Oh wow, I got ninja'd by two hours. That's crazy.
Search Posts
Crazy stuff: Wow sir, you have an odd way of looking at things.
The surprise round is defined as having a specific effect, which is your inability to act. It is not actually defined as you being flat-footed, but naturally you'd be flat-footed for other reasons and a clarifying remark to that end is put in place so no one tries to use their normal ac during surprise (because you know someone would try, and probably is mentioned because someone did). Also notice that oracle ability,
you can always act in the surprise round, Notice how it mentions the surprise round, but not being flat-footed. Also, while the Flat-footed definition mentions start of combat, but it is when the condition applies and not part of the condition itself. Basically it says "At this time you will suffer this effect. This is what that effect means." ANd don't forget that you can become ff in other ways at other times even without confusing it with losing one's dex bonus. Also note, that the time frame mentioned is more than just the surprise round and the alterations made from both combat reflexes and uncanny dodge are mentioned without regard to a specific part of that time frame. However, the surprise round is only a specific part of that time frame that only happens in special cases, not the whole period all the time. It also gives an additional effect that applies only to the specific time period that is the surprise round. It is a case of the specific (the surprise round) over the general (before first regular turn in combat). Also, in that general rule of before first regular turn (which thus includes all aspects as being part of the general rule), is the more general case cause it covers all combats, but a surprise round does not occur in all combats, making it the specific case and thus overrides the general case. Kinda funny thinking about it, cause these rules, regardless of your take on them, are so not realistic at all. But realistic wouldn't be fun, so say la vee (don't ask me how to spell it. It isn't english.).
Not really, ff is not defined as the time before you act in combat, it is a condition gained during that time, not defined by that time. You can be ff in many other places, times, and ways. You can't act during surprise, and that is based on surprise, not ff, and aoo is an action. Don't forget, you would be able to use combat reflexes on the first regular round before your first action.
I don't think it really matters right now. Not like we'll go retcon anything. But as that is raw, best to pre-emptively point out the possibility so no one gets taken by surprise should the gm favor an opposing interpretation. Whether the gm decides now, or waits till it ever actually matters, is up to him. Interestingly, should it come up, we'll both need to know since I also have combat reflexes. :) There are lots of small things like that, that get missed. I.E. if you have more than 3 ranks in acrobatics, defensive fighting and total defense grant higher bonuses. I just saw a thread recently about some people who didn't know despite have played for years.
Ahem, to quote the GM,
[Natalya] attempts to struggle once more but Zhai is prepared, she slides down the chimney and secures Natalya's feet. Her struggles thereafter are in vain. In any case, I get and fully understand that Ran is very egotistical, which can be a bit fun as we go along. And as I've said a few times, that scene didn't go anything like I'd wanted it to, not least of which is how Zhai had been perceived (particularly with the mild godmodding) and it became a mess. Everyone seemed to forget that her immediate action was to yell (in a "look out! It's a trap!" type of yelling) and make him drop the necklace. That was forgotten , and my attempt to remind folks was taken as a later action instead. Then you posted what you'd do if I took that action, but that was entirely described as if I would you after we'd been yelling back and forth, which was entirely wrong and assumed the potential attack would come well after the fact. This all indicates a very different idea between what I tried to do and what you thought I was doing. Considering you still think I don't get that Ran won't respond well to orders just simply confirms that we are not communicating very well. The entire issue is one of poor communication and assumptions, nothing more.
Except for two things, I didn't rush at you, I was already in the same grapple as you were (so more like we are standing together and I pull you back from the edge), second, your suggestion of going to sheila was after some misunderstandings already that I was simply trying to keep things smooth without calling for a retcon, I basically had to make it fit with what you falsely assumed I did, and your suggestion of waiting till later could easily have been nothing more than a stall tactic, so hardly counts as evidence of anything, not even reasonableness.
"There wasn't time Ran. By the time we were talking it was already too late. Or did you forget that part? When there is time to talk about something and still avoid the problem, then naturally I will do so." shifting from serious into a playful tone, "But if you'd like, I can let you set off any traps you fail notice rather than save you from yourself." without the curse being a worry, clearly Zhai is back to being unconcerned and certainly holding no grudge, possibly considering the bickering to simply have been a symptom of the curse.
And that's why I don't believe in marriage for love. Changing why people get married is probably the biggest reason marriage doesn't last. Also, not sure what happened to my post,
To compare, if you were about to step off a cliff, would you rather I grab you and keep you from falling followed by pointing out the edge, or yell over the edge after you went over about how there was an edge there? Zhai, and I for that matter, found the case with the cursed shard to be the exact same thing. Better to try to keep you from falling to a danger first, cause by the time I start trying to explain, you'd have already fallen over the edge.
"Only if your over-inflated ego doesn't get you in trouble. As for my delivery of words, not all of us are endowed with necter-sweet words that can sell water to merfolk, doesn't mean my words lack importance or truth." she says while rolling her eyes.
Zhai sounds a bit relieved. "Maybe next time you'll at least consider my words." turning to Sheila, "I take it his ownership comes from how he took from her? Would that mean if someone else could take it from him by defeating him in combat?"
One of us could run Ikit as well, just a suggestion. Zhai will be a partial caster, witch (ley-line guardian), so once I can take a class level I'll have healing.
Antogonism between characters isn't a problem. The problem is when players have the antagonism. Character friction has lots of drama potential, player friction is just bad mojo. I didn't need it to turn out a particular way, it is the handling that feels problematic, but like I said, I think it is mostly because of the medium and the long turn around times between expectations and their results.
"'Emotional value?' Curse evidence exhibit B." Zhai says with a gesture in Ran's direction, her concern over the issue quite evidently back in full force.
Lol, I'm not so certain this turned out better. Honestly this has been far more irritating and degenerative of the fun this way. That isn't what I'd call pvp anyway.
Personally Ran, I think the whole thing has gone ridiculous. I expected a roll of one sort or another to make you drop the thing, then you basically made it sound like you defending against a child going "Gimme! Gimme! Gimme!" and also seemed to think Zhai was trying to take it rather than make you drop it, and with no moderating influence on us the players, the attempts to carry on in character stray further away from sensible. I mostly blame the medium. In person, I'd have been able to correct your misconceptions about Zhai's attitude before you even finished the sentence and done so with minimal game impact, and I'd have been able to ask about the check when the gm didn't quickly ask for it. None of which works in pbp. For example, by the time it is apparent the gm isn't asking for a check (why the heck not btw?), the scene has moved on just from players and going "Wait a moment, this ain't right," adds days if not a week or so before we get to move on, and this game is slow enough without making it worse ooc.
Aren't you assuming that you can give it away? Also, given the concern and possibility, I'd think that Granite would get a bonus on his save. Also, if you actually can give it away, that'd make it a lesser effect, more charm than dominate, which would be far less concerning, and less likely for Granite to try murdering us when our backs are turned. To answer your question though,
Then we could spent some time figuring out how to safely transport it. At the very least, whoever tried carrying it coud do so without direct contact, and be ready for the trinket's effect, which would hopefully give them a better chance to hold against the item's effect. More so, everybody else could be ready and develop a plan to cover the possibility of the item's effect on the bearer, especially if Natalyia talked and further convinced folks that it was cursed.
"If you could give it to him then that would mean it wasn't cursed. Therefore, either it has affected your mind and you can't give to him, or you have no reason to not let him take it back with us. So what is it going to be, you give it to him, or you can't give it to him?"
"You should let Granite carry the trinket. That'd show it has no hold over you, or that it has a mind of it's own, one of the two."
The entire point was to not let you think about it, cause it being cursed means that by the time you get to think about, it is already too late. And Oh, I know how to prove it too.
Ran, it wasn't certainty that made me act, it was risk analysis. If I assume it is cursed and I'm wrong, you get a set of possible results A. On the other hand, if I assume is fine and I'm wrong, you get result range B. So then I ckmpare A to B, and find that B is very likely to very much worse than A. Think about it, if I succeeded in making yoh let go, then we took some precautions, and the trinket was fine, then all we did was be overcautious. But given that it is cursed, and ghings happened in such that I couldn't take it away from you (same result as assuming ig is fine), well, we'll get firsthand look at how bad that gets. Good luck on your will saves.
That was not the question asked. I asked if you consider that it is a people-inherent attribute, or a system-attached one. Except you did ask this,
My response was to this primarily. You saw different statements and thought them contradictory because you didn't see the distinction I saw. As far as the different types are concerned, I am very much worrying about the trip I want to take. Because you are not talking about SUV and Pick-Up here, we are talking a level of difference that says car and boat. Except this is wrong, when it comes to roleplay, any system will do. Some would be horrible, or largely irrelevant, but rules-heavy vs rules light, or what kind of rules, doesn't deny or allow roleplay, so therefore, suv vs pickup because they all can drive on the road. Are people unchangeable in your eyes, or systems fixed in their primary design aspects?? Neither, but people have a single frame of reference, a single world-view. That view can be narrow or broad, and that view can be expanded through experiences, or reduced through trauma, but it is still a single view. People don't wear world-views like masks, swapping them out based on what game they play, or what situation they are in. A player who finds it troubling to be the evil will always have trouble playing evil in any game where being evil is apparent. Likewise, having a particular view on how the rules must be used doesn't change just because the rules change. Someone like yourself finds rules lite storytelling games to be more suitable for narrative focus, because those are the rulesets that allow that kind of narrative flexibility while still following the rules in the exact same fashion as any other game. You follow those rules just the same as following the rules in d20. That is why you can play narrative and tactics based games. You aren't changing the way you see the rules, the rules are simply changing what you are allowed to do, and you shift tactics accordingly. That is not the only way to look at the rules though. So, you are of the opinion that, by going with visualization of the problem in-character, it is absolutely reasonable that a single casting of true strike can totally allow a called shot to the eye penetrating into the skull, instantly killing the target? Why not? If the system allows called shots, and the result of getting a hit in the eye would be death according to the rules, then sure. It totally makes sense that a spell allowing you a near guaranteed hit on a moving, and actively evasive target the size of an eyeball should allow one to make such a called shot, and if you get an arrow right through the eye, the most likely outcome would be death (though I wouldn't call it a certainty, just a very very likely outcome). Naturally, a world in which an archer can regularly and easily make such shots would develop a defense against such shots. This is where my mentioning earlier about the gm working against the player's creativity comes into play. Early in the game, players aren't fighting against pros and masters with the height of military gear. Thus, as players get creative, anything they do that would naturally be the go to option in such cases, would very likely be something that has been thought of and used in that world for a long time before the pcs got there, and therefore, the more experienced folks who's work faces such creativity would naturally have developed techniques and methods against such creative solutions that the novices just haven't got to learning about yet. Simply pulling out a random banhammer on a technique isn't the right way to handle it, nor should the gm worry overmuch about requiring things to be of a certain difficulty anyway. The whole concept of facing only encounters of equal level came about only because of people seeing the CR system as a straitjacket instead of a baseline for estimating difficulty. Prior to that players would face numerous low level encounters, and bosses would be higher level, and being a higher level character simply meant being able to handle more low level encounters before wearing your resources thin. It is like in my setting, where thieves can easily break through locks with simplicity except for rare materials, therefore, locks are usually privacy locks, and the profession of being a guard is held in higher esteem and far more common as those cases where we use locks, they use guards instead. A change in how they do things stemming from how the use of magic alters how the world functions. The point, also of the examples I made, was that there's certain restraints built into the framework. So the question is not asked mockingly. I am trying to understand how far you will go to disregard any form of game balance simply for things to make sense in your visualization. Game balance is not a consideration at all for me, unless playing a traditional game, like chess, miniatures warfare, or Monopoly. There is no place for mechanical balance, in the form you seem to expect, in roleplaying. Things must make sense in the narrative milieu, the rules simply provide tools to more easily communicate about that milieu, and take the role of fate/chance, and the few other things mentioned previously (like getting everyone on the same page about whether they are playing superheroes or not). Oh, I am aware that there are more rules heavy systems, but by comparison, pathfinder is definitely not on the lightweight end of the spectrum. That doesn't make it a heavy weight system. I personally put firmly in the mid-weight category. disregarding the rules means any balance that exists is arbitrary Gee, that sounds a bit like a real world to me. I'm not seeing any problem with that. [sarcasm]Wonder if maybe that is why there are so many arguments about how the balance in DnD is horrible. [/sarcasm] As I just said, I don't see any place for mechanical, game-like balance in a roleplay. That is not the purpose of the rules. Spotlight balance is a concern, as it is a group activity, but even then there are players who prefer to have positions outside the spotlight. Naturalistic balance is a major part of making a system relatable and therefore easier to use for all those non-gaming uses I keep saying are the reasons for using a mid-weight, non-storytelling system. Only caring about the rules and disregarding the world turns the game into a interactive spreadsheet, and in effect, we are no longer talking about role playing. Do you consider Halo, Call of Duty, or Settlers of Cataan to be roleplaying games? They have world and lore that are relflected in the game mechanics. I certainly don't know anyone who considers them roleplaying though. Clearly, relating the world to the game mechanics does not make a game a roleplaying game, even though it is certainly an essential element to many games. And if that is true, then is it not also possible that you can have a not-a-roleplaying game with mechanics similar or even the same as those used by a roleplay? To say no is to say that a roleplay is entirely a mechanical construct, which is absolutely absurd. On the other hand, if it is possible to have a game that shares the mechanics of a roleplay without being a roleplay, then what makes something a roleplay must therefore be non-mechanical in nature, which also means, that you can have a focus on that non-mechanical aspect and use it with any number of different mechanics. And in that case, you have this competition of mechanics and this non-mechanical element. And that means, the mechanics can serve different purposes in a roleplay, as they are not what makes the roleplay a roleplay. I am trying to make it clear that mechanics, even mid-weight mechanics can serve these other purposes without also serving the same purposes they serve in chess and similar. You keep arguing that mechanics must serve a particular purpose or set of purposes, specifically like the purposes that they have in chess. In other words, why would I ever fail at something, except if I choose to leave it up to luck, or decide to fail? First, the gm is the arbiter and decides whether it shall be up to luck, but otherwise, there is no reason to. In collaborative storytelling "games," you might do so, but that would be because the players are again not roleplaying, rather, they are trying to make an awesome story. In a roleplay, the player has the same goal as the character in addition to enjoying their time. The player is there to succeed even if that means facing certain doom. The player therefore, in a roleplay, is motivated to succeed, and see no problem with that. Yes, the gm can be horrible at working with such players, and yes, it makes the gm's job a lot harder than simply arbitrating a squad tactics warfare game, hence wanting a system to make it easier. I really don't see a problem with that. Finally, please elaborate on this part: I am not trying to bypass the systems low chances, I'm trying to bypass the low chances of the in-world actions by... - specifically, you do realize that they are mapped to one another for convenience? The problem here is that you are assuming they are mapped perfectly. They aren't, and never will be. When there is a disjoint, you must then choose which to favor, the world milieu, or the mechanics. Trying to make a system that is absolutely perfect in all cases all the time is simply unworkable, and even attempting it gets impractical very quickly. Thus, it is part of the gm's job to make a judgement call when that happens. Imagine having a bug on your back, in the real world, would it not be easier to squash that bug against a wall or floor than trying to simply grab it with your hands? And even if you fail to squash it because it moved out of the way, that would still give you a chance to face it more favorably, buying you another chance to prevent it from grabbing on again. As a note, I don't see anything about the inclusion of magic that would change this. Oh, and if it isn't on your back, I really can't imagine even a commoner being unable to shrug off, or even grab a cat-sized bug if it is isn't flying. It just isn't going to happen one on one. Such bugs would only be a threat, even to commoners, when attacking in groups, since the target would not be able to easily fend off many of them at once. The grapple rules don't reflect that. The gm could certainly just use those rules with a circumstance bonus if they really wanted, but at the same time, the maneuver is far easier and doesn't require the kind of skill that truly grappling with an enemy soldier would require. I personally don't see the grapple rules as reflecting the situation very well at all. if you come up with a low chance for the in-world actions, that is because the system provides a low chance for that action... The problem is that this is backwards, the system should give better chances for actions that would have better chances in-world. When that doesn't happen, there is the gm. in-game that is covered but disregard the rules in place Just because there are grappling rules, doesn't mean the grappling rules reflect the in-world milieu even semi-accurately anywhere near all the time. It wasn't disregarding the rules, it was recognizing that the rules were not well reflective of the situation. The problem arises when you pre-determine the success of actions I didn't predetermine the success of the action. There were two likely outcomes, and anything else was very unlikely, though possible, but even then I did not assume any kind of specific result. I stated what I was trying to do, which to squeeze the bug, in hopes of one of the two likely outcomes. Chances of succeeding were up to the gm. All that aside, if the GM comes up with a seemingly arbitrary reason why something suddenly stops working that worked fine so far, that would seem like very bad sportsmanship on their part. I covered this earlier, but isn't bad sportsmanship when applied appropriately, like facing bad guys later on that have "proper" military gear designed to protect against common ways of easily killing a soldier. There is no reason for the street urchin to be any more difficult to kill than in the real world, which is to say absurdly easy for anyone who has enough training/experience to go toe to toe with any soldier above an untrained conscript. essentially became a circle jerk of people trying to read each other a story about their super-awesome epic totally different characters. What you describe is not roleplaying, it is collaborative storytelling, which isn't my cup of tea either, and certainly is not roleplaying (though it is often intermixed with roleplaying). Difference is asking "what do you do," vs asking "what would be awesome, cool, or otherwise make for a great story?" The point of roleplaying is not to experience the story happening to you through a proxy character, not to write a story. but by my experience, it's something not used with a sufficient level of responsibility by most participants I mostly agree with this, though I think the reason stems mostly from people not understanding the difference. Having the ability to be more than an animal is an inherent ability of humans, but that doesn't mean that ability gets used very often, especially during play. There are still lots of things about humans that humans don't want to face or believe. I.E, the Milgram experiment results. I believe this experience of yours (which matches mine, hence being constantly on the search for something better than crpg on paper) is the result of some of these uncomfortable truths about human psychology. Teach people to see those truths, and they gain the power to rise above them and the problems they cause. needing the extra feedback round needed to make the system adapt to the milieu That feedback only becomes a problem when you are trying to get enough of it for codifying something into the system. Otherwise, call a gm ruling and move on. For the sake of keeping things simple and easy to use, relying a bit on the gm making rulings, and simply making the system easy for the gm to make sensible rulings is really the best way to go, though that could be considered an opinion. Either way, I really don't like what I call invisible walls, which is when you see something that should be allowed, but are then told isn't allowed for reasons that have no meaning or place within the world milieu. just like when you play Call of Duty and streets get blocked off by invisible walls. You drop prone to crush the bug, it lets go of the grapple to avoid the attack, you stand back up, and as attack of opportunity(it is still in your square) it re-attaches. Why assume I'll stand back up and not just take total defense or something? when you clumsily try to crush it You don't know it was a clumsy attempt, not until the dice are rolled. That is one of things dice tell us. momentary disorientation What momentary disorientation? I never got that from slamming people into floors (haven't had a chance to try a wall, but I can't imagine it being any different than a floor). Besides, one thing about real world that doesn't seem to find it's way into game systems is readying actions in a chain triggered by your own self. I.E. forcing bug to let go and being ready to grab at it as it shifts out of the way, or staying facing the bug and attempting to block it's follow up approach. In the real world, this is what real warriors do. Like one master swordsman said, "you should be able to think about going to work the next day and still fight effectively." This is achieved by having responses prepared and ready without needing to think about them, thus even being dazed or disoriented would work. If you want a world that is alive This can't be achieved via rules simple enough for us to create and use in a reasonable time-frame, hence the reliance on a gm to make the world alive.
"It's cursed!" Zhai screams as she tried to get it away from Ran (which remember was what she'd try to do immediately, not wait long enough for Ran to get up or anything.)
Lol. In choosing a vehicle to buy, are you going to worry about a single trip you take? There are differences between an suv and a pick up, and what side the driver seat is on doesn't really matter to the functioning of them or whether they are better for you, but you might prefer one side or the other depending on what side of the atlantic you are on even though it doesn't really matter in a practical sense. If you need to carry some cargo, both can do the job, but depending on how much you need the suv might need more trips. You attempted to use 'world logic' Absolutely. That is the difference between roleplaying and stotytelling. I visualize the problem as though I am the character, then figure out how I can overcome the obstacle or if I might leave the obstacle alone. If I had a giant bug on my back, I'd try squashing it against a wall/floor because it really would be easier than trying to grab it. How you want to handle the mechanics of me trying to squash it rather than grab it is opinion, as it isn't exactly defined within the rules. Though, as it would be easier if it were real, the mechanics should reflect that. Yet somehow, you claim that NOT using rules or rolls is somehow more true to their legacy? In my eyes, both extremes are bad. They aren't extremes because it isn't a scale. What do you look at to decide on a course of action? There are a number of things, but they don't fall on a scale. You can base your decision on mechanics, or on what would make for an exciting story, or you can base it on what you might do if it were real. You can look at things as a game, or a story, or as a world you are in. For anything but the mechanics, the rules are secondary. There purpose is not to tell you what or how, they simply aid communication (i.e. "very strong" could mean a weightlifter, or it could mean the Hulk. The rules give a more defined vocabulary), and can aid in description, and can add uncertainty which leads to tension. The system also takes success and failure out of the gm's hands, which lessens by a lot the problem of favoritism (be it intentional or not). To that end, a casually simulationist system like d20 (which is not rules heavy by any means), can be a benefit. What I am actively working against is using 'the world' and 'world logic' to bypass character shortcomings or low chances of success as a standard modus operandi. In the real world, intellect is the god stat because it gives you the ability to find a way around your own shortcomings. As for chances of success, if the mechanics don't improve your chances for an action that would have higher chances if it were real, then that is a problem, a problem for the gm to arbitrate, not the player. I'm not trying to bypass the system's low chances, I'm trying to bypass the low chances of the in-world actions by taking an action that should have higher chances based on the world milieu itself. If you don't agree that it should have higher chances, then that is a difference of opinion, hence why the gm is an arbiter. Just because lots of people like running straight into combat like fruitcakes doesn't mean the system should make that the best way mechanically to win. But there is a problem at the moment when the mechanical imbalance affects in-game events to the point where challenges become pointless. Exactly, which is the point where you stray from the rules. And quite frankly, just because something was intended to have a challenging skill check to move on doesn't mean that a good idea to bypass it should be denied. For example, a spiked pit trap, well, all the players should know at first is that there is a false floor, and rather than disabling the trap, laying a board over it to walk across is a perfectly valid solution that certainly should not require a check. The point is that if we 'defuse' all problems, challenges, and issues by 'bypassing' them with real-world logic and checks heavily in our favor, then the only thing you achieve is to force the GM to do more work by making things more difficult for us If logic works, then it should. If thinking outside the box would work, then it should work. That is the point behind playing pbp and not a crpg. Besides, as a player thinks outside the box, and the gm handles it, the gm builds up ideas to use. For example, if pit traps keep getting bypassed by boards, then how about a pit trap that ignites any wood touching the floor, that then requires a new solution. And therefore, however much the players might think outside the box, there will be an ever increasing set of ideas for the gm to use against the players in turn, and it is very highly unlikely to avoid any need for rolling for long. that is not a game, it's forced interactive fiction As far as I'm concerned, a roleplaying game is not a game in the same sense that chess or settlers of cataan are games, but rather a game in the sense as in Games Theory field of science. Interactive fiction is exactly what I'm here for. What I'm constantly on the search for as it seems to be getting rarer every day. Too many new players that think of things like a crpg on paper and can't wrap their head around anything else. why would you use a system with elaborate interlocking rules and mechanics, like pathfinder, over one more narrative-based? Because narrative based games are not interactive fiction, they are storytelling games. D20 is about being casually simulationist. The interlocking systems are simply an emergent behavior from the fact that a real world is interlocking and of course, the simplification of rules often calls for unifying mechanics. insisting on not using those I didn't insist on what to use or not use. I personally would those mechanics for it, but I certainly wasn't sure what the gm would have chosen. chance of success and the outcome are within expected parameters According to what metric? For me, the metric for expected parameters is the narrative milieu, not the system. That's called flavoring things Flavoring things is pointless if the outcome is not dependent on the flavor. If you just want to play dice with flavor on the backseat, why use a system? Why not just roll 3d6 for everything and hope for the best?
As far ad I can tell, we are waiting on Ran, as Zhai's action depends on his reaction, and his action probably will set the stage for what happens next.
Zhai realizes what happened, "Ran, drop the necklace quick!" and she ignores Natalya to try and make Ran drop the necklace if he doesn't immediately drop it.
Zhai, bracing herself between the walls of the chimney so she is more comfortable, and looks down on the scene. If she manages to get free from Ran, Zhai will drop on her.
Zhai is avoiding falling on anybody, and waiting to see how the struggle between Ran and Natalyia goes.
Yea, I'm back now. So why use the mechanics? Well, why do you use mechanics? I don't mean rhetorically either. For me, the purpose of the mechanics is to have a robust simulationist system to form a solid foundation for providing a broad and consistant baseline, to A) make gm rulings easier, practical, flexible, and more consistant,
As far as I'm concerned, there is no intention for the rules to be treated, like the rules of a board game, as descriptions of what can or can not be done. RPGs are not a game to me, not in the same sense that chess, settlers of cataan, or even computer games like Halo and Call of Duty are games. To me an RPG is like a book, except that instead of calling the protagonist an idiot for blindly walking into an obvious trap, we the players get to be the protagonists. When we walk blindly into a trap it is because of our stupidity, or our smarts when we spot the trap, and we are the ones that need to make a plan to handle whatever the situation is. Doesn't even need the players to be heroes or adventurers. To me, that can't be achieved by treating the game like squad based combat game with story flavored on top. But it should be noticed that this concept of an RPG doesn't rely on, nor is defined by, the rule set used. Also, before asking why I don't go play some rules light game instead, simulationist rules help provide a structure to resolve whatever strange plans and ideas players might come up with. Rules light lacks that structure, and is more suitable to players being co-authors rather than protagonists.
Zhai rolls over the lip to drop down, intending to hang first to make the landing easier, but suddenly finding Ran under her, she holds on till he's out of the way.
Zhai looks down at her, rubbing the strige bite, "Paranoid much? I don't care about whatever petty trinkets you may have found, but I am starting to suspect something, or someone, has been meddling in your head."
"Didn't have a lot of choice. We tried to be all peaceful and simply asked to speak to you, but then they tried to kill us. It's sad, but it happens. Someone does something stupid, starts a fight and people get hurt for it. And quite honestly, we had no idea whether these folks were your friends or your enemies, and we simply couldn't leave without knowing which at the very least. We said we were not your enemy but they took that as a cue to kill us. Not capture us, not talk to us, but to kill us. Well, we can't find you if we are dead. We can't find you if they move you elsewhere because we found this place. And we'd rather not find you dead because we got too close." Zhai is fairly calm, mostly, but it ever so slowly increasing in sounding quite a bit like she is venting quite a bit of frustration. As she speaks, she cleans herself up best as she can, being gentle with the bug, as she is unsure if the stirges were able to be tamed as pets or were simply pests that happened to be here.
Figured I'd just let the gm decide how to do it. The stirge can't move because it's plugged into, so it can't evade the wall, of course it couldn't evade the floor either yet the gm completely ignored the attempt, so who knows. Personally, as a gm, I would say either the stirge is forced to let go to avoid the wall/floor or it takes some damage (i'd use an initiative check to see if it was fast enough to evade myself). But that is just me. Think about it, a bug is latched onto your back so you slam your back into the floor. What happens? (there was even a stupid-humor movie that did it too.) This is one of those world milieu vs mechanics milieu issues really.
"We are not your enemies Natalya!" Zhai says as she slams the wall, trying to crush the stirge. "A friend of yours sent us to find out why you disappeared!"
Zhai jumps over to the brick area and rolls on the brick floor to crush the stirge underneath her.
Zhai moves defensively across the rafters, her plan is to lure the stirges to the goblins.
Zhai tests for hold, grabbing the other end of the rope if possible, then climbs up.
As I had said what I was doing for the round, I don't really consider it a bot (which I had dkne cause I thought only Ikit was supposed to be posting). I was just wondering what was up with that is all. Personal experience says it should be easier to just grab a rafter and pull myself up than either swinging for a long jump (second hardest but quickest) or using rope (definitely the hardest and probably multi-round option) though. Makes it feel awkward to have the DCs reversed.
Wait a moment, isn't it supposed to just be Ikit, then GM post about goblin actions, then all of us go? Am I missing something? Also, you said before that I could swing on a rafter to get across the pit, so why do I suddenly need rope to just climb on top of the rafter?
It's not my turn yet I notice, but all Zhai will be doing is to get up on the rafters. If any movement left, she'll then move closer to where goblins are. Just in case.
Well, I'm back to fewer hours, so I should be better about posting now.
Zhai breathes a sigh of relief, turning to Ikit "Come on, let's see if they need us."
Zhai readies to defend herself or Ikit, from any more mudballs.
Zhai starts to reach to catch the spear, but noticing the mud blob heading for Ikit, helps Ikit avoid the mud instead, missing the spear catch.
Zhai plucked the spear from her shoulder laughing maniacally, and in goblin she yells at the goblins, "With friends like that, and enemies like me, you will die today if you don't run away." She then throws the spear at the one nearest her.
Zhai wipes muck off her neck , while yelling at the goblins behind them, in goblin, "I will get wizards to read at you with all their evil letters!"
Zhai stares suspiciously at the ladder frowning when the goblin cries takes her attention. Zhai was rather expecting people, goblins were a different matter. She raced around to the doorway to follow the dwarf across the planks.
Zhai will wait till Ran opens the door, no real point crowding the others till they start across, but she starts planning how she might climb up that ladder once everyone else starts moving.
Grats!
|