Wow. I'd never heard of FATAL before. So I looked it up.
...I was having a pretty good day, too.
Same... now I feel dirty.
I think it boils down to loss of control...That makes sense. From a game design perspective, anything that removes a player's agency in a type of game that's all about player agency is going to be a delicate process at best. Hindering or altering that agency less so, but still something to bear in mind.
It goes beyond that: Binary abilities are horrible for storytelling (in a collaborative game). Damage (both HP damage and ability score damage) gradually increases the danger, as every point of damage taken makes the next one more impactful - and even if you don't take damage, or don't take full damage, the danger is obvious. For binary spells, neither is the case. The second Fireball is more dangerous than the first even if you saved, that's not true for Hold Person. The swing of a huge axe that misses you (possibly even narrowly) is a clear sign that danger is afoot, but if you don't have spellcraft, you might even know that you just saved against something dangerous.
If such spells work, the players loses control, and by that stops playing the game - that's boring. If the spell doesn't work, it possibly doesn't portray, or likely doesn't even present danger, as the enemy in question just wasted a turn with zero effect, and might not have more uses of the spell prepared, so the combat gets easier than anticipated on a machanical level, and feels easy, too - that's also boring.
Save-or-die effects are the same issue on crack, which is exactly the reason why Pathfinder removed almost all of them.
Several years ago a GM pushed me into playing a druid. The group would need another healer, and since there was already an oracle, he proposed druid. For once I tried to be openminded and it turned out horrible.
Sounds to me like the GM had a very poor understanding of the game. "The group needs a healer" is already bull s%&~, but a second healer? What was the GM smoking?
I don't think the problem was the Druid class, but rather the "play a healer Druid" crap.
I might as well leave the pencil, paper and tabletop behind and reinstall Diablo II instead.
Reinstall? Plebeian!
I could easily see myself playing a session or so of FATAL just to revel in its ridiculousness, as long as everyone else was in on the joke.
Was that the game where you roll for the diameter of your character's vagina or something like that?
It goes beyond that: Binary abilities are horrible for storytelling.
Very true. That's why traps and most people's initial passes at puzzles/mazes are all crap, too.
It's just strange to me that, of all the rulebooks and settings and systems out there, there's so little in the way of published guidelines on storytelling and actual gamemastering (the parts that really matter).And as to FATAL, it would appear so, yes.
(And in my defense, the only reasons I'd have to reinstall Diablo II are (1) my latest laptop doesn't have a disc drive and (2) I had to throw the game out the window so I'd actually go to lecture.)
...But if you think that's bad, don't go looking up RaHoWa. Seriously. It's worse.
I'm vaguely familiar with the general acronym "RaHoWa" (stands for Racial Holy War, or something, yeah?), but...is it also the name of a ttrpg? Because if so...is it cool if I accuse people of wrong/bad fun when they're playing neo-Nazi D&D?
There are ancillary stuff on storytelling/gamemastering. Lots of youtube stuff on it too. I think White Wolf(World of Darkness) puts a lot of story structure emphasis.
Mostly, this stuff is easy to learn as you play both sides of the screen. It sucks just as much to get tagged by a ghoul as a player as it does to end an adventure to a ghoul TPK.
When it comes to challenging myself, I just try to make characters I haven't played before. Now that I've played a lot of everything, I mostly just try out new systems, houserules, etc.
FFD6 is great by the way. A nice rules lite system to flex some creative chops while maintaining fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are ancillary stuff on storytelling/gamemastering. Lots of youtube stuff on it too. I think White Wolf(World of Darkness) puts a lot of story structure emphasis.
Mostly, this stuff is easy to learn as you play both sides of the screen.
White Wolf does a great job with story structure. Less so with session structure, encounter building, etc.
There's this actually fairly intricate dance with game design and with storytelling where a lot of ttrpg's live. 90% of "gamemastering" content is about the system, like traps, environmental hazards, etc. 10% seems to be actually about telling a story. But that weird space where you determine *what* an encounter actually is, what makes one effective and how to begin/run/end one and all the other essential things that separate okay GM's from truly great ones? I just don't see it anywhere. Sure, YouTube and blogs and podcasts exist, but...for example, why is it so hard for most systems to just define what GM'ing is and how to do it? In clear, easily digestible terms. That would be at least a start.But I absolutely disagree that these concepts are easy to learn. I'm always on the lookout for another angle, a different perspective to take my storytelling and gamemastering to the next level, but it took me years to get here. Years of actual, conscious effort. I have seen dozens of people with no idea what they're doing try to run games with predictably disastrous results and an unfortunate unwillingness to grow or improve in any way. This is a pretty subtle craft with a lot of layers. I think some of us have a knack for it, but the finer points aren't things you can glean subliminally.
I think because there's such a large difference in game mastery between DMs that defining those various things is also going to vary from DM to DM. Combine that with different players taste as well...
I haven't met a single person who has run D&D 3.X-Pathfinder perfectly when it comes to the rules. So dialing back and knowing when to fiat really well is also a skill. There's nothing in the book that'll tell you not to load up your NPCs with save or dies. It's just something that will eventually happen when you want an encounter to be dangerous.
When that happens, you'll get a very particular reaction at the table as well.
By easy, I meant the medium by which you learn it. Just reading theory is nice and all, but hearing feedback from your players after a session or experiencing a fiat or rules clarification in the moment can be really enlightening. I've played with a bunch of DMs. Some great, some not so great. There's also great things I like about their games that are different from each other that I like to think I take and add my own spin on to my DMing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not talking about rules or fiat. I'm talking about the structure of the game itself. Not the system. Not the story. Not even where those two things meet.
Like, how to alternate fast paced scenes and slower ones, and how to make a scene's pace feel fast or slow.
Or how to build an encounter that's actually *fun*. These aren't mystical rites gained after a spiritual journey, they're skills based on fairly solid, basic elements of story structure and human nature. The Angry GM, as obnoxious as he can be, is an accessible and indisputable authority on the subject.
I mean, it's not quite in the same vein, but look at the above conversation about binary abilities. That's not *really* a matter of taste; a player who gets to play is having more fun than one who isn't. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. But less about mechanics and more about game structure (which is, again, not story structure).
SoS/D? I...I'm not sure I should ask.
Also, I realized I have to take back what I said before. Goofy/joke characters have their place. In a goofy/joke game.
My friend and I are working on a setting based on the fantasy style of Pendleton Ward. Want to be a minotaur cowboy? Done. Fight with a magic talking sword and a high-tech talking laser gun that argue with each other? Cool.
The dwarves are all heavy metal head bangers, there's a city that's also a megadungeon where the locals thrive on adventuring-tourism.
I guess what I should say is that the only sort of character I refuse to play is the kind that doesn't fit in the world they're supposedly from.
I looked up a review of FATAL on RPG.net I think that was hilarious, if very NSWF. I wouldn't bother reading the actual document, which is 900 pages of pechulant, juvenile gibberish.
...the Dragonlance campaign world is an extremely loony world full of Kender, Gully Dwarves, and and Gnome inventors...
...I think it is legit for a player to create a goofy character, or at least have some goofiness in his character...A player has some right to communicate to the GM and the group the kind of campaign he wants.
Sure. And every time I've ever heard anyone talk about their Kender character, it was essentially a middle-finger-to-the-GM on a character sheet. From what I've seen of the Dragonlance setting, it's...eh. I don't know. Not what I'd consider to be an especially shining example of quality fantasy fiction. Bog standard genre-writing seems to be nearer the mark.
And as I said before, a character that does funny things is fine. A character with a sense of humor is great. A character that is, in and of themselves, a joke outside of the game and an incoherent pile of nonsense within it is another matter.
If my players want a certain kind of game, that's Session Zero talk. And if most of us agreed to a more or less serious story of heroes and villains, of might and magic, of swords and sorcery, of dungeons and dragons, and you want to play a 500-hour pen-and-paper Monty Python skit, then...I would hope you have the decency to compromise, and maybe we can do something at a later date to scratch that particular itch of yours.
Also, I read that same review on RPG.net, and it helped restore my hope in humanity a bit.
I think, as far as true zaniness goes, TROIKA looks promising. "You are a wizard, a warrior, a macrame owl."
Actual play of TROIKA turned out to be less than satisfying. Conceptually it's strong but the rules don't support it. I'd suggest hacking with PbtA or FitD.
Oh, for sure.
But...I mean. Just because something is foundational or part of the original set or what-have-you doesn't make it good on and of itself.
And to be fair, being a piece of genre fiction doesn't mean literature can't have merit. Some things are near and dear to my heart not only in spite of their being campy and cheesey and maybe not the highest quality/most sophisticated example of their field, but because of those things. So I totally get that. But while I might treasure those things, I also won't suggest they be elevated to the status of Citizen Kane or Beowulf or the collective work of Mozart.
In all honesty, I don't really care for the typical Sword & Sorcery sub-genre much anymore. I've been using folklore, Tolkien and Gaiman as inspiration for my games and stories for a while, now. So I may just be biased.
...but even if I did run a more traditional S&S-type game, there would never be any Kender in it. Ever. They might as well have a racial ability called "Ruin the Scene, all the Scenes".
...just because you're playing a character that swings a great, big hammer and is named Gallagher doesn't mean you are going to ruin a classic high medieval fantasy story...
Maybe not, but I'd still veto the name at my table. It's an amusing moniker for a build, but for an actual, playable character? It's a reference to a real-world person and it's a joke. I wouldn't want that in my typical game any more than I'd want a character named Bruce Willis or Seymour Butts.
Again, humor is great. Essential, even, in certain situations. I just don't need my comic relief to take the form of a walking, talking joke. Out-of-game humor is perfectly natural and acceptable, and in-character humor can be awesome.
And sure, I guess people taking the game too seriously would be a problem. I've just never really seen that. What I've seen quite a lot, unfortunately, are people who think their joke-on-a-character sheet is the very height of comedy and who think that ruining any sort of tone or mood the GM has set up to be proof of their sheer awesomeness.
And once more, everything in it's place. Some games are more lighthearted than others. Some are zany and over the top. And in those games, a Tolkienian character would undoubtedly be just as ill-fitted as a Dr. Seuss one would be on Middle-earth.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A player at my Kingmaker campaign introduced his character as Rusty Shackleford. And the entire party didn't bother learning his real name until he was made king! Lol. His character shared nothing else in common with Dale from King of the Hill.
I have an Arcane Duelist in a buddy's homebrew campaign named Vash, with no other similarities with Trigun's Vash the Stampede.
It's just a name. Like most groups of people, you establish monikers that get used way more than actual names anyways. It's only as distracting as you make it out to be.
I have been heavily considering making a character or NPC based entirely on the Shia Labeouf cannibal musical skit...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find joke characters tend to wear out their humor swiftly, but it's definitely a table by table thing. It's just as inappropriate to bring a serious character to a goofy game as a goofy character to a serious game. But many games falls in between - which is why communication is key.
If anyone shows up to a table and tells everyone else to "deal, this is how I have fun" you have a problem player (or GM).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well said on a lot. However, I'm legitimately unsure where you fall in the generational range now. Normally I don't care too much about player's ages, but impugning DragonLance is probably going to rile some grognards.
I almost certainly count as a grognard and I am more than happy to impugn the Dragonlance books, which I found unpleasantly sexist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really? I did not see the sexism. I am interested in your opinion.I almost certainly count as a grognard and I am more than happy to impugn the Dragonlance books, which I found unpleasantly sexist.
Well said on a lot. However, I'm legitimately unsure where you fall in the generational range now. Normally I don't care too much about player's ages, but impugning DragonLance is probably going to rile some grognards.
Bear in mind it's a 3-4 years since I re-read the initial trilogy, and considerably more than that since I read any of the others, so my memory is hazy, but as i recall all of the "good" female characters are pretty and feminine, and really want to fall in love with one of the heroes and marry him. I remember being struck in particular by a bit where Tika gets a lecture on how sex before marriage is a big no no, and because she obeys this rule she's goodly, whereas Kitiara who goes out and has relationships with men ends up turning evil and meeting a horrible fate.
Maybe "sexist" is the wrong word, perhaps it would be better to say the authors' conservative views about female roles and sexuality annoyed the hell out of me then, and didn't get better on a re-read.
I admit I only read the two original Dragonlance trilogies and maybe the first book of short stories, so thaere's a lot of the world I didn't explore. But what I remember is back in the 80s when they were the only D&D movels out there, and these were the only examples of what female PCs were like in any media.
So there I am, usually the only female gamer in the room trying to play an interesting/believable female character, and the 'role models' are these very pretty and vaguely-heroic, but ultimately just want to throw themselves into the arms of a strong man Dragonlance women. Plus of course all of the artwork... glossy hair, bare legs and oversized bosoms. Yeah. I'll go with my original argument of ever so slightly sexist.
|
I admit I only read the two original Dragonlance trilogies and maybe the first book of short stories, so thaere's a lot of the world I didn't explore. But what I remember is back in the 80s when they were the only D&D movels out there, and these were the only examples of what female PCs were like in any media.
So there I am, usually the only female gamer in the room trying to play an interesting/believable female character, and the 'role models' are these very pretty and vaguely-heroic, but ultimately just want to throw themselves into the arms of a strong man Dragonlance women. Plus of course all of the artwork... glossy hair, bare legs and oversized bosoms. Yeah. I'll go with my original argument of ever so slightly sexist.
This is really a larger social issue that is at least as prevalent everywhere else and not at all specific to d&d fantasy literature.
IMO, if your audience is kids then I think having believable, relatable role model characters is important. For adult audiences, I'm all for a bit of fantasy in my fantasy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...if your audience is kids then I think having believable, relatable role model characters is important. For adult audiences, I'm all for a bit of fantasy in my fantasy.
How about the iconic Cleric and Paladin? Clearly fantasy characters, clearly not part of the real world. But not objectified, not parodies, etc. They look awesome and like they could go fight some orcs or challenge an evil wizard in his tower.
And while it's a larger issue, I don't know if that means it can't be addressed in this situation, specifically.
It's hard for me to wrap my head around, because I've had the privilege to find believable characters I can relate to in literally every form of entertainment or media I've ever seen. And while some of those dudes were perhaps objectified in some way--by being big and muscle-y and bare-chested, for example, that's...still largely a position of power? I mean. Physical power, at least. And the collective pressure on me and mine is so much less than what women seem to collectively deal with.
I don't think it's too much to ask that an author avoid offensive stereotypes or clichés. Or players, for that matter. Some players are better storytellers than others, but even the worst of them can at least try.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...if your audience is kids then I think having believable, relatable role model characters is important. For adult audiences, I'm all for a bit of fantasy in my fantasy.How about the iconic Cleric and Paladin? Clearly fantasy characters, clearly not part of the real world. But not objectified, not parodies, etc. They look awesome...
I mean, if you're asking, I think they look pretty blah, but I'm not a fan of the paizo art style. I happen to like more exaggerated and cartoony art myself. To each their own though. I consider it a faux pas to tell another player how their PC looks (especially correcting another player and saying their character doesn't look like how they describe them). Part of playing rpgs is about self expression. Creating a character is like making an art piece, and the game table isn't art school where critiquing the quality of each others work is desirable. It might be cool if we were all pro character writers and actors, but I just play with my friends to have some fun. So whatever, let each player do what they want to do. Not everyone's there to tell an interesting story with believable characters and intricate narrative. Some players are just there to kick down doors, kill monsters, and loot treasure. Other players just want to blow off steam, forget about work, and hang out with their friends for a few hours. That said, if you're uncomfortable with one another's antics then it's time to have a chat with them and work things out, or to find better friends =P.
As an aside, I think there can be a difference between objectification and having attractive/desirable characters in your fantasy. I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to roleplay as a sexy, popular character. I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to play an awesome, powerful character either. I also think you can have both, without the need to put down or shame the other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, if you're asking, I think they look pretty blah, but I'm not a fan of the paizo art style. I happen to like more exaggerated and cartoony art myself.
If Pathfinder's style doesn't qualify as exaggerated or cartoons, I'd be very much curious to see something that does. Paizo's go-to character art has always struck me as at least somewhat over-the-top.
I consider it a faux pas to tell another player how their PC looks (especially correcting another player and saying their character doesn't look like how they describe them).
Of course. I don't think anyone here was suggesting that was okay.
I mean. I do draw a line somewhere, though. An old player described his character as a 6ft-something, handsome dude with a toned, athletic build. Str 7, Dex 10, Con 13. We didn't so much tell him he was wrong as we were like "um...can you walk us through that?" But that was more just a (very) poor understanding of the rules and not really having a clear concept in mind at creation.I just play with my friends to have some fun. So whatever, let each player do what they want to do. Not everyone's there to tell an interesting story with believable characters and intricate narrative. Some players are just there to kick down doors, kill monsters, and loot treasure. Other players just want to blow off steam, forget about work, and hang out with their friends for a few hours.
While I personally could never see this game that way, I accept that it's like that for some people.
But I don't know. I still don't think it's too much to ask for people to try and not make an offensive character. Sure, you may just be here to have fun, but can't we have fun in a way that's not chauvinistic/racist/etc? I mean, it's not like that's our goal in the first place, so...it feels like it should be easy to pull off?Of course, it really depends on your group as per usual. Some people are more sensitive than others. Some people are overly sensitive. Just don't ask me to draw that line in the sand.
As an aside, I think there can be a difference between objectification and having attractive/desirable characters in your fantasy. I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to roleplay as a sexy, popular character. I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to play an awesome, powerful character either. I also think you can have both, without the need to put down or shame the other.
Oh, for sure. I decided the "physical manifestation of hunger" thing with my wendigo character to mean a...couple different things. She was also very much interested in finding some kind of partnership or intimacy to fill that cold, howling void inside her.
It's just. Some people make it weird, you know? My friend has this player who apparently kept track of the height, weight, measurements and cup size of all of the female NPC's he met...? That's not self-expression. Or at least, if it is, it's of a sort I want nothing to do with, in the game or outside of it.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've had a few npcs wear glamered armor made to look like sexy fantasy armor. It usually gets groans then a chuckle after the reveal. Things that people seem to think are offensive tend to go over well enough as long as you're self aware and they fit the context and audience.
As for the topic, I tend to get pushed into investigator type roles just to keep the party moving, and I'd like to try something else. Playing a mundane meat head could be appealing for awhile, but I haven't done so in a game that lasted terribly long.
My standard is a non-heroic support type character, or a stealth/wizard type. I played a melee occultist which seemed like a big deviation from type, enough that the people who played with me forever seemed a bit baffled. He'd charge ahead in combat, break down barriers, argue against stealth options, become argumentative to instigate fights to justify attacking evil people, and so on. I loved playing the character, but had to be sure that the other players knew I thought his ideas were bad, and had to make unpersuasive arguments to emulate his poor social skills and dumped wisdom score. The object reading ability made it so he was the investigator for the group even though that wasn't my intent with the character.
Next time I'll get it right. No investigation, poor memory for past events, just a brutish goon of a thing palling around waiting for initiative to get rolled. Some day.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
stuff...
Yup, pretty much agree with all of that. I wish all of my friends were more into the roleplay/storytelling aspect, but it is what it is.
Back in the day, when I was GMing a lot at cons and other public pfs games, I definitely encountered players that would occasionally take things too far or make it weird. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt. There's a lot of socially awkward misfits in the rpg community and sometimes people just say stupid stuff. I also think it's good to speak up on such occasions. Usually they had no intention to make you feel uncomfortable, will apologize for their lack of thought, and curb their offensive comments. And if they don't then I'd tell em to find another table.
You laugh at your "athletic" dude, but that reminds me of a certain npc from the serpent skull ap with s9 d11 c7, and his portrait included in the book shows a man with well defined muscles.
Paizo art is very much in the classic comic book vein, not what I would call cartoony. Yes, it's stylized, but it's far to the realistic side compared to say, Asterix the Gaul, or even old D&D art like the Erol Otus stuff.
Anyway. My standard is an active, heroic character. Even when I'm playing support, I'm often still the one leading the charge. My go to dump stat is wisdom, because adventuring is foolhardy behavior which a wise person would know better than to get caught up in. My out of comfort character would be one with poor defenses, who had to rely on others to protect them, and didn't go rushing off to adventure.
