|
1 year ago ::
Apr 23, 2012 - 7:47PM
#71
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
Those people are imaginary!
No they aren't.
I want teh freedom to build whatever crazy-ass concept I come up with after a three (or thirty) drinks, without the numbers telling me it's obligated to suck at it.
Apparently, I'm an insane heritic for trying to build-out a Dwarven Wizard or Halfling Barbarian and expecting the game to not actively punish me for doing so (or in Dwarf Wizzardo's case, several editions screaming it's forbidden).
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 23, 2012 - 7:48PM
#72
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
Qmark, I'll venture to guess even you don't want a game where nothing bad happens ever. Not wanting to be mechanically penalized for pursuing an unsual character concept is not the same as what Emerikol described.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 23, 2012 - 7:51PM
#73
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
Qmark, I'll venture to guess even you don't want a game where nothing bad happens ever.
Wait, what?
Bad things are meant to happen. That's why we have hitpoints and blown saves to tell us when our guy gets dead or worse.
I have no idea what's going on, then.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 23, 2012 - 7:55PM
#74
|
|
|
Qmark, I'll venture to guess even you don't want a game where nothing bad happens ever.
Wait, what?
Bad things are meant to happen. That's why we have hitpoints and blown saves to tell us when our guy gets dead or worse.
I have no idea what's going on, then.
You're probably not reading Emrikol's posts (and really, who could blame you?).
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 23, 2012 - 8:02PM
#75
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
You're probably not reading Emrikol's posts (and really, who could blame you?).
"You kids and your ressurection scrolls. Back in my day, we died and stayed dead - and we liked it!"
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 23, 2012 - 8:12PM
#76
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2008
|
Now about the Flaws. They are Negatives. Not positives and not some half good-half bad thing. Getting older sucks. Joints start to hurt, muscles get weaker, memories are harder to recall, vision is not as sharp as it used to be. These are all negatives that happen, they happen to different people at different times, but they happen. So how about no positive benifit to a flaw, getting older is something that most people want to avoid.
Now the benifit to getting older is that you have more experience. How is this shown in game? With more experience points. Yeah older characters are often higher level! So sure that 50 year old fighter might not be as quick as the 20 year old but he has more experience, more maneuvers, spells, tricks up his sleeves, more HP, more BAB, more Skill points. So he is still going to kick the crap out of that young whippersnapper.
So, what you are saying is that age penalties are essentially like playing on Hard Mode. When you get the age penalties, the game is going to get harder unless the DM makes all the challenges easier to compensate (I can see it now: the Octogenarian Fighter vs. the Retired Doom Priests!).
I think my issue with this is that it becomes something that the DM decides to impose on the players. Hereoes start out quite young, and so have many years to go before any penalties will arise. So the DM actually has to say, "20 years pass", to which the players will respond, "Wait...why couldn't we be adventuring during those 20 years?" Sometimes the passage of time is needed; for example, if the party is recovering from disease. But 20 years? That is just the DM deciding to impose aging penalties. And this gets even worse with a party of mixed races. What do you do if you have a human, a half-orc, a dwarf, and an elf? If you want the elf to have age penalties the human and half-orc will be dead!
This is why I don't think this is something that requires official rules to handle. You, as the DM, simply ask your players, "Hey, how would you guys feel about playing a game where you are all older heroes, recently come out of retirement? You would have disadvantages, so it will be like playing on Hard Mode. I think it would be fun, and make a nice challenge." Then you work with everyone to come up with various disadvantages (its even more fun if everyone has a different one...slowed, bad memory, bad senses, etc).
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 24, 2012 - 12:44AM
#77
|
Date Joined:
May 17, 2009
|
It can only insulting to you if in fact you were on that spot on the continuum. If you are not then I don't see how you could be insulted.
Emerikol. I want you to listen to me, because you know that though we often disagree, I always try to give you a fair shake. Okay? You need to drop the "if the shoe fits..." crap. It comes off as passive aggressive tripe. No one thinks you make those statements about people who aren't there. We know you're thinking about viewpoints you've seen expressed when you say these things. Honestly, maybe this is just me, but if you want to insult someone, do it. Call them out. I'd respect it more than this, because this amounts to spraying a fire hose into a crowd and telling everyone you only meant to get ****s wet, so just chill, bros.
Even if a person considers their position, and decides you aren't talking about them, you still look like a jerk to them.
Don't do it. You're better than that. I know you are.
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool. | Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner | |
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 24, 2012 - 12:46AM
#78
|
Date Joined:
May 17, 2009
|
Unless you can articulate exactly what you think negative numbers bring to the game that using only positive numbers does not, you'll have a hard time.
I have a hazy idea as to why I like them, but nothing concrete enough to feel good about defending. At this point I'm just "I prefer them."
I dislike the "Negatives are unfun" argument, though. That's just saying "I don't like them" in an insulting way that implies no one who knows how to have fun should like them, either.
Also, I repsect this post. +1 to Kaldric from me.
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool. | Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner | |
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 24, 2012 - 12:47AM
#79
|
|
|
Most of the time I have ever seen an old character was because someone was min-maxing. The idea of flaws is to get players to be more reluctant about getting older. Sure they could min-max for that extra wisdom bonus but that flaw might not be something they want to deal with. Now I do say that flaws should be fun, not just some minor stat/skill adjust. Something that encourages roleplaying. The idea was that a class (like the wizard) might be more powerful but it also is closer to being old. It is a minor check on the power of a class. As for various races ageing time, that I why I said general age catagories. Maybe one way to make up for it is to give short lived races some minor racial benifit. So a human might get a minor bonus because he is more likely to get old during the campaign. Again this is more about actually makeing age mean something. Again, the only old characters I have ever seen was because they were min-maxing. Plus some people might get some fun out of playing a bunch of 80 year old humans out for one last adventure! Side Note Redux: I can find something insulting without being the target of the insult. I am insulted by the illogic of the argument you and Master_Drow are making.
"Insult: noun - speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse." Have I disrespected you or treated you with abuse? All I am saying is that I feel that their are players out there who are trying to make the game all about larger than life heros and are willing to complain if they feel they are being penalized in any way shape or form.
Side note: Yes, there are people who don't want any negatives in the game. Why do you think races in 4th edition no longer have a negative stat?
Not having racial stat penalties does not equate to having no negatives in the game! There are many reasons to avoid racial penalties. The first is it makes it harder to min-max a character by placing the negative in the ability you will use least.
So max-maxing is better? They replaced the +2 -2 stat system with a +2 +2 stat system. Why? Because enough vocal players did not want a negative stat. Don't you see that is exactly what Emerikol and I are saying? The game has slowly shifted so that all characters are power characters (heroic). No negatives, minor penalties that really don't do much, zero-sum flaws. Penalties are going the way of the Dodo bird.
The way to stop min-maxing is not to remove all of the min but to limit how much maxing can be done. You never see any character minimized for any purpose other than to max some other aspect (not counting joke characters). So if you limit the amount of maximization possible then players are less inclined to engage in min-maxing.
Im sorry but ADEU is a French word for goodbye, not a combat system. You say, "Encounter Power" and I stop listening to you. Have Played/Run
Show
D&D 1st ed
D&D 3.5 ed
D&D 4th ed
Shadowrun
Star Wars SAGA
Cyberpunk
Interlock Unlimited
Run.Net
I know my games, don't try to argue about them. Alignment Explained
Show
This is a very simple problem and I will outline it below.
Their are two types of people
Type 1: a lot of people (not all, but a lot) who play see alignment as "I am lawful good thus I must play lawful good"
Type 2: a lot of people (not all, but a lot) who play see alignment as "My previous actions have made people and the gods view me as lawful good.
The difference is subtle but it is the source of the misunderstanding. Alignment does not dictate how you play your character. All it does is tell you, the player, how the rest of the world views you, and your previous actions. Any future actions will be judged by their own merits.
Say you're a baby eating pyromaniac. You are most likely chaotic evil. But one day you decide, "Hey all I really need is love." So you get a wife, have a kid, and get a kitten named Mr. Snook'ems. You become a member of the PTA and help build houses for the homeless. You are no longer chaotic evil. And just because you were once chaotic evil it does not mean that you have to stay chaotic evil.
Alignment never dictates what you can do, it only says what you have done.
Now that is cleared up here is a simple test.
What is the alignment of...
A Police officer:
The average Citizen:
A Vigilante:
The answer is simple.
The Police officer is lawful good. He uses the laws of the country and city to arrest people and make them pay their debt to society.
The Citizen is Neutral good. He wants to live is a place that is Good and follows moral and ethical principle, but he sometimes finds the laws impedes him, and he wonders why we spend so much on poor people.
The Vigilante is Chaotic Good. He wants to uphold the morals and ethics of society but finds that the bad guys often slip through the cracks in the law. He takes it upon himself to protect the people from these criminals.
That is the basic breakdown of the good alignment axis. What needs to be remembered is that any one of these people can change alignments, easily.
The Police officer could be bought off by a local gang, and suddenly he drops to lawful neutral.
The average citizen might find that his neighbors dog is annoying, barking at night and keeping him up. So he poisons its food, now he is no longer good, he is stepping towards true neutral. Maybe the citizen really goes crazy also kills the neighbor, hello neutral evil.
It is possible that the Vigilante realizes that the cops are actually doing a pretty good job and decides to become an officer himself, leaving his masked crime fighting days behind him. Now he is Lawful good.
Your alignment is not carved in stone, it is malleable and will change to reflect your actions.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 24, 2012 - 12:56AM
#80
|
|
|
Unless you can articulate exactly what you think negative numbers bring to the game that using only positive numbers does not, you'll have a hard time.
Encourages decision making. Like here "Hmmm... I could become older and get that nice bonus to Wisdom, but I would also get a flaw... Is it worth it? Actually the flaw 'Hazy memory' could be fun to play... I would be like a really smart guy who forgots stuff.... Oooh! I could convince the party that I forgot how to do laundry, they would have to do it for me! Oh man playing a senile old man will be hilarous!"
See here the player has a choice to make, his choice has a cost attached to it. But he is going to make the most out of it and have a lot of fun. In this example it will definatly increase party interplay.
Flaws give the player a choice to make and he can way the benifits and costs of that choice. But if their is no cost then why wouldn't the player always go for that choice?
Im sorry but ADEU is a French word for goodbye, not a combat system. You say, "Encounter Power" and I stop listening to you. Have Played/Run
Show
D&D 1st ed
D&D 3.5 ed
D&D 4th ed
Shadowrun
Star Wars SAGA
Cyberpunk
Interlock Unlimited
Run.Net
I know my games, don't try to argue about them. Alignment Explained
Show
This is a very simple problem and I will outline it below.
Their are two types of people
Type 1: a lot of people (not all, but a lot) who play see alignment as "I am lawful good thus I must play lawful good"
Type 2: a lot of people (not all, but a lot) who play see alignment as "My previous actions have made people and the gods view me as lawful good.
The difference is subtle but it is the source of the misunderstanding. Alignment does not dictate how you play your character. All it does is tell you, the player, how the rest of the world views you, and your previous actions. Any future actions will be judged by their own merits.
Say you're a baby eating pyromaniac. You are most likely chaotic evil. But one day you decide, "Hey all I really need is love." So you get a wife, have a kid, and get a kitten named Mr. Snook'ems. You become a member of the PTA and help build houses for the homeless. You are no longer chaotic evil. And just because you were once chaotic evil it does not mean that you have to stay chaotic evil.
Alignment never dictates what you can do, it only says what you have done.
Now that is cleared up here is a simple test.
What is the alignment of...
A Police officer:
The average Citizen:
A Vigilante:
The answer is simple.
The Police officer is lawful good. He uses the laws of the country and city to arrest people and make them pay their debt to society.
The Citizen is Neutral good. He wants to live is a place that is Good and follows moral and ethical principle, but he sometimes finds the laws impedes him, and he wonders why we spend so much on poor people.
The Vigilante is Chaotic Good. He wants to uphold the morals and ethics of society but finds that the bad guys often slip through the cracks in the law. He takes it upon himself to protect the people from these criminals.
That is the basic breakdown of the good alignment axis. What needs to be remembered is that any one of these people can change alignments, easily.
The Police officer could be bought off by a local gang, and suddenly he drops to lawful neutral.
The average citizen might find that his neighbors dog is annoying, barking at night and keeping him up. So he poisons its food, now he is no longer good, he is stepping towards true neutral. Maybe the citizen really goes crazy also kills the neighbor, hello neutral evil.
It is possible that the Vigilante realizes that the cops are actually doing a pretty good job and decides to become an officer himself, leaving his masked crime fighting days behind him. Now he is Lawful good.
Your alignment is not carved in stone, it is malleable and will change to reflect your actions.
|
|
|
