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
The RPGPundit's Own Forum / Re: Greta is at it..AGAIN
« Last post by ralfy on Today at 01:19:22 AM »
Bill Gates: The Net Zero transition will require the energy grid "to be about three times bigger than it is today".

"Consumers can help us by stretching to buy an electric car, or an electric heat pump, or food that's made a low emissions way."

"The rich countries owe it to the world not only to reduce their emissions, but to drive down the cost of these green products."

https://archive.is/l8M85

Exactly! So why is the Club of Rome seen as wrong? In order to meet the basic needs of the world population, we'll need at least an additional earth in terms of energy and material resources. To meet wants including EVs for personal use, three more.

BECAUSE all their predictions, since the 70s have been wrong and BECAUSE your lñeaders are buying beach front property comrade.

Then why did real data from 1972 to 2012 track the LtG standard run model?



2

I have. It is possible to interpret the rule that way, since I interpreted it that way, so I remain correct. Posturing as a bizarrely aggressive sperg because you believe your position is popular is not an argument.


You have not interpreted it that way.  You have instead made up something that is directly contradicted by the text.  You do this in a lot of rules threads just to start drama with people who are correct.  I'm not sure if you're trolling or earnestly incorrect.

I interpreted it that way. Don't tell me what I did or didn't do. Disagreeing with people is not starting drama, and you're not the arbiter of which positions are correct.

I'll tell you exactly what you didn't do; you didn't interpret it.  An interpretation doesn't contradict the text.  Instead, what you said doesn't line up with what is in the book, and I provided the quote proving so.  Your misunderstanding about the text preventing what you wrote from being an interpretation.

Disagreeing with people is not inherently starting drama, you're correct about that.  But like, separate from that point, you'd agree you do start drama in threads, right? 

Also, as far as "not being the arbiter", I mean, anyone is the arbiter of stuff when they are correct.  Like me in this case.  I can definitely judge a position incorrect if it doesn't line up with the text.  What we can't do is come to a conclusion about which of the "subtract the constant and add the new die" or the "roll everything each time" position is correct, based on the text.  That was the premise of the blogpost.  Within that scenario, I'd generally argue for the progressive thing instead of the reroll.  I'd say something like, the reroll itself would be notable enough to include in the text.  Or, the reroll isn't obvious enough to count as implication.  I'd point out that you can reach the conclusion in the example by a method wherein you add dice and subtract constants, and that this is probably what was being done, as the charts already have other things that don't stick around at each level.

But for all that, the new hypothesis isn't contradicted by the text; it's a valid interpretation, even if I don't think it's the best one.

Something that does contradict the text, however, isn't an interpretation, it's a misunderstanding.
3
HAHAH true. Dickering about numbers in RPG's is no different than arguing about who would win in a fight between Cap and Batman (We all know it's Cap. Right? RIGHT?)

My money's on Bats...  (activate force field)

FIGHT!

I could see it either way. My general feeling is that if it's a cage match, Cap is gonna win. If Bats gets *any* environmental edge - it's dark, or he has the proverbial "Time to prepare"- then Bats has the advantage, but I'd never count Cap out.

In comics, the JLA/Avengers crossover is about the purest demonstration of both universes operating together. Kurt Busiek and (RIP) the legendary George Perez honored both universes. I can accept it.




4
HAHAH true. Dickering about numbers in RPG's is no different than arguing about who would win in a fight between Cap and Batman (We all know it's Cap. Right? RIGHT?)

My money's on Bats...  (activate force field)



5

I have. It is possible to interpret the rule that way, since I interpreted it that way, so I remain correct. Posturing as a bizarrely aggressive sperg because you believe your position is popular is not an argument.


I'm not making a populous argument. What you are talking about about would almost instantly break the game.

You were making an argument from popularity, since you told me to "get friends", even though it doesn't matter if zero people agree with me or a hundred trillion.

Whether it's game breaking depends entirely on the opposition selected by the GM.


I have. It is possible to interpret the rule that way, since I interpreted it that way, so I remain correct. Posturing as a bizarrely aggressive sperg because you believe your position is popular is not an argument.


I'm not making a populous argument. What you are talking about about would almost instantly break the game.

What level did your campaign play into? Level 5, 10, higher?

What version of D&D were you using?

hook, line, and sinker

Disagreement is not trolling. If you don't have anything to contribute, don't post.


I have. It is possible to interpret the rule that way, since I interpreted it that way, so I remain correct. Posturing as a bizarrely aggressive sperg because you believe your position is popular is not an argument.


You have not interpreted it that way.  You have instead made up something that is directly contradicted by the text.  You do this in a lot of rules threads just to start drama with people who are correct.  I'm not sure if you're trolling or earnestly incorrect.

I interpreted it that way. Don't tell me what I did or didn't do. Disagreeing with people is not starting drama, and you're not the arbiter of which positions are correct.

I said what I said, which was go play the game with your friends and you'll see how ridiculous it is to add the HD each level. Simple as that.

No, you were very obviously trying to imply that I don't have friends and don't actually play the game (never mind that I would still be right regardless). I have friends, we have played the game, and we haven't seen that it is ridiculous, and you will not win the argument by attempting to dictate which experiences are reasonable to have.
6
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.

John,

What is an "enslaved body servant?"

In 1784, an enslaved boy was assigned to be 14-year-old William Clark’s personal “body servant.” Like many slaves, the boy didn’t have a legal right to a last name, so he was known just as York.

All that is known about York’s parents are their first names, which were listed in John Clark’s will of 1799. York’s father was called Old York, and his mother was named Rose. It’s possible that Old York was John’s personal servant, and Rose may have been a house servant.

According to Rhonda Blumberg’s “York’s Adventures with Lewis and Clark,” black household servants like York were “upper-class slaves.” He would have slept in the Clark’s home, within earshot of William. He wore nicer clothing than those of field slaves, probably hand-me-downs from William and his brothers. He would have eaten better foods from the family’s kitchen and would have acquired refined manners and speech patterns. But slaves of all classes were typically forbidden from learning reading and writing.


I have no idea if any of this is actually true, it's just what I found in a random internet article.
7
The magic users hire the other adventurers to protect them, of course. As for why they're going into a dungeon in the first place, well, that's never really explained. Because dungeons in fantasy land are full of wealth for no reason, presumably.
8
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.

John,

What is an "enslaved body servant?"
9
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.
Even the Cleric is just a D&D-ism that is barely retained anyway as Bards now have Arcane healing.

All you really need are three classes; Fighter (fighty guy), Mage (casty guy) and Expert (skill guy); and free multi-classing between them.

Cleric is a Figher/Mage with a focus on healing spells. Paladin is also a Fighter/Mage with twice the levels in Fighter as Mage. Ranger is a Fighter/Expert with a focus on Nature, Barbarian is the same, but has way more levels in fighter than expert. Druid is a Mage with Nature/Shapeshifting focus. Etc.

Beyond that, you just need some subclass specifics like “Str vs. Dex based” Fighter options… with Rage, Unarmored Defense, and Unarmed strikes in the list somewhere for Fighter, Skill Tricks for the Expert (ex. Nature abilities, Mechanics/Locks/Traps, Social, Stealth), and spell school and/or power source focus for the Mage and you could more than cover all the D&D classes and have much broader options in general.

Chris,

Excellent ideas. And it totally works, it's True 20!  Except for the awful damage save. X Without Number does soemthing like this as well.
10
The RPGPundit's Own Forum / Re: Biden's Cascade of Failure!
« Last post by SHARK on March 28, 2024, 09:55:54 PM »
Greetings!

Here is the Benny Johnson program. Discusses the HUGE contrast between Biden and Trump. Check it out!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10