The Fifth Archdaemon

World of Dim Light's page

14 posts. Alias of Brian Adams.


RSS

Dark Archive *

Actually, according to the text, even if you get it for GMing first, you can't get a box for playing it.

Dark Archive *

nosig wrote:
World of Dim Light wrote:

With regards to the spoilered rant, that's going to depend on group and GM tendencies. As a player, I lean toward describing what I am doing to see if the GM will grant some kind of bonus, regardless of the skill being checked. As a GM, I tend to take into account anything the players tell me to determine DCs/bonuses to rolls. I am sorry if most of your experience has been with GMs who treat social skills differently from other skills, but that is not a universal thing.

One reason for why this might be a tendency is that for social skills, you can generally actually do what your character is doing at the table, whereas showing off dance moves isn't something that a crowded venue could accommodate at all. Combined with quotability of particularly memorable results, this might also result in a bit of confirmation bias.

I lean toward describing what my PC is doing... because I think it's fun to "Act it out". Actually knowing that the judge/GM is going to modify my roll depending on my descriptions will often "kill the moment" for me and put me back to just rolling the dice.

In fact, I like to roll the check first (or Take 10 if I am allowed!) not announcing the result right away, then try to role play how well I think I did.

Here's a thread that talks about that...
Go to Role-Playing-the-Roll.

Different viewpoints here. Actually, I would say that the player should give at least some impression of what their character is trying to do, then roll. The GM is the one who will truly know what the difficulty of the task is, and therefore how successful the result is.

Just yesterday, at a Starfinder table, a player rolled a '3' to hit, and said 'I miss.' Total result was 9, so he assumed it was a failure. When the GM asked for the final result, and was given the total of 9, he announced that the attack was successful. If I were describing that, I would have said that despite being a bit off balance (whatever caused the EAC to be that low) resulted in the shot striking the target.

The player trying to roleplay the roll creates a number of difficulties, starting with the player's lack of knowledge as to what the actual difficulty is. That moving speech with a roll of a 1 from the linked thread? The speech may have been moving, but some external factor caused it to fail. I would tend to encourage roleplaying the skill level, not the die roll. You know how skilled the character is. The die roll doesn't reflect skill, it reflects the random factors that influence the ultimate success or failure, one of four elements that determine the result, and one that you have no way of predicting in advance.

The four elements I just mentioned are PC skill level (always known to the player), general difficulty of the task (frequently known to the player through experience), fixed situational modifiers (sometimes known to the player, but not always - you might know that the mayor's daughter has a crush on you, and is influencing her father in your favor, or you might not), and the random elements (never known in advance). A player's actions, I feel, should be stated in terms of the known elements, then the random elements and unknown elements factored in by the GM to give the final result.

Dark Archive *

2 people marked this as a favorite.

With regards to the spoilered rant, that's going to depend on group and GM tendencies. As a player, I lean toward describing what I am doing to see if the GM will grant some kind of bonus, regardless of the skill being checked. As a GM, I tend to take into account anything the players tell me to determine DCs/bonuses to rolls. I am sorry if most of your experience has been with GMs who treat social skills differently from other skills, but that is not a universal thing.

One reason for why this might be a tendency is that for social skills, you can generally actually do what your character is doing at the table, whereas showing off dance moves isn't something that a crowded venue could accommodate at all. Combined with quotability of particularly memorable results, this might also result in a bit of confirmation bias.

Dark Archive *

We're down from 2 tables with an occasional third, to one with an occasional second at my main venue. But at the same time, 5th ed seems to be suffering the same decrease. And the only times we have trouble getting a full table seem to be the Wednesdays before local cons, though I don't know how much of that is because many of the main GMs say that they will not be there that day.

Dark Archive *

No. It just means people need to pay attention. Your redesign project is full of flaws, and mistaken assumptions, and will do nothing to get the people who can't be bothered to read instructions to follow your instructions.

Dark Archive *

The willful inability to read and follow instructions is the only issue here.

Step 1: Hand each of the players a blank Chronicle sheet and ask
them to fll out the sections marked A–F, H, K, and O (Character
Chronicle #, player/character info and slotted faction, Starting XP,
Initial Fame, and Starting Credits). Each player should also list the
factions for which her character earned Reputation during the
adventure (V) and her current Reputation with those factions (W).

Thus, player enters current rep in the left field.

Step 3: Determine how much Fame the character earned
over the course of the scenario. A character can typically earn
a maximum of 2 Fame per scenario; 1 Fame for each success
condition completed. Enter the number of Fame earned in the
shaded Fame Gained feld (L) and initial the adjacent box. Repeat
this process [determining gain] for the character’s Reputation and update the field for the appropriate faction (X).

Bracketed part added by me. It clearly does not refer to the third sentence, as there is no adjacent box to initial, but instead refers to the first sentence.

Thus, GM enters updated total in box X

Therefore, Method 1.

Dark Archive *

No. They have to be built up legally step by step, and feats can't be delayed.

Dark Archive *

Sterling Jade-Marble wrote:

I'm one of those people who would enjoy lending a hand as GM, given that they seem to be needed at big events like Gen Con. But I feel totally inadequate to the task. I play Starfinder (and Pathfinder, which I have also GM'd a bit) and have read through the CRB. But there seem to be so many people (GM's and otherwise) who know so many details about these games, from the rules to the history to the detailed minutia. I mostly know about the races/classes of characters I've actually played. :)

Any advice as to how to know when you know enough to rise to the occasion and take on some GM-ing at the Con level?

Look for a local con that is asking for volunteers. Once you have a local con under your belt, it will be time to assess how you felt about doing it. I took the step at ECCC this year, and I enjoyed it. I'll probably be aiming to be in a position to volunteer for PaizoCon this next year (reporting issues have kept me from having my first star, and I could easily be 2 star and 1 or 2 nova by this time next year).

Dark Archive *

pjrogers wrote:
Mekkis wrote:

PFS scenarios aren't updated when new material comes out.

If you enjoy beating the system as you so claim, more power to you. But don't claim that it's a level playing field.

This is a really critical point, and one that I hope PFS2 can address. As additional classes, archetypes, etc. come out for PF2e, there needs to be a way to update older PFS2 scenarios, similar to the revised secondary success conditions document for the earlier seasons of PFS1.

It is absolutely NOT feasible to update 20+ scenarios every time a new book gets sanctioned. It was feasible to alter 1 minor portion of a large number of scenarios when a change of campaign direction occurred, which did not involve rebalancing any encounters, but rebalancing every encounter in every scenario released, on the off chance that some min-maxing powergamer has a trick to trivialize it (which, incidentally has the effect of forcing everyone else to become min-maxers just to survive the scenario) would be a task I would like to sentence you to perform.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I disagree that core is in any way significant beyond "the core options predate the rest of the options."

I mean, a big part of the nature of shared storytelling games is that the world is mutable to fit the needs of the story. If you had wanted to, you could play a goblin PC in every single adventure path to date. Between the GM and the player working together you can fit a hero-goblin anywhere you want if you actually try. However many goblins exist in Magnimar or Westcrown or Alkenstar is up to the GM to decide, depending on the needs of the game.

Sorry, but i disagree with you.

Once again i repeat, the Advanced race guide is a clear example of this.

It directly calls out for GM approval on anything, BUT the core 7, which it already assumes you can make a PC of.

This is a wording issue that could be resolved in 2.0 in the core by calling out GM aproval on everything, which personally i find only logical, but for 1.0 what is core and what isnt have a big diference regarding races.

Honestly if goblins were still called "Featured" or something equivalent instead of "core" and had such direct call it probably wouldnt be such a thing right now.

The ARG can assume that all it wants, if the GM says no, the answer is no.

EXCEPT when the GM's hands are tied.

My opposition to goblins in the core rulebook is based entirety on my experiences and observations from running Society games, the one place where the only real way a GM can say no is by walking away from the table, and ruining several non-disruptive players' evenings. Even segregation of the goblins in the book will not avoid the sort of issues that arose with the legacy races in Starfinder Society. And there is at least one murder hobo player that has shown up a few times that I would not run a table for if they brought a goblin PC.

I have no problems with goblin PCs in general, and certainly would allow HMM to play pretty much any goblin concept she has mentioned. But I'm worried that there are a few reasons why people want to play goblins, one of which will be completely unsuitable for Society play. I would be all for the first supplement being GoG Revised, divided into parts that would support playing homicidal baby-eating Pyromaniacs for home games, and another for supporting Heroic goblins, with the first part being explicitly banned for Society play. But putting them in core could create too many issues for VOs/VCs/Tonya.

Dark Archive

Really, one should at least be polite enough to introduce them self. Unless, I suppose, they have a succubus or Pugwampi allergy.

Dark Archive

I wasn't sure, given my choice of name.

Dark Archive

If that was aimed at me, Nosferatu is the one I used the most as a ST.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.

*Staggers out of thread. Straightens clothes, does best to brush off goblin-induced ashes, and assorted pugwampi-induced blemishes.*

"Well, that was an interesting experience."

*Re-enters thread*

Just spent the last week reading this thread from beginning to present. I also went through the Shattered Star pbp you started, and I'm really liking the action there. These are the type of people I feel like I would really enjoy playing with, or eventually GMing for. So if you don't mind, I'll be sticking around, and occasionally interacting here.