dexterity or equivalent, and does removing the chair alter this in anyway? If say a beholder thanos-sizes the wheelchair out from under your arse are we adjusting your ac or dodge or whatever?

In D&D the person would be prone and all the penalties that grants and no way to un-prone yourself without righting the chair and pulling yourself back in it. This actually happens in some of the Ghostbuster Extreme episodes where the wheelchair bound character gets knocked out of his chair. He either has to right it and get back in, or fight from the ground.
7
Being in a wheelchair, taking care of such survivors, and lacking alternatives, is not an unlikely scenario in a post-apocalyptic war against machines. And as long as it's treated as a liability and not some superpower it shouldn't be antithetical to verisimilitude. But at this point simply seeing a wheelchair is apparently just as triggering for yall as those hypothetical 'dogwhistles' the wokies keep complaining about.

This ideological bullshit is so tedious.

Its not so much the wheelchair - as the thought, or lack thereof, behind it. Anymore its more likely these insertions are not in good faith. That is the problem.

I have no idea if its viable or not in a post apoc setting. But circumstance is going to FORCE the handicapped to get out there and fight.

I think the same off-road/rubble problems are going to be a problem though. And anything with stairs. We come back to the need for a PC to act as handler for these problems. Which fits these settings too. And as said before. Can even fit a fantasy one. Work together or die alone.
8
Ruts. Ancient and medieval roads had deep ruts. Dirt roads, stone roads, dry or wet. We don’t get the same thing today except sometimes on unmaintained backcountry roads. The ruts were carved over years by thousands of carts. Speaking of carts…a donkey cart would be infinitely more practical than a wheelchair.

Depends on the traffic. And you can putter between ruts if they are wagon sized. But we lived around alot of Amish and their dirt roads did not have ruts. Or at least ones worth noting. Its been a few decades now. Not sure why. But if they can pull it off...

Rain is still going the be the more pressing problem. And you still have the off-road problem.

You know what occurred to me that could work?

A halfling or gnome ranger or artificer in a dog cart or similar. I have an old catalogue from 1930 and theres a section on them for dogs, goats even to pull children around. Still got that off-road problem. But maybe something like a magical sled? Of course the woke cant ever think of more than a fantasy indestructo flying wheelchair.
9
Greetings!

Yes, ForgottenF and I agree very much. In the "Wheelchair" thread, I made precisely the same argument. Yes, I am biased towards harsh, brutal reality, because I have actually done all of what amounts to as "Adventuring" in real life, professionally. While the Army and Navy are not as strict and demanding as the Marine Corps, historically, both of them have embraced and demanded a fairly rigorous uniform standard of physical abilities. Army Infantry demand everyone in the squad are able to perform basic physical challenges, running, climbing, swimming, digging, crawling, combat, running, and so on. The Navy--of course, not now with the fucking Woke Navy--but in the past, they too required regular physical challenges, carrying men and equipment up and down tight flights of stairwells, working with heavy tools, weapons and ammunition, and of course, being skilled in swimming. They also required a standard of athletics, likewise from every member of the crew, regardless of their particular "job".

That gets into my experience with the Marine Corps policy of "Every man a Rifleman." The Marines of course, likewise demand extremely vigorous physical abilities from everyone--again, regardless of their job or specialty. The standards within the Marine Infantry and Force Recon are much higher, and even more demanding. The Navy Seals, as you mentioned, yes, they too demand some of the highest and most brutal standards, again, for every member of the team.

This experience is all very relevant, because for many members of the military, at least much of the time, we do most everything that professional Adventurers in our games do.

The stupid, the fat, the weak, the slow--and certainly the fucking crippled--are not welcome, not acceptable, and not tolerated.

WHY?

Because people will unnecessarily DIE trying to protect the weak fucks, or get killed while coddling them.

Next, the MISSION. The success of the MISSION requires everyone is pulling their weight, and bringing their "A" game in every way. Minimum standards are simply a baseline--out in the field, in the real world, the Mission will always demand FAR MORE.

Your team simply must be able to all perform very well, and be ready and able to exceed expectations, or the Mission fails.

So, yeah, even in 1E D&D, Wizards are always very welcome, and an excellent asset--but they still must be able to do all the basic physical challenges and wilderness survival and movement required of everyone on the team.

There is no room for the weak, the fat, the slow, the stupid, or the crippled.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Shark, do you allow players to re-roll characters if they get lousy stats?  Or are you in the “3d6, straight-down-the-line-and-you’ll-take-what-you-get-and-like-it” camp?

Greetings!

Good question, my friend! The truth is, it depends on the "Campaign Mode" I am running that particular group with. Normal Mode--which is 4D6 for each stat; or Hard Mode, which is 3D6 down the line. Of course, sometimes I will run the campaign one mode or the other, or allow the Players to select what they like. Some, after all, *prefer* the Hard Mode.

In recent campaigns, however, like my more recent group, I have been playing the Shadowdark rules, so, HARD MODE it is!

I can be lenient though. If they roll up a totally lame Character, yeah, reroll and get something decent. I don't let them reroll endlessly, seeking super stats--but simply to get that rough, decent range of stats. The driving point, being, yeah, Adventurers are unusual and somewhat elite. You have to be to even have a chance at surviving the challenges ahead. Being normal is ok, but let's face it--a large chunk of humanity are in fact, just walking corpses in a firefight. They are often mentally and physically entirely unsuited to fighting at the front. So, I am careful to supervise Players to make sure that they have rugged, functional characters. The weak, fat, crippled, and so on, well, again, let's be real. Those people stay back on the farm, or stay in the urban ghetto where they come from, or even a more well-off house. Those people stay near the temples, the schools, and markets, away from danger and real work.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Thanks for the response.  It is always good to know your take on things. 


I myself am kind of a softy when it comes to stats.  I would like a character to have two good stats and to be able to place them so they can pick a class that they want to play.  In the AD&D Player’s Handbook Gary Gygax recommends that a player character have at least a 15 in two stats since they represent heroic adventurers.  Since I use the  B/X rules and the plusses start at 13, I would be okay with two stats of at least 13 or better.  My reasoning is that I can always bump up the challenge if the players are really “heroic” and cutting their way through hordes of enemies Conan style. 

Regarding Magic-Users, I have no problem with a mage swinging a sword in a fight.  They are still going to have crappy to-hit rolls in most systems.  Not sure how I feel about them wearing heavy armor, or any armor for that matter.  The whole “magic doesn’t work ‘cause metal armor” falls apart when the mage dons a suit of dragon scale armor or magical leather.  I am forced to say “no” for the sake of game balance.  I would rule if the mage wants to wear armor and fight well then they should branch off into fighter.

10
Greetings!

Yes, ForgottenF and I agree very much. In the "Wheelchair" thread, I made precisely the same argument. Yes, I am biased towards harsh, brutal reality, because I have actually done all of what amounts to as "Adventuring" in real life, professionally. While the Army and Navy are not as strict and demanding as the Marine Corps, historically, both of them have embraced and demanded a fairly rigorous uniform standard of physical abilities. Army Infantry demand everyone in the squad are able to perform basic physical challenges, running, climbing, swimming, digging, crawling, combat, running, and so on. The Navy--of course, not now with the fucking Woke Navy--but in the past, they too required regular physical challenges, carrying men and equipment up and down tight flights of stairwells, working with heavy tools, weapons and ammunition, and of course, being skilled in swimming. They also required a standard of athletics, likewise from every member of the crew, regardless of their particular "job".

That gets into my experience with the Marine Corps policy of "Every man a Rifleman." The Marines of course, likewise demand extremely vigorous physical abilities from everyone--again, regardless of their job or specialty. The standards within the Marine Infantry and Force Recon are much higher, and even more demanding. The Navy Seals, as you mentioned, yes, they too demand some of the highest and most brutal standards, again, for every member of the team.

This experience is all very relevant, because for many members of the military, at least much of the time, we do most everything that professional Adventurers in our games do.

The stupid, the fat, the weak, the slow--and certainly the fucking crippled--are not welcome, not acceptable, and not tolerated.

WHY?

Because people will unnecessarily DIE trying to protect the weak fucks, or get killed while coddling them.

Next, the MISSION. The success of the MISSION requires everyone is pulling their weight, and bringing their "A" game in every way. Minimum standards are simply a baseline--out in the field, in the real world, the Mission will always demand FAR MORE.

Your team simply must be able to all perform very well, and be ready and able to exceed expectations, or the Mission fails.

So, yeah, even in 1E D&D, Wizards are always very welcome, and an excellent asset--but they still must be able to do all the basic physical challenges and wilderness survival and movement required of everyone on the team.

There is no room for the weak, the fat, the slow, the stupid, or the crippled.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Shark, do you allow players to re-roll characters if they get lousy stats?  Or are you in the “3d6, straight-down-the-line-and-you’ll-take-what-you-get-and-like-it” camp?

Greetings!

Good question, my friend! The truth is, it depends on the "Campaign Mode" I am running that particular group with. Normal Mode--which is 4D6 for each stat; or Hard Mode, which is 3D6 down the line. Of course, sometimes I will run the campaign one mode or the other, or allow the Players to select what they like. Some, after all, *prefer* the Hard Mode.

In recent campaigns, however, like my more recent group, I have been playing the Shadowdark rules, so, HARD MODE it is!

I can be lenient though. If they roll up a totally lame Character, yeah, reroll and get something decent. I don't let them reroll endlessly, seeking super stats--but simply to get that rough, decent range of stats. The driving point, being, yeah, Adventurers are unusual and somewhat elite. You have to be to even have a chance at surviving the challenges ahead. Being normal is ok, but let's face it--a large chunk of humanity are in fact, just walking corpses in a firefight. They are often mentally and physically entirely unsuited to fighting at the front. So, I am careful to supervise Players to make sure that they have rugged, functional characters. The weak, fat, crippled, and so on, well, again, let's be real. Those people stay back on the farm, or stay in the urban ghetto where they come from, or even a more well-off house. Those people stay near the temples, the schools, and markets, away from danger and real work.

As I recall, isn't the average for 3D6 like, 10? The average for 4D6 (drop lowest) is...12, I think? Depending on what scores the Players have in what, yeah, I try and hope they never get anything below a -1 modifier. Or at least, not having more than two (-1) attributes. Having two or more (-1) or (-2) attributes, well, yeah, you are getting very close to failure state there, you know? Again, depending on the attributes and the class, some things can slide better than others, more so in the mental, social areas than the physical, for example. Being socially clumsy, or mentally a bit on the slow side can be fine--but if you cannot run, climb, jump, swim, carry shit, dig, and fight to a basic standard, that seems like a huge no to me, right from the beginning.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10