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
I think it's a matter of taste, but I think there are some differences in viewpoints.

It seems like you're picturing an adventuring party like a SEAL team -- where everyone are highly-trained experts who can do anything and are all self-reliant. But I think AD&D pictured groups more as historical expeditions. They were likely to have a bunch of lesser combatants (henchmen) as well non-combatants like porters, torch-bearers, squires, hirelings, etc. I think of the Lewis and Clark expedition that had a bunch of unmarried soldiers but also boat crew, an trapper/interpreter and his pregnant wife, and an enslaved body servant.

The problem I have with the Lewis and Clark analogy is that D&D adventures in general, and dungeons in particular, are phenomenally dangerous. Much more dangerous than even the American frontier was, and more dangerous than most historical wars. A D&D party goes into a dungeon fully expecting to face deadly traps and be in multiple life-or-death conflicts with supernatural creatures before they return, not to mention the likelihood they'll have to scale sheer surfaces or swim underwater for significant distances. I can't imagine anyone willingly taking a pregnant woman into that.

I don't know about the Navy Seal comparison. Frankly, I don't know that much about Navy Seals, but my understanding is that their job is to be elite combatants first, and everything else is in service to that. Maybe SHARK's "every Marine a rifleman" is a better analogy. I don't think every adventurer needs to be an elite fighter or necessarily an elite anything. As I said in the other thread, it strikes me as a profession which would reward generalism more than specialization. I accept class roles in D&D, because it's D&D and that's just how the game works, but I do think skill-based systems can sometimes produce more plausible, well-rounded adventurers out of character creation.

If we're open to literary examples, I'd point to adventure-fiction characters of the Indiana Jones/Alan Quartermain/Nathan Drake type. They're not usually the absolute best at anything, but they have a broad skill and knowledge base, and above-average competence in the things most important to what they do. Indiana Jones gets his ass whipped all the time, but he can still scrap. In the fantasy realm, characters like Conan or Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser are elite fighters, but they're also generalists who have plenty of skills beyond fighting.

I also question your comment about can't withstand physical hardship. In my experience, most magic users have low Strength but do have high Constitution, and I think of them as being quite tough and able to endure hardship. They're just not very skilled at fighting.

That has not been my experience, but obviously it depends on the luck of the die for attribute scores. I think it's fair to say that every other measure of physical resilience D&D tracks, wizards traditionally score very poorly. They always have the lowest hit die and usually have the worst poison or constitution saves. They usually don't have athletics as a class skill, and they don't get any class features related to travel or survival.

They're always bad at fighting, but the relevant question is how bad? Because they shouldn't be as good as a fighter or thief. What gets my goat is when people say that wizards (and thieves) aren't supposed to be able to fight, and shouldn't be fighting. Anyone who walks into an RPG dungeon should expect to be in a fight. If they're likely to be slaughtered as soon as a 1 hit-die goblin gets into melee with them, they have no business being there. 

There are exceptions, I'm sure. I never read any Dragonlance fiction, but I understand that Raistlin was portrayed as sickly - and that may have become a stereotype of D&D, but I'm not sure it was part of the original vision. Gandalf was the earlier stereotype for the wizard, and he was technically an extremely tough demigod who wielded a sword on his horse in battle. AD&D magic users weren't Gandalf, for sure, but they weren't necessarily delicate flowers who couldn't endure hardship.

I don't know if Raistlin is to blame or just the general stereotype that wizards are all egghead nerds. Gandalf is better, but it's a bit unfair because he's a superhuman. There aren't many great literary models for a wizard adventurer, because in most classic fantasy, wizards aren't adventurers. They're villains or advisor-types. Turjan from Dying Earth is probably the most apt example, but Turjan can handle a sword. In fact,  he and Cugel are both good examples of why a magic-user in a Vancian system better be able to defend themselves without magic.
2
For my medieval-based D&D games, I prefer to be inspired by harsh, brutal reality.

Ain't no one in any pseudo-medieval world gonna let their crippled relative, who is confined to a wheelchair, go adventuring. Even if they were the most gifted Wizard pupil around, the harsh reality of life would smack them in the face long before they went into their first ruin. And, as I said, it presumes that not a single Cleric does anything for charity. That their friendly Druid neighbor doesn't take pity on them and see to it their life is not confined to some wheelchair.

Greetings!

Yep, my friend! The whole argument is arguing from a position of absolute absurdity. Morons push for this kind of BS. Imagine what anyone rational in the game-world itself would likely think about such morons. They would laugh at them ruthlessly, out-of-hand. These pathetic, weak, helpless types of characters make zero sense in the harsh, real world environment--and they don't somehow make more sense in a harsh, brutal world that also has vampires, bands of savage orcs, and dragons running about seeking to slaughter everything that comes across their path.

The promotion of this nonsense is for the most part promoted by woke, jello-filled morons that are absolutely delusional.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

In Hackmaster 4th Ed, you has quirks and flaws (both mental and physical) for your PC by either cherry pick or roll (3 max by cherry pick). The more quirks and flaws you have, the more building points you get to purchase talents and skills at character creation.

BUT there is a threshold. A saturation point if you will, where the character would be considered unplayable. Through a sheer number of unlucky rolls, your character could become unplayable.  You could end up with a character who is a quadriplegic with chronic nose bleeds, migraines, stutters, and thinks he's a king (delusional).

My point? Sure you can have a game where PC do have quirks and flaws. HM 4E pulls this off. A PC who is a chronic liar, has unusual body odor, and in near-sighted is not exactly unplayable for example. As a DM, I would on occasion use these quirks and flaws against the PC. Honestly, that's part of my job.

But the guy who is character who is a quadriplegic with chronic nose bleeds, migraines, stutters, and thinks he's a king (delusional)?

No, he's unplayable. Period.

There comes a point where the shit piles up so much, you just have to say to yourself "there is no fucking way this character is playable."

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 don't care how fucking intelligent Steven Hawking was but he isn't climbing a fucking tree.

Intelligent? Yes. Genius? For sure. Run a 500m dash? Fuck NO!

Which is why...



Greetings!

Absolutely, my friend! Hackmaster was absolute *genius* too! Definitely a system that makes Woke people REEE and cry!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
3
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.

Greetings!

*Laughing* Yeah, Svenhelgrim, I am much the same way. After all, allowing Players to actually play the Class that they want, and be fairly decent at it, I tend to think is a good thing, you know? Having said that, yes, there is also great fun--and hilarity--in letting Players roll up totally random characters, letting the dice fall where they may, and see what you get. Personally, I LOVE that. It provides lots of hidden dynamics that are good for the game as a whole, if you see what I'm saying.

But, it does have its limitations and lessened appeal when you have a Player that is really jazzed and excited about playing "X" class. Telling them, "Well, better luck next time!" does not appeal to me very much, and certainly not likely for many Players. So, yeah, as the GM, I think being flexible, and somewhat generous at character creation is probably best, and the most fun.

I know some people like being harsh and uber-dicks say for example, to strangers you just met at a Con or at the game store, and may be more generous to a group of friends. Myself, though, yeah. You know. *Laughing* I'm nicer, and cool, and like everyone to have a good time. I wear the DM's Viking Hat, that is certain, but I'm not trying to compete with somehow showing how mean of a bastard DM I can be. I usually play with friends, so these people know me. Even at the game store, having a couple young girls, an older vet come up, maybe a young guy in high school or college, eager to get into an awesome campaign of D&D, yeah, I want them to have a good time, too.

That is just how I roll, my friend!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
4
Media and Inspiration / Re: The Movie Thread Reloaded
« Last post by Omega on Today at 09:18:14 PM »
Was rewatching my old copy of Legend and recently saw a video on the differences between the US and European versions and what struck me is that what I saw in theaters was not the US version. Weird.

Its a great D&D style movie though. A ranger an elf and some gnomes battling goblins and the forces of darkness. And it is beautifully done with all practical effects and FX. Hard to believe the swamp hag is played by Robert Picardo who would later be the Doctor on Voyager. And Tim Curry as the Darkness.
5
Other Games / Re: Fun but simple tabletop war games.
« Last post by weirdguy564 on Today at 09:13:56 PM »
So, I just bought two decks of this card game that is NOT a card game.

Battleground Fantasy Warfare.

https://rattrapgames.com/collections/battleground-fantasy-warfare




It is a deck of cards, but they're actually the miniatures for the wargame.  You place them onto the table, and the image on the card is of a block of soldiers, or a line of cavalry, and their stats.  They move across the tabletop as rank & file soldiers should, ready to charge the enemy soldiers and get into their vulnerable rear.

I like it because I don't have to paint an entire display case full of 28mm toys (I'm not much interested in that hobby), but I can have a battle game.  And then, when I am done, it packs away into a box of playing cards.
6
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.

Sometimes that is probably it.  I think some of it is the same old stupid trick that's been around since the game first existed:  Try to push the GM's buttons to make them dance to your tune.  Some people just really get off on wrecking the experience for everyone else, to the point they aren't having fun if they can't push in that way. 

I decided a long time ago that I wasn't having any of that in any game I ran. Woke BS is yet another case.  It is a particularly annoying case in some ways, but the more subtle, non-political versions are just as damaging to a group in the long run.
7
The way WotC is marketing this is just weird.  It's like they are trying to have their cake and eat it too.  They want to make a new edition but they don't want to alienate all of the 5e players.  So it's 5e but it's also not 5e.  It's the same but different.  It's okay if things go away because they will still be there?  What the fuck?  Either it goes away or it doesn't go away.  Is it 5e again or is it different?  If it's 5e again, why does anyone need it?  Are they removing things or not?  Why can't they just tell us what this product is going to be?

Because if they told us we'd wouldnt buy it. Perkins has already stated the DMG will practically push storygamer screeds like "The DM is there to serve the players and every player is a DM!" What DM is going to buy a book that tells them they have to be the players slave?
8
For me, this is yet another case of the excluded middle.

I typically set up rules (or house rules) somewhat in line with B/X 3d6 down the line at start, without much more capability, but then tip the scales ever so slightly in favor of the players with our rules.  Exactly how varies by system.  There is something that is "special" about a PC, even if only slightly tougher than your average first level scrub.  Then I throw them in a meat grinder world--expect them to scout, explore, and think--and rule impartially from that basis.  In other words, I put my thumb on the scale when your character was built. After that, the thumb comes off.  In my own system, not every creature has a class like PC's do, starting PC's get at least a +2 in one ability if they don't have one from the roll, and that's about it. 

The net result is that characters probably aren't all that capable (in Shark's terms) at start. They are just capable enough that if they can survive a couple of short adventures or one longer one, by using their brains, they'll then be capable.  Sometimes capable adventurers are having to nurse maid an incapable NPC or replacement PC for a while.  Since it's mostly a sandbox, and the players are mostly deciding what they think they can handle, it works.  You could look at it as players choosing a "boot camp" style adventure from time to time, when they need to get someone to that capable state, or at least find out if they can.

Of course, if I'm going to run a one-shot or a short campaign with a theme of highly capable adventurers taking on the world, then that's a different thing.  I've done old D&D modules that were very much "bring a character of N experience points", a completely different dynamic than zero to maybe hero in a sandbox.
9
Pen and Paper Roleplaying Games (RPGs) Discussion / Re: Orcs vs goblins
« Last post by SHARK on Today at 08:59:28 PM »
I like having different races, with their own distinct cultures, societies, and religions.
I guess that’s the question. How do you make the culture distinct. I can handle the religious part but culture m, well the orcs are fighting and dead before I can get any cultural details out.

Greetings!

Yes, Ruprecht! Making cultures distinct and interesting can be a challenge. Doing so also requires some good amount of planning, thought, and work. So, for example, I have in my Thandor world, a culture of Orcs known as the Khordron Horde. The Khordron Horde Orcs are savage and brutal, though they have also embraced advanced forms of technology, knowledge, organization, and culture. These developments, in turn, have cascade effects which have combined to make the Khordron Horde Orcs, as a nation, a kingdom, and a culture, very distinct from other Orc cultures. The Khordron Orcs have embraced advanced, industrial-scale agriculture, Institutional Slavery, organized technology, and an organized, hierarchical religion. Along with these changes, the Khordron Horde Orcs have also developed a more advanced and organized system of government and laws. Having a huge, unified, powerful Orc kingdom that is more or less High-Medieval makes for a very different kind of "Orc." Blend all of that with customs of eating humans, mass slavery, ritual sacrifice, gladiator arenas, and a society that glorifies the military, and martial, masculine values at every step, and that creates a radically different kind of Orc culture. Players encountering such NPC Khordron characters, or visiting a Khordron Orc city, are in store for a very different kind of experience.

I have another Orc culture, that is more rural based, not quite as sophisticated, that is more based upon Nordic cultures, themes, and values. Of course, these Orcs are also less organized, somewhat more tribal, and yet also highly skilled as seafarers and ship-builders. They live mostly in fortified villages and towns, as opposed to cities. They have agriculture, but it is more diffused, and not as organized. However, they are much more focused on seafaring, river trade, river travel, and fishing, than other kinds of Orcs.

A third prominent Orc culture in Thandor is a culture of Orcs that primarily live in subterranean realms, living in fortified villages and towns, though which are dug and formed from tunnels, caverns, dungeons, and chambers. These subterranean Orcs are also interbred and mixed with humanoid insects, which provides some insect-like features, insect-like mutations, and a culture which is insect-themed as a whole.

Each different culture worships a common religion, composed of a large pantheon of deities. However, each culture embraces some particular favourite deities and their corresponding cults, and emphasize them to different degrees wwithin their individual culture.

These three different Orc cultures embrace some similarities, for sure. However, there are numerous distinctions and differences, from religious spirituality, to social customs, breeding, mating rituals, government and social organization, that serves to make them considerably different from each other.

Does that help, Ruprecht?

Semper Fidelis,

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