It's sure not your Arcane Bond, since you cannot have a rod as an arcane bond item.** spoiler omitted **
Sorry, couldn't resist.
^_^
I will NEVER understand the need by some GMs to punish players for actually using what they know for it's intended purpose. That would be like a state trooper pulling you over & giving a ticket for safe driving.I will NEVER understand the need by some PEOPLE WITH RSI* to go on and rant without understanding the original post. That would be like a state trooper pulling you over & giving a ticket because he can't do otherwise.
*Reading skill imperment
And what makes you think I didn't read the whole thread? I understand perfectly well what the original post was about. You obviously did NOT understand my post. Punishing the players implies the GM going out of his way to make an ability/spell useless. Using Rope Trick does not warrant a witch hunt against the players. You can always roll you nightly encounters, THEN use the creatures skills/abilities/senses to see if it finds the PCs anyway. THAT would be acceptable. Even an occasional encounter that is targeted at the situation. But the GM should never go out of their way against a PC actually using tactics. Keep them on their toes, YES. Take away a spell, effectively, just because it annoys you, NO. If the spell was generally agreed to be broken, I could see just banning it, but this spell is NOT.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whenever they go into the pocket, make sure to mention that the barbarian subsists entirely on a diet of Indian and Mexican-type food. After an hour, explain that the odor inside the pocket dimension is causing animal companions to get sick. After two hours, point out that the barbarian also has not bathed in over a month - not even after the raid on the troglodyte lair last week.
Anyhow, the coherent posters (easily identified by their regular sized noses) have already pointed out that the only real way to address this is to have an opponent actively hunting for the PCs and willing to query magic ropes hanging in air. Opponents like that are not typical, so if you think middle-of-the-night random encounters are a key component of the D&D/Pathfinder experience, you're going to want to tweak the spell in some way or ban it. You could reduce the duration to 10 min/level and bump it down to 1st level - that would make it closer to the temporary hidey hole from the original version.
I'd check with your players first about all that. Again, I'm not adding anything new to the discussion, but some players can't stand the middle-of-the-night random encounters. They're a pain for a number of reasons ("did I rest enough to get my spells back yet? do I have my armor on? wait, my AC is 2 lower because I didn't grab my shield. can I sleep in to get my spells back? he's standing right next to me fighting, why didn't I wake up?") If avoiding random encounters is something your players enjoy, you might just want to let this one slide.
I usually don't agree with Cartigan, but he is right. I have been GMing since the late 80s. The main thing I learned a LONG time ago was that no matter how much planning you do, the PCs will usually find away to fool you. The PCs don't know what you have planned. They are trying to solve a problem. Usually they come up with a solution you never dreamed they would try. You can do your best to set up an encounter they way you want, say a key NPC interaction where they are tricked into a blind alley trap. You think you are slick & clever, but then the rogue rolls a 20 on Sense Motive. With all his bonuses he is able to not only tell the NPC is lying, but smells that he had fried eggs & toast for breakfast, proving he isn't even a vegan like he claimed earlier. Stuff happens. Good GMs learn to work with that.
I will defer to The Gamers on this point: you don't slink around everywhere you go, all day. You don't slink around at home. You don't slink around in church. Your character may learn quickly enough, either from rumors or from a couple bad experiences, that these woods are dangerous. But players who take great pains to prepare for the worst while camping outside an orphanage, next to a well-guarded castle, after a day of frolic and fun at the annual carnival, are metagaming. Which is as irritating to the GM as railroading is to the players.
To be fair, I am not my PC. And my PC is not a typical NPC. My PC is a bad-ass who goes about altering the history of the land (s)he inhabits. My PC thwarts criminal plots, and often kills scheming madmen. My PC leaves a trail of (evil) blood and crushed (evil) bodies behind him a mile wide.
My PC is a mover and a shaker and has inevitably made enemies even if those enemies are simply relatives of evil folks slain in the past.
My PC knows his butt is a wanted target. Every hour of every day there's someone out there who wants to inflict harm upon him. My PC's deeds accrue mortal enemies at a prodigious rate. They want to torture, maim, punish, taunt, rob, and eventually kill him. Those enemies are hiding in the shadows, waiting for a moment of weakness, ready to leap down and avenge whatever slight, wrong, or perceived insult they're obsessing about.
My PC wants a good night's sleep so he can go do more good tomorrow.
My PC will rope trick in an inn if he thinks it'll keep him safe.
There's no paranoia when you're a PC. The world is out to get you. Nor is there metagaming in this instance.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Oooh, just remembered a rope trick story I did once, in Eberron.
So the first night they camped, I described the 'view' of the walls of the rope trick. How they had shapes shifting back and forth, occasionally what looked like a face pressed against the wall, the walls seeming to shift, etc. It was just 'mood effects' nothing was going to get through the rope trick's walls, the core of the spell worked as advertised.
As a result, they set watches and the like. It still rewarded them for expending the resources, (nothing got through) but at the same time it kept the mood of 'all bets are off' that the setting requires.
They got their fun by bypassing the problem, I got my fun by scaring the hell out of them.
*
|
|
Was it created in 2e or first edition? If the former, then it was only like that for as long as it hasn't been.
1st - 2nd (78-00) was 2 turns (20 min) a level. The spell was never designed to provide a safe spot to sleep for the night, just a way to get up to a certain height or to a hiding spot to catch a breather.
And that separation will only increase in favor of NOT being like that.
Because the game you defend here so rabidly was derived from a game you hate, got it.
Was it created in 2e or first edition? If the former, then it was only like that for as long as it hasn't been.1st - 2nd (78-00) was 2 turns (20 min) a level. The spell was never designed to provide a safe spot to sleep for the night, just a way to get up to a certain height or to a hiding spot to catch a breather.
And that separation will only increase in favor of NOT being like that.Because the game you defend here so rabidly was derived from a game you hate, got it.
As much as everyone tries, including Paizo, this is not ND&D: Nostalgia D&D. The spell was changed over a decade ago to work like it does now. Moreover, even if it lasted less time, it would still provide a way to avoid encounters still making the complaint ridiculous because the complaint was about avoiding encounters with it. So whether Pathfinder or Nostalgia D&D, Rope Trick was designed to avoid encounters.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Was it created in 2e or first edition? If the former, then it was only like that for as long as it hasn't been. And that separation will only increase in favor of NOT being like that.That is the exact purpose of Rope Trick. You are complaining about a spell being used for the exact purpose it was created. I think that's all anyone needs to read or understand.The battle for dullard city never ends....
Yes, for what the spell was created - what was that, 33 years ago?
Please stop trying to move the goal posts. The spell existed for many years (22) at 20 min /level and was never a problem till wotc made it part of the nova cycle by expanding its duration.
You want to talk about intent - the “exact purpose it was created", then you need to go back to the "exact purpose it was created" for.
1st Ed. It was on the magic-user list and the illusionist list. So, 1978 or thereabouts.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
In the matter of People vs. Rope Trick, I did have two RT-related encounters during my current campaign.
In one instance, the PCs were in Rivers Run Red, in the southern Narlmarches (forest). As the party entered the AP up-leveled, some of the encounters were as well. In this mod, the trolls of Hargulka were allied with several forest drakes, which were the degenerate spawn of an actual green dragon that lived with the trolls. One of the forest drakes spotted the RT in the forest, and a patrol of trolls and a pair of forest drakes set up an ambush outside the RT. It got messy...
The second was in an upleveled version of Hook Mountain Massacre, in the bowels of Fort Rannick, when the party RT'ed to camp. Turned out Lucrecia the bad girl had taken (charmed) a lover, a 10th level magus. On a random patrol through the dungeon the magus came upon the RT, spelled himself up, and climbed up INTO the RT with great stealth and proceeded to hack up the party quite gratuitously.
Running the combat inside the RT required me to come up with some concept of its size, which is unspecified. My arbitrary decision was that, since it can hold 8 creatures, that holds true. Eight creatures, whatever their size, which means the space of the RT is malleable and changes as creatures move around. The only stipulation was that at least one creature needed to be adjacent to the rope, and every creature needed to be adjacent to another creature. You could otherwise move freely around, and the null-space outside of the people didn't provide any kind of cover or concealment, but it was essentially light fighting inside of a giant balloon that flexed and expanded or contracted as people moved within it.
Fun fight! :)
Point being: You can run fights in and around rope tricks with complete rationality and verisimilitude. It isn't about "bad guys will constantly hunt for RTs" (although some *WILL*, if they have spellcaster support and know the party has used them in the past; bad guys can use Diplomacy to gather information too!), but encounters, be they patrols or old-school "wandering monsters" can and will notice hanging ropes from time to time. Most dumb animals and vermin will ignore them. Other creatures that come across them will probably investigate them out of curiosity. Some will know exactly what they are dealing with and will plot countermeasures accordingly.
|
Despite the irritating insistence to take the game back to the days where nostalgia runs wild, Pathfinder kept the third edition version and it has been the third edition version for what? 11 years?
Despite the irrational insistence that "It's NEWER so it must be BETTER!!!" not everyone thinks that 3.X or Pathfinder is better in every way than 0E, 1E, B/X, BECMI/RC, or 2E.
Despite the irritating insistence to take the game back to the days where nostalgia runs wild, Pathfinder kept the third edition version and it has been the third edition version for what? 11 years?Despite the irrational insistence that "It's NEWER so it must be BETTER!!!" not everyone thinks that 3.X or Pathfinder is better in every way than 0E, 1E, B/X, BECMI/RC, or 2E.
Then what compulsion, exactly, are you under to play 3.x rather than one of your beloved old games?
I removed some offensive and excessively adversarial posts, and the replies to them.
Just because someone doesn't make the exact same choices you do doesn't automatically make them wrong.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Despite the irrational insistence that "It's NEWER so it must be BETTER!!!" not everyone thinks that 3.X or Pathfinder is better in every way than 0E, 1E, B/X, BECMI/RC, or 2E.
Then what compulsion, exactly, are you under to play 3.x rather than one of your beloved old games?
Oooh, I can answer that one!
Pathfinder is in print. It's much easier to find the rules, for people who are new to role-playing. (If I remember correctly, one of the strongest driving forces behind Paizo's development of the PF RPG is that 3.5 was out of print and geting harder and harder to find. They didn't feel that it was a good idea to continue publishing adventure paths for a game that nobody new to the hobby could play.)
But a local GM can --and ought to-- use discretion when looking at the variety of spells out there in game systems and make decisions about how she wants her game world to behave. Does she want combat to be deadly, or cinematic? Does she want the PCs to immediately analyze all the magic items they find with simple skill rolls, or would she rather the loot be mysterious and unexplained for a while? Those decisions require house rules.
And one of the best places to look for house rules is other editions of the game. Some spells were changed because they really needed changing (3rd edition to 3.5 edition's versions of blade barrier). Other spells get changed to better suit the tastes of the new crop of designers.
If the OP is having problems with rope trick, then fiddling around with the spell so it works the way he likes seems to be in order. Maybe the duration should be shortened. Maybe it should count as an extradimensional space for purposes of bags of holding and efficient quivers. The good ol' AD&D response would be to invent a particular breed of monster that can access the non-dimensional space, probably something ethereal, and make the safe haven a little dicier.
Despite the irrational insistence that "It's NEWER so it must be BETTER!!!" not everyone thinks that 3.X or Pathfinder is better in every way than 0E, 1E, B/X, BECMI/RC, or 2E.Then what compulsion, exactly, are you under to play 3.x rather than one of your beloved old games?Oooh, I can answer that one!
Pathfinder is in print. It's much easier to find the rules, for people who are new to role-playing.
How does that answer the question? I am talking to people who are nostalgic about the mythical good old days of role-playing 30 years ago.
Maybe it should count as an extradimensional space for purposes of bags of holding and efficient quivers.
I thought it did this part.
I removed some offensive and excessively adversarial posts, and the replies to them.
Just because someone doesn't make the exact same choices you do doesn't automatically make them wrong.
Actually, section 12, paragraph 42 of the NerdRage Interwebz Policy (v.1.02.0839 alpha), does not agree.
And lo, should anyone not agree with thy statements, then ye shall take it as a sign of their lack of imagination and obviously borked thought processes. Thou shalt witness, in as many full capital words as necessary, to show and prove their massive failuretude. Thou shalt show no humanity, that shalt instead charge and treat them as the dullards they are. Thou shalt then self congratulate thyself for thy piety by ordering the holy liquid (ALL HAIL THE DEW!) and the holy food (ALL HAIL THE PEPPERONI PIZZA! AMEN!).
:)
|
|
Whenever they go into the pocket, make sure to mention that the barbarian subsists entirely on a diet of Indian and Mexican-type food. After an hour, explain that the odor inside the pocket dimension is causing animal companions to get sick. After two hours, point out that the barbarian also has not bathed in over a month - not even after the raid on the troglodyte lair last week.
Excellent suggestion!
Anyhow, the coherent posters (easily identified by their regular sized noses)
Have you looked in the mirror lately?
have already pointed out that the only real way to address this is to have an opponent actively hunting for the PCs and willing to query magic ropes hanging in air. Opponents like that are not typical
How typical this might be largely depends on the nature of your current adventure. Essentially, if you are in my game if a player expects their normal intelligence enemies to act like idiots while they sleep they will be surprised.
I'd check with your players first about all that. Again, I'm not adding anything new to the discussion, but some players can't stand the middle-of-the-night random encounters. They're a pain for a number of reasons ("did I rest enough to get my spells back yet? do I have my armor on? wait, my AC is 2 lower because I didn't grab my shield. can I sleep in to get my spells back? he's standing right next to me fighting, why didn't I wake up?") If avoiding random encounters is something your players enjoy, you might just want to let this one slide.
Random sleepytime encounters should be rare but frequent enough players worry about it and take rational precautions. Rope trick IS a rational precaution and takes player resources.
Maybe it should count as an extradimensional space for purposes of bags of holding and efficient quivers.I thought it did this part.
It does, most people just don't make the connection.
There's also 'Hide Campsite' in the APG. A level 5 druid (or level 8 ranger) can hide a 20ft cube area from sight or smell for 10 hours. Only a creature that wanders into the area by chance would find it. Not so good in a dungeon, but great for the wilderness.
Then again, there's no such thing as a perfect hiding place. A GM can wait until the players have developed a false sense of security and then spring a creature with unusual senses upon them, or just have something walk into it by sheer chance.
Was it created in 2e or first edition? If the former, then it was only like that for as long as it hasn't been. And that separation will only increase in favor of NOT being like that.
Rope trick was certainly a 1st Edition AD&D spell...
It was a 2nd level magic user spell with a duration of 2 turns per level (20 minutes) with a 2 segment casting time (12 seconds, 1/5th of a round).
it held either 6 medium-sized humanoids, or 5 medium-sized humanoids and the rope. You could hide in the space created, and see out, but could not affect anything outside the pocket.
Whether or not it was a spell pre-AD&D, I don't know.
|
|
Despite the irrational insistence that "It's NEWER so it must be BETTER!!!" not everyone thinks that 3.X or Pathfinder is better in every way than 0E, 1E, B/X, BECMI/RC, or 2E.Then what compulsion, exactly, are you under to play 3.x rather than one of your beloved old games?
I can give you quite a few reasons:
1. Availability of players.
2. Convenience of playing 3.X/PFRPG adventures without the bother of conversion.
3. You'll notice I didn't say that I absolutely prefer "retro" D&D to 3.X/PFRPG in every way. I play a wide variety of systems, and like to read through even more. If I were to create my own system, it'd probably be a mesh of d20, BRP, and "retro" D&D.
4. Just like some things work better in "retro" D&D, some things work better in 3.5/PFRPG.
There's also 'Hide Campsite' in the APG. A level 5 druid (or level 8 ranger) can hide a 20ft cube area from sight or smell for 10 hours. Only a creature that wanders into the area by chance would find it. Not so good in a dungeon, but great for the wilderness.
Then again, there's no such thing as a perfect hiding place. A GM can wait until the players have developed a false sense of security and then spring a creature with unusual senses upon them, or just have something walk into it by sheer chance.
I once, in a Shadowrun game, had a Juggernaut come wandering randomly through the middle of a firefight the PCs were having with Renraku security.
For those of you who don't know, in Shadowrun, a Juggernaut is an awakened Armadillo. It's about 14 meters long (not including tail), has an armored shell thick that is roughly equivallant to 3 feet of full bore tactical armor plating like you'd find on a tank. It's omnivorous, and eats anything that get's in front of it, trees, chain link fences, shadowrunners, Renraku guards, small buildings...
In the end, there were a handful of Renraku guards, 3/4 of the runners, and a giant swath of destruction. As they watched the thing wander off through the swamps, eating cypress trees, the runners and the guards looked at each other, then started passing flasks of bourbon back and forth while working out the story to tell their respective employers.
There's also 'Hide Campsite' in the APG. A level 5 druid (or level 8 ranger) can hide a 20ft cube area from sight or smell for 10 hours. Only a creature that wanders into the area by chance would find it. Not so good in a dungeon, but great for the wilderness.
Then again, there's no such thing as a perfect hiding place. A GM can wait until the players have developed a false sense of security and then spring a creature with unusual senses upon them, or just have something walk into it by sheer chance.I once, in a Shadowrun game, had a Juggernaut come wandering randomly through the middle of a firefight the PCs were having with Renraku security.
For those of you who don't know, in Shadowrun, a Juggernaut is an awakened Armadillo. It's about 14 meters long (not including tail), has an armored shell thick that is roughly equivallant to 3 feet of full bore tactical armor plating like you'd find on a tank. It's omnivorous, and eats anything that get's in front of it, trees, chain link fences, shadowrunners, Renraku guards, small buildings...
In the end, there were a handful of Renraku guards, 3/4 of the runners, and a giant swath of destruction. As they watched the thing wander off through the swamps, eating cypress trees, the runners and the guards looked at each other, then started passing flasks of bourbon back and forth while working out the story to tell their respective employers.
^_^ Awesome!
|
|
Why WOULDN'T the Wizard just use Teleport Without Error? Because the guy playing the Wizard thinks that would spoil the fun? Role-playing does not mean "Player running his character like a bleeding moron."
Yes, exactly. Rpg gaming is a cooperative effort. Not just GM trying to tell the story and players doing their best to screw up. If he sees that there will be fun by going up the hill to the old castle, because it is maybe a little obvious that the GM prepared that route to be "scenic",he will conveniently "not memorize" teleport without error for the sake of the fun and GMs nerves. There is nothing a GM hates more then when he puts hours of work into a scenario just to have players brush it off.
This is why "role-players" and "tactical miniature gamers" don't get along. Role-players seem to be possessed by the idea that their character NEVER does the most logical and obvious thing to do regardless of their intelligence or experience.
Yes, because role players think about other stuff except winning the game, a thing that is impossible in RPGs in any way except one. You win if you are having fun. That is why i rarely let tactical miniature gamers in my games.
Why WOULDN'T the Wizard just use Teleport Without Error? Because the guy playing the Wizard thinks that would spoil the fun? Role-playing does not mean "Player running his character like a bleeding moron."Yes, exactly. Rpg gaming is a cooperative effort. Not just GM trying to tell the story and players doing their best to screw up. If he sees that there will be fun by going up the hill to the old castle, because it is maybe a little obvious that the GM prepared that route to be "scenic",he will conveniently "not memorize" teleport without error for the sake of the fun and GMs nerves. There is nothing a GM hates more then when he puts hours of work into a scenario just to have players brush it off.
This is why "role-players" and "tactical miniature gamers" don't get along. Role-players seem to be possessed by the idea that their character NEVER does the most logical and obvious thing to do regardless of their intelligence or experience.Yes, because role players think about other stuff except winning the game, a thing that is impossible in RPGs in any way except one. You win if you are having fun. That is why i rarely let tactical miniature gamers in my games.
Summary: Players should take stupid or even out of character actions so as not to inconvenience the DM and to show that they are good role-players because nothing says good role-playing like playing your character like jackass regardless of how the character would act just to appease the DM.
|
|
Summary: Players should take stupid or even out of character actions so as not to inconvenience the DM and to show that they are good role-players because nothing says good role-playing like playing your character like jackass regardless of how the character would act just to appease the DM.
No, they should help the GM tell that story. And yes, i will take out of character actions if i notice that the GM would like us to go a certain way, and my instinct says that we should go another. Why? More fun. We are all in this together, and should work together, not against each other, see that is the mentality of a tactical miniature gamer: Not caring about anything but winning or doing what they want with no regard for the man behind the screen and his effort.
This is why "role-players" and "tactical miniature gamers" don't get along. Role-players seem to be possessed by the idea that their character NEVER does the most logical and obvious thing to do regardless of their intelligence or experience.Yes, because role players think about other stuff except winning the game, a thing that is impossible in RPGs in any way except one. You win if you are having fun. That is why i rarely let tactical miniature gamers in my games.
I have to say that I disagree with both of you. Just like power gaming and rolepaying are not mutually exclusive, I believe that you can be a good role-player and enjoy the ''tactical battle with miniatures'' part of the game. D&D has evolved from a pen and paper RPG to a pen and paper RPG with tactical wargame elements. Those two aspects of the same game will only really enter in conflict if the GM and/or the players are not familiarised enough with the game's mechanics to support the fluff they want to create. While some people will prefer to run the battles without role-playing elements, like a pure tactical wargame, nothing prevent the GM to grant ''role-playing'' circumstantial bonuses to a PC in the middle of a battle. For example, if the player speaks in-character and say something really threatening while intimidating an opponent in battle, the GM can gives him a +1 or +2 on his intimidating check.
On the other hand, if the GM allows the tactical wargame rules to be broken to create an ''orchestrated'' or ''cinematic'' battle, it can becomes very frustrating, because me and the GM are not playing the same game anymore. It's no longer D&D 3.5 or Pathfinder, it's the ''I do want I want, when I want'' game. In the last game I played, in which I'm a 4th-level fighter with dodge and mobility, the GM allowed another player, a fighter in medium armor with no ranks in tumble, to ''roll between the legs'' of an ogre to end up behind him, and all that without provoking an AoO from the ogre, just because it sounded ''kewl''. Now excuse me but this his just stupid. Tell me WHY THE HELL did I picked dodge and mobility if any character without appropriate feats and without ranks in tumble can pull off this kind of stunts! There's actual rules for moving through an occupied square and no amounts of ''cinematic description'' should allow a character to ignore them.
EDIT: Removed a few typos
No, they should help the GM tell that story. And yes, i will take out of character actions if i notice that the GM would like us to go a certain way, and my instinct says that we should go another. Why? More fun. We are all in this together, and should work together, not against each other, see that is the mentality of a tactical miniature gamer: Not caring about anything but winning or doing what they want with no regard for the man behind the screen and his effort.
Summary: Players should take stupid or even out of character actions so as not to inconvenience the DM and to show that they are good role-players because nothing says good role-playing like playing your character like jackass regardless of how the character would act just to appease the DM.
No, that is the mentality that the holier than thou role-players accuse "tactical gamers" of having. Playing out of character is just as bad one way as another.
|
|
I have to say that I disagree with both of you. Just like power gaming and rolepaying are not mutually exclusive, I believe that you can be a good role-player and enjoy the ''tactical battle with miniatures'' part of the game. D&D has evolved from a pen and paper RPG to a pen and paper RPG with tactical wargame elements. Those two aspects of the same game will only really enter in conflict if the GM and/or the players are not familiarised enough with the game's mechanics to support the fluff they want to create. While some people will prefer to run the battles without role-playing elements, like a pure tactical wargame, nothing prevent the GM to grant ''role-playing'' circumstantial bonuses to a PC in the middle of a battle. For example, if the player speaks in-character and say something really threatening while intimidating an opponent in battle, the GM can gives him a +1 or +2 on his intimidating check.
I roleplay pretty well as i'm told and i truly enjoy the tactics of combat, positioning for effectiveness, working with others, the liberal use of free actions to direct other allies with a language you hope nobody in the enemy camp knows. I do not say only RP. But TMGPs think that it is the only way to play. Encounter from encounter, combat to combat...
On the other hand, if the GM allows the tactical wargame rules to be broken to create an ''orchestrated'' or ''cinematic'' battle, he can becomes very frustrating. In the last game I played, in which I'm a 4th-level fighter with dodge and mobility, the GM allowed another player, a fighter in medium armor with no ranks in tumble, to ''roll between the legs'' of an ogre to end up behind him, and all that without provoking an AoO from the ogre, just because it sounded ''kewl''. Now excuse me but this his just stupid. Tell me WHY THE HELL did I picked dodge and mobility if any character...
That would suck. I would never allow it to be done like that, no matter how cool it may seem. Rules are there for a reason.
|
|
No, that is the mentality that the holier than thou role-players accuse "tactical gamers" of having. Playing out of character is just as bad one way as another.
I will not convince you to think like me. Nor will you convince me to think like you. This discussion has no point. As such, it is unnecessary. I will not discuss this further. Have a nice day.
|
Carty obviously got viciously abused by a 1E DM some 30 years ago. And it must have been one of the "I am a God, cower before me maggots" DMs.
Only that can explain his relentless anti-nostalgia crusade sprinkled with hardcore "Why can't we have an AI instead of Mister Cavern? Are human beings really necessary to run this game for me?" player advocacy.
How is Cartigan not banned?
There's a difference between being a playful devil's advocate, and being a hardcore, deliberate, and extremely condescending troll. It's the same nonsense in every thread he posts in.
Carty obviously got viciously abused by a 1E DM some 30 years ago. And it must have been one of the "I am a God, cower before me maggots" DMs.
Only that can explain his relentless anti-nostalgia crusade sprinkled with hardcore "Why can't we have an AI instead of Mister Cavern? Are human beings really necessary to run this game for me?" player advocacy.
Sadly for Cartigan, the video game industry is slowly moving away from the tactical RPG genre. It's sad for me too because I like those kind of games. Now all we have is stoopid shooters with RPG elements. :(
How is Cartigan not banned?
There's a difference between being a playful devil's advocate, and being a hardcore, deliberate, and extremely condescending troll. It's the same nonsense in every thread he posts in.
I don't always agree with Cartigan and he's not "nice", but is an insightful person and has the ability of make us think and re-think stuff from another perspective.
I wish to add that think to ban someone because his opinions are not mainstream is very disturbing.
He's NOT a troll and he is right in this discussion IMHO, at least in the part discussing with Hama. If I play stupidly an int 26 wizard "for the story", I fear that the story is not that great, and I cannot call myself that great roleplayer.
This, speaking in general - in character, story DRIVEN (but without metagame) choices are a completely different beasts.
every DM should remember the following 2 quotes
"with great power comes great responsbility?"
"what is a king without his subjects?"
How is Cartigan not banned?
There's a difference between being a playful devil's advocate, and being a hardcore, deliberate, and extremely condescending troll. It's the same nonsense in every thread he posts in.
I don't always agree with Cartigan and he's not "nice", but is an insightful person and has the ability of make us think and re-think stuff from another perspective.
I wish to add that think to ban someone because his opinions are not mainstream is very disturbing.
He's NOT a troll and he is right in this discussion IMHO, at least in the part discussing with Hama. If I play stupidly an int 26 wizard "for the story", I fear that the story is not that great, and I cannot call myself that great roleplayer.
This, speaking in general - in character, story DRIVEN (but wiothou metagame) are a completely different beast.
Beside, these boards would feel empty without him. :)
Sadly for Cartigan, the video game industry is slowly moving away from the tactical RPG genre. It's sad for me too because I like those kind of games. Now all we have is stoopid shooters with RPG elements. :(Carty obviously got viciously abused by a 1E DM some 30 years ago. And it must have been one of the "I am a God, cower before me maggots" DMs.
Only that can explain his relentless anti-nostalgia crusade sprinkled with hardcore "Why can't we have an AI instead of Mister Cavern? Are human beings really necessary to run this game for me?" player advocacy.
This is a hilarious stream of condescension since I am the one taking the position that people should play their characters as their characters would behave.
In this case, I'd agree with Cartigan. Characters should behave appropriately for the character. For some, this is going to be an efficient tactician; for some it won't.
I might (and have) make a character make suboptimal choices, because it fits the character, but not because it fits the story. The point at which character choices are altered for story rather than character reasons is the point at which I am no longer playing him.
because it fits the character, but not because it fits the story.
yeah. THIS.
This is a hilarious stream of condescension since I am the one taking the position that people should play their characters as their characters would behave.Sadly for Cartigan, the video game industry is slowly moving away from the tactical RPG genre. It's sad for me too because I like those kind of games. Now all we have is stoopid shooters with RPG elements. :(Carty obviously got viciously abused by a 1E DM some 30 years ago. And it must have been one of the "I am a God, cower before me maggots" DMs.
Only that can explain his relentless anti-nostalgia crusade sprinkled with hardcore "Why can't we have an AI instead of Mister Cavern? Are human beings really necessary to run this game for me?" player advocacy.
You're right Cartigan. A character with the ability to teleport anywhere he wants wouldn't waste time walking around just to make a metagame entity happy. But you'r not only playing your character, you're also a guy who play D&D with some friends, and some time it's ok to take sub-optimal, or even slightly illogical, decisions, if it can make the game more enjoyable for everyone else. For example, in a world where giant cats are always more powerful than giant wolfs, any druid with at least two brain cells would have a giant cat as an animal companion. However, let's pretend that you, as a player, are a little slow in the domain of mental calculation. Knowing that a pouncing cat with 5 attacks per round could slow down the game because of your poor mental calculating skills, you could choose to take a giant wolf, instead of a giant cat, as an animal companion. You would hurt your fighting capacity and survivability in the process (no character would want to do that for real), but you would also make the battle more swift and enjoyable for everyone else. So I guess that, sometimes, it's ok to use metagame knowledge to influence your character decisions.
This teleport argument is a red herring if I ever heard one... If a party wants to go to enough trouble to spy a target, so they can be properly scried, so a target teleport destination can be identified, and then they can teleport in bypassing all those delicious planned encounters.
...well, that sounds like a good adventure in it's own right. You can't just invent a place and teleport to it. You need to have seen it. I don't know about your characters, but mine have usually only been through each dungeon once.
I could scry the location if I know what creature to scry, but again lots of work. You need to find a creature, get enough to be able to scry him, and then hope he gets access to the inner dungeons and not the outskirts. Woopie, you teleported past the gate guards. I call that good planning and night of fun.
I know of no wizards I've played with that gimp themselves to go through each encounter. If we have fun skills to bypass things in a fun way, we do it. Our DM likes it when we keep him on his toes and doesn't hold it against us.
|
|
You know, the first time I ever used Rope Trick as a player, it got dispelled in the middle of the night for an encounter where my character died (halfling sorcerer with 8 strength hit by a greater shadow for max strength damage in the first round). You know what the funny thing is? No one else ever saw any spellcasters.
You know, the first time I ever used Rope Trick as a player, it got dispelled in the middle of the night for an encounter where my character died (halfling sorcerer with 8 strength hit by a greater shadow for max strength damage in the first round). You know what the funny thing is? No one else ever saw any spellcasters.
I really don't understand why some GMs hate utility spells so much. The only thing they do is speeding up the game and I would LOVE that my players use those kind of spells instead of those annoying, repetitive, unimaginative, blasting spells. Sadly, most of the people I play with are still trapped in the ''OMG fireballz is the ultimate 3rd-level spell like in D&D 2nd E'' phase. ;)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I know that a group I was in used to use Rope Trick a bunch. Then a GM sprung some extra-dimensional "random encounters" that forced everyone out. We quickly learned that just because it's a extra-dimensional space doesn't mean it's safe, just that it's safe from most of the normal area encounters.
This.
Allowing players to use 'safe tricks' is fine. If it helps the story by occasionally making the trick unsafe (or even seem unsafe) helps keep the tension up, even if it's not going to have a long term effect. "Ok, we've an 8 hour rope trick. Rogue take first watch, Fighter second, Cleric third. Wizard will sleep 8 hours."
Sure it means that characters (except the wizard) only get 6 hours of sleep, it has no game mechanical effect and if they never have their 'nest' disturbed again, it enforces that they're adventurers and shouldn't take anything for granted.