Gilfalas wrote:
I see you're point. I would however contend that Jon Snow and Daenarys Targaeryon are heroes in the context of Game of Thrones.
Milo v3 wrote:
I have seen many arguments that many players feel like the game breaks down in the "high-level" gameplay arena. It depends on the GM and players. I've been told that my best games are those run in the higher levels (anything above 10th level). I always approach high-level play as the arena in which the PCs choices and actions have far reaching results, almost as though they are the "Justice League" or "Avengers" of the game. They don't just save people, they save the world. It can be taxing. It all depends on ones perspective. I think the fun levels as a GM exist in the 10 plus range, while as a player its 10 and lower that I enjoy.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Maybe I'm arguing semantics, someone clotheslines a rider, I still wouldn't rule it a trip attack. I would handle it as a Bull Rush in which the end result is the rider being knocked to their back, possibly off their horse depending on what their ride check was and how the clothesline was administered.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
I disagree that trip is the appropriate maneuver because the target is sitting. Granted, I am interpreting the description of the trip maneuver as an attack that targets an opponents legs in order to knock them prone. If you sitting, you're not standing, thus, can't be tripped as though you didn't have legs. At least, that is how I see it and by no means indicative of anyone else. Just how I see it and would rule it.
Can you trip a riding person? Trip is a combat maneuver to knock a target prone. The target is riding, meaning sitting down. You cannot trip the person who is riding. Tripping their mount, provided it is an animal and not more than one size category larger than the one attempting the trip is a possibility. The rider would then be allowed a ride check to land without harm and not fall prone. Of course if the person riding is being an idiot and standing in the saddle, trip away. Of course, all of this is dependent upon the GM.
I have never been the type of player to do dump stats just to maximize a "key" attribute. Then again, I don't optimize my characters with what many would see as feat ideal combos/builds, focusing instead on playing organic characters with feat selections that feel right at the time. Makes for some interesting builds. That said, I've seen players max everything out. It is all dependent on what you feel is going to give you the most fun from gaming.
Interesting question. I'm inclined to say that the answer is subjective based upon what players are looking for in a game (of course, my own subjective perspective). I have found GMs each have there own style of running a game. I've gamed with GMs that were rules sticklers, others that were rules are guidelines to be ignored when and if necessary to further the story, and others that fall in between. For me, I've found that the qualities I look for in a GM are: Story not detail. Essentially, the rules are secondary to the story, whether social interaction or combats. Battles run theater-of-the-mind, fast-loose, battles, rather than mini's-grid/tactically intensive. All players are engaged. This last one is personal pet-peeve, one that I recognize that is a minority view....ABSOLUTELY NO WIDGETS AT THE TABLE. By widgets I mean - tablets, laptops, smartphones, notes, or any electric gadget. CD player for music is acceptable, barely. I won't play with GMs that allow'em and I do not allow my players to have them at tables I run.
Here's my take on school in general: K - 8th grade, everyone taught same thing. In 8th grade you decide whether or not you want to go onto College.
This would free up money so that Colleges would not have to be tuition based. Of course, I am a fan of Comrade Anklebiter's most excellent musical interlude School Sucks!
I've run games for 2-players. Typically, one of them have been some sort of caster and the other some sort of martial. Inevitably, multi-classing occurs. It would be interesting run a game using the classes from the Advanced Player's Guide, having elements of two classes combined into one could make things doable without too much work - a Bloodrager and Inquisitor team has possibilities. But that's me.
My style as a GM, is to neither seek to kill PCs nor to do anything to keep'em alive. It's up to the players and how the die fall. I tend to be more simulationist, PCs are not heroes, they are everyday people that get pulled into larger than life events in my approach as a GM. This gets a bit frustrating for me, considering most groups I've run have an aversion to running away or surrendering if things start to go against them - whether it's due to bad choices on their part or the die are not falling favorably for them. All in all, character death happen in my games, probably 3 or 4 character deaths throughout the course of a campaign. I have had 3 sessions where TPKs occurred. Only one of which where I said to them, as they contemplated what happened, "And then you wake up." The other two they made bad choices, for which I admittedly have no mercy. Make a bad choice, you deal with consequences. I do get concerned that it's a bit harsh, but my groups come back for more, so I either run a good game, or run a game that suits their expectations.
I agree with some of the article. I am in the minority, possibly very small minority, in that I had no problem with Save or Die (or Save or Suck as it was dubbed at one point). I also had no problem with roll 3d6, you get what you get. Yes, it forced me to look at something I may not have considered or initially wanted. I always reconciled that as, just like in real life, you are what you are, who you are, despite what you may want. You may WANT to pursue a science education, but no matter how hard you try to grasp the science, it just doesn't make sense for you because of not being smart enough. Yes, it is possible to overcome one's own inherent "deficiencies", but not easily, and not without an extraordinary amount of hard-work and effort. And let's face it, most people are creatures of convenience that seek the easiest path. Mind you, that's my own view and what works for me and does not apply to anyone else. To this day, when leveling up, I don't feel the same sense of accomplishment as I did in the early days of gaming. I never felt like it was guaranteed. Today, leveling is just another part of the game that gets tedious for me after awhile, because I KNOW it's going to happen, almost as though it is something player's are entitled too more than something to be earned. This is my own small perception, one for which I have yet to find anyone who shares it. So take it for a grain of salt. I define old school as a rules light game, in which the rules don't bog down the game. Where it is the story is more important than the rules. Combats are fast, fierce, and cinematic, not pigeon-holed into 6 seconds. Where everything is done Theatre of the Mind, no maps, no grids, no minis or tokens. Again, that's me, and by no means indicative of anyone else. To this day, as a GM, I still rely on my own judgement more than the innumerable rules. I have house/table rules when I run. I do so judiciously, and if my players are any indication, with an acceptable level of consistency and fairness. To each their own. As long as everyone is having fun and enjoying the game, whether its old school lethality or more modern day paradigm of being less lethal (no more save or die), it just doesn't matter.
I have always preferred DC over Marvel. That said, I have loved what they have done with Marvelverse. As for the upcoming Man of Steel sequel Dawn of Justice, I have a lot of concerns that they are using it as a launching point for a Justice League movie. Cameo appearances by Wonder Woman, Aquaman, and Cyborg. However, I must admit, I agree with the OP. I think the casting of Jason Mamoa and the look they have given Aquaman are great. No, he's not the blonde haired, fair skinned, cheesy sonar calling Aquaman of the Comics. Quite honestly, for me, anything they could have done would have been better than the Aquaman of the comics, at least for me, ymmv.
Let the chips fall where they may. They chose to play those characters. Be fair, but don't make special considerations just because of their choices. Resource management will be key. There are potions and other items to offset their lack of diversity. They will need to be very intelligent with how they approach their Dragon prey.
I haven't played a lot of Next/5E, however two related mehcanics about 5E have me breathing a sigh of relief. The proficiency bonus set-up and the disadvantage/advantage mechanic. Those two changes eliminate, what has been for me, a sore point since d20/3E was first released back on 2000/2001 - numbers bloat. Numbers bloat being ever increasing bonuses to die rolls. I get why it was set-up that way, and was a great way to illustrate clever combos and increased character capability. However, I found it, as a GM, frustrating to an extreme. That said, I need to see how 5E plays out to higher levels of play to get a more informed perspective.
My own perspective on Obama's education proposal, by no means indicative of anyone else, just another perspective. I love the idea of subsidized 2 year college degree. Yes, it will cost 34 Billion in a country that is already so strapped we can't even fund infrastructure maintenance and repair. However, not everyone wants or NEEDS a Bachelor's Degree to get started. As Mike Rowe pointed out, their are plenty of jobs out their for people who want to learn a trade and work, get their foot in the door for $20 grand a year and then within 5 make $45 to $50 grand a year doing a trade, like Machine Operator (operate cranes and backhoes and such). Hell, all I have is an A.A.S. in Nanomanufacturing working for a company that makes Indium Phosphide lasers and Silicon Planar Lightwave Circuits...I learned a trade. On the other hand, I VEHEMENTLY HATE the idea that a college education, even a 2-year degree becomes just one more ENTITLEMENT program for a country that has WAY TOO MANY ENTITLEMENT programs already. I was raised on the foundation that nothing in life is free, nor is anyone (excluding anyone under the age of 18), anywhere, entitled to anything. I worked to put myself through school, held down two jobs while I did. So my perspective is skewed.
I still have a very strong preference for a physical print over PDF. For me, and this is by no means indicative of anyone else, I see PDFs as only being useful if you run a lot of skype/virtual table-top games rather than regular face-to-face-all-in-the-same-physical-location table-top games. In any case I am very BIASED against digital media in games, as the only time digital media devices are allowed to come out at a game I run is to take emergency phone calls, or game breaks to order pizza. For all of the convenience of the widgets, PDFs, virtual die rollers, and other digital gaming aids, it all comes across as more of a distraction to me and destroys any sense of mood or tone I am attempting to create...especially when you here the DIGITAL DING of some type of notification. Again, that's me and indicative of anyone else. My current group has taken calling me Herr Ludite because of my perspective.
Hitdice wrote: Just keep the government out of Social Security, Jeff. :P I know you're being snarky here, but I have a thought (dangerous I know), They've never been in Social Security. No politician at the federal level contributes to Social Security, they instead contribute to some sort of pension they draw from for life after leaving office, even if they were only elected for a single term in office. Force them to lose their pension and have it go into SS and I think you would find that SS would be the most solvent, strongest, and robust system in the Country. Force'em to use the ACA and watch the same thing happen.
GoatToucher wrote:
Nothing but carbohydrate rich foods...for the rest of my life Left Twix or Right Twix
Gorbacz wrote:
Not all yankees...some of us actually pay attention in school, for all the good it does with our educational system. In any case, it's not ignorance so much as apathy, at least from my very limited perspective, which is by no means indicative of anyone else.
Malwing wrote: I'd like to ask. When people say "low magic" do they mean Low caster power or low magic items? Do full casters make magic mundane or the abundance of magic items? Depends on who you ask. I've heard some describe it as being low-level spells, 3rd/4th level and lower. I've heard others include limited magic items. For me, low magic is a combination of low level spells, limited magic items. By low level spells, I refer to 3rd level spells as being the highest level available. 1st level spells all that's available up to 6th level, 2nd levels spells become available at 7th level, and 3rd level spells become available at 14th level. Magic items are restricted to potions, rings, wands, armor, and weapons, with no enhancement greater than +2. Only casting classes were Wizard, Cleric, and Druid. Haven't run it like this with anything outside the core classes. I once handled low-magic as described above with the following physical drain house rule where there was no limit to the number of spells a caster could cast in a day. Each time a spell was cast, the caster had to succeed at a DC10 + 1 (per spell cast that day) Fortitude save. First failure results in caster becoming fatigued for the remainder of the day, second failure causes exhaustion, third failure causes unconsciousness for a number of hours equal to the level of spell cast, after which you a re exhausted for the rest of the day an unable to cast further magic; condition persists until you have a full nights rest.
POOP ON KENDER AND GULLY DWARVES!!! I hates them I does!!! Nasty, stupid,...er...sorry about that. As someone who has played the Dragonlance setting, and quite honestly despises it, that aside, what you are doing with the races would seem to fit with Weis and Hickman's presentation of them in the novels.
I don't have the 5E PHB, only the Basic Rules PDF. Here's what it comes down to for me (by no means indicative of anyone else: It's just another set of d20 mechanics, mechanics removed, changed the focus to be less numbers driven in some aspects, but it is still d20. If you want the gaming with extra crunch, play PF...if you're looking for things to be less crunchy, play 5E. In either case, there is fun to be had, which is the only thing that really matters.
Gorbacz wrote:
Nice trailer, awesome game, disappointing graphics. But that's me and by no means indicative of anyone else.
I'm a little late to this conversation... My brother and I received the red box on 80 or 81 for Christmas from my dad. He was cool with allowing us to play, thought it was a great way to hone our imaginations and foster creativity. Well, as soon as that happened, my Grandmother and Great Aunt Catherine started pummeling my brother and I with Catholicism, terrified we were going to end up becoming satanic. They even went so far as to burn the red box in the fireplace and made us watch. That put the breaks on regular gaming until 2E came out in 88 or 89. My mother didn't mind it. Once again my grandmother and aunt started in about it being satanic. I countered with that it was based on real world myths and fantasy, such King Arthur, Merlin, Norse and Greek Mythology. They didn't talk to me for a year and then gave up trying to save my soul.
Neurophage wrote:
I am a bit surprised by my internal reaction to reading your perspective. Even after letting it sit for a 10 minutes and reading it a second time, I am having almost visceral dislike to the part with which I disagree. I agree the stories have become more nuanced, but not in the same way. You say that it shows how exceptional and terrifying a Hero is...this is where I have the almost visceral disagreement, I say it presents Heroes as being more human - flawed and trying the best they can with what is before them. For me, the more Human something is, the less exceptional and extraordinary. It is definitely a perspective founded in how stories were presented in the 80s and early 90s when I was still a snot nosed kid.
Maybe I am a traditionalist or old-fashioned. I have mostly played the "Boy Scout Do-Gooder Hero". It fits into my personal perspective about fantasy being the age old battle between good and evil; there is no moral ambiguity, you work to better the world or you don't. I'm not talking stupid good, but the type of good that always grants the benefit of the doubt...orcs are not slain, just because they are orcs. I have played morally ambiguous characters, but they are a rarity, and a tiresome endeavor. Real-life is filled with grey, hell, with the exception of Superman, even comic books have become all about moral flexibility and flawed heroes willing to make the tough choice in the name of the greater good. I call it the Dark Knight effect.
A houserule that I use is to base Will saves off of Charisma. The way I explain it, is that I define Wisdom as awareness and intuition;I define Charisma as presence and conviction of self. Will saves are made when who you are (conviction of self) comes under attack - Charm Person and the like. YMMV.
I was first introduced to RPGs with the original Basic DnD red box set in 1980 or 81. However, it wasn't until 2E AD&D came out in the late 80s that I really got hooked and started playing regularly. I miss the art. The art evoked a feeling of wonder and awe for me, particularly anything by Jeff Easley. I also miss the lethality of the game. Every session I managed to survive felt like a victory. Every time I leveled, it was like a pseudo act of defiance to the power that be - the DM. Leveling up felt like an accomplishment that was earned. If you died, your body was looted by your companions. Today, the game can be lethal, but not so much. Death happens, but it is a minor inconvenience, not even remotely close to being final. Leveling up seems to be an expectation for doing x amount of encounters, rather than a milestone of accomplishment, in essence a chore. While I enjoy older editions and games more than I do today's fare, it does not mean that the games are any less fun, just that I enjoy a different style of game. Probably one of my favorite sessions was one in which I GMed in 2E, the group (Wizard 8, Fighter 8, Cleric 9, Mage/Thief 8/10) moving through a swampy forested area, mists so thick visibility was restricted to 3 or 4 feet unless you climbed up a suitable tree. The group, th level characters. wandered into the territory in which an Young Adult Green Dragon was hunting. It used audible glamor and dancing lights to distract the group. Foolishly, they separated. The result, a TPK in which the Dragon picked them off one by one - the Wizard almost got away. My group still remember this as one of there favorite sessions of all time. I used this same scenario with 3E running the group and ended up with the same result. Good times.
With the NSA, we are now living in the beginning of Orwell's 1984 type of society. This is just more support for complete and total character assassination of having an opposing view for fear of offending someone or some group. A whole generation of people have grown up without being taught how to have a thick skin and let garbage roll off your shoulders. I agree that Sterling's views belong in the sewer. I detest his ideals, I do not cobdone or agree with him, it doesn't mean his character, such as it is, needs to be annihilated. If he was anything ither than white, this wouldn't have gotten press.
Kthulhu wrote:
Where once the US box office blew out foreign markets, not so any longer. Foreign markets have been driving money making for movies for a few years now, as their ticket sales are really starting to outdistance the US. It is also starting to happen with TV shows as well, as we are 6 months behind some shows that get televised elsewhere first. Sucks, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.
Freehold DM wrote:
You did. It had a ring of truth when you said it. It became a 16-ton weight dropped on my skull when my supervisor brought out that the complaints.
Hama wrote: I never understood why people put in more effort then they really need to get the job done? Nobody is going to pat you on the back or appreciate that. Nobody important anyway. For me, anything less than my maximum effort and ability is a waste of time. I see goals as objectives to be exceeded by as wide a margin as possible. What's the point of doing something if you aren't going to put everything you have into it.
|