|
4 years ago ::
Jun 04, 2009 - 3:25AM
#661
|
|
|
Fiction has a very different focus to my mind than a RPG. The two don't really translate well into one another I don't think. Though I'd suspect that there's at least one thing Phillip K. Dick wrote that would fulfill those criteria... he can be a strange little duck sometimes and can do some very odd things with his writings at times.
There wasn't a point to that last part there though, I was just in a sharing sort of mood it seems.
Maybe I'm not seeing your point though... what it seemed like you were saying is that its better to approach NPCs only as they relate to the PCs, and that they don't matter otherwise. It would kind of suggest that they're sitting around, waiting to come up in the story, and not doing much beyond that... at least that's what it seemed like you were getting at, and which was the perspective I was approaching it from.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 04, 2009 - 3:37AM
#662
|
Date Joined:
Dec 27, 2008
|
Fiction has a very different focus to my mind than a RPG. The two don't really translate well into one another I don't think. Though I'd suspect that there's at least one thing Phillip K. Dick wrote that would fulfill those criteria... he can be a strange little duck sometimes and can do some very odd things with his writings at times.
Fine, but surely you can appreciate the metaphor? That the perspective of the creators of the world is different from that of the characters that inhabit it? And that the rules are intended to facilitate the work of the creators, not of the characters?
Maybe I'm not seeing your point though... what it seemed like you were saying is that its better to approach NPCs only as they relate to the PCs, and that they don't matter otherwise. It would kind of suggest that they're sitting around, waiting to come up in the story, and not doing much beyond that... at least that's what it seemed like you were getting at, and which was the perspective I was approaching it from.
Well, the NPCs are "just sitting around," in the sense that they simply do not exist at all when the players are not present. In the same way, characters in a novel do not exist when you are not reading about them, and characters in a play do not exist when they are not on stage.
Every character has their own secret life, and a good actor will imbue the smallest role with a complete personality. He may imagine that the messenger has a wife who's three months pregnant at home and a new puppy, but that does not change the fact that his function in the story is to run on stage, announce that the war is over, and die.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 04, 2009 - 7:27AM
#663
|
Date Joined:
Aug 21, 2007
|
I think to join both your sides together a bit think of it in the light that while the Heroes are pretty special they aren't the only ones around that are. Pulling from the 3.5 DMG (which I can't remember exactly and am too lazy to walk the 3 steps to look up in) most NPCs in 3.5 would be Warriors but occasionally you would come across a Fighter, bigger better and stronger (till he met the wizard  ) And thus while the PCs are better than most of the mooches around they aren't the only ones that good so the defences should be prepared just in case. But don't bother hiring some as guards, who can pay for the upkeep in times like this.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 04, 2009 - 7:29AM
#664
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2006
|
I am beginning to wonder why "4e hate" even needs to be explained.
Do people have to explain why they don't like a particular model of car? or type of food?
People just enjoy/like different things, and some people just don't like 4e.
But here's the thing. If you buy a certain car, and you don't like it, you sell it, and move on. You don't go up to people driving that car and tell them, "Hey, you know what? That car sucks, man, and your an idiot for driving it."
It's the same with food. If I like mushrooms, and you don't, would you honestly call me an idiot for eating them? Would you go onto the "Mushroom" forums and talk about how much you hate mushrooms over and over again. And whenever anyone brings up something wrong with mushrooms ("Hey, mushrooms didn't work in recipe X") would you constantly drop in and go "See, mushrooms totally suck! They help no one, they're terrible beyond belief!"
Would you, instead of driving a car you enjoy driving, or eating a food you enjoy eating (or looking for ways to use it more in cooking), constantly complain on forums dedicated to the focus of your hate about how much the thing you hate generally sucks, and how everyone should listen to you, because you are, apparently, the only person who can save them from themselves?
I wouldn't think so, and it's the same with 4e hate. Now, disliking 4e is fine. Constrcutive critisism of 4e is actually welcomed.
When people talk about 4e hate, they tend to think of the completely irrational trolls who used to frequent these boards, or the 2 who still do. People want an explanation for why those people can't just let the rest of us play the game we want while they do the same thing. It's completely irrational behaviour, and it puzzles people because of that.
If anything I say is wrong, clueless or spelt incorrectly, it is because, I am, in general, wrong, clueless and... Well, I'm usually spelt correctly.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 04, 2009 - 12:18PM
#665
|
|
|
People want an explanation for why those people can't just let the rest of us play the game we want while they do the same thing. It's completely irrational behaviour, and it puzzles people because of that.
They're breaking up games and stopping you from playing?? Heck I wasn't even aware they (whoever they are) even knew you directly!
-James
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 04, 2009 - 12:53PM
#666
|
Date Joined:
Jan 22, 2008
|
Fiction has a very different focus to my mind than a RPG. The two don't really translate well into one another I don't think. Though I'd suspect that there's at least one thing Phillip K. Dick wrote that would fulfill those criteria... he can be a strange little duck sometimes and can do some very odd things with his writings at times.
There wasn't a point to that last part there though, I was just in a sharing sort of mood it seems.
Maybe I'm not seeing your point though... what it seemed like you were saying is that its better to approach NPCs only as they relate to the PCs, and that they don't matter otherwise. It would kind of suggest that they're sitting around, waiting to come up in the story, and not doing much beyond that... at least that's what it seemed like you were getting at, and which was the perspective I was approaching it from.
The pcs should be the center focus of the game. It doesnt matter what the npcs do when the pcs arent around. The npcs are there to help tell the story and shape it. The pcs give it life. The pcs should never be overshadowed by an npc. An npc should never be as important to the story as the heroes.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 04, 2009 - 1:04PM
#667
|
|
|
Well, that's the point, though I'd express it with less vitriol. I remember one fellow who posted on the 4E board before the change who was pretty open about how the change in editions seemed like a personal attack on him. He said that his therapist considered him addicted to D&D (or RPG's in general--I forget), etc. etc.
D&D - just like video games - does not satisfy the parameters for addiction. His claim to the contrary suggests a serious mental ailment…or more likely he was simply lying.
There is something interesting about someone railing on persistently about his feelings of great personal loss because a new ruleset is being published. More interesting still is a need to confront the players of the new game with these feelings.
Quite the opposite for me. Pretty much the most boring people on thee forums in the past two years were those trolls and scumbags who by their own admission were purposely and with harmful intent harassing the forums, members, and WotC because of loathing of 4e.
The most painfully ironic part is that many of them admitted they'd never even so much as read a 4e book, let alone played the game. One particular moron actually claimed to have vomited simply from touching a 4e book.
Whether they were simply tolls, or deeply mentally disturbed, matters not one iota - ultimately they were just stupid and boring people.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 04, 2009 - 1:22PM
#668
|
|
|
They're breaking up games and stopping you from playing?? Heck I wasn't even aware they (whoever they are) even knew you directly!
-James
Disrupting discussion of said game online.
D&D 4E Herald and M:tG Rules Advisor I expect posters to follow the Code of Conduct, use Basic Etiquette, and avoid Poor Logic. If you don't follow these guidelines, I consider you to be disrespectful to everyone on these forums. If you respond to me without following these guidelines, I consider it a personal attack. I grew up in a bilingual household, which means I am familiar with the difficulties in adopting a different vocabulary and grammar. That doesn't bother me. Persistent use of bad capitalization, affirming the consequent, and flaming bother me a great deal. Rule that I would change: 204.1b
Show
204.1b Some effects change an object’s card type, supertype, or subtype but specify that the object retains a prior card type, supertype, or subtype. In such cases, all the object’s prior card types, supertypes, and subtypes are retained. This rule applies to effects that use the phrase “in addition to its types” or that state that something is “still a [card type].” Some effects state that an object becomes an “artifact creature”; these effects also allow the object to retain all of its prior card types and subtypes.
"Eight Edition Rules Update"
We eventually decided not to change this template, because players are used to “becomes an artifact creature,” and like it much better. Players were used to Combat on the Stack, but you got rid of that because it was unintuitive. The only phrase needed is "in addition to its types"; the others are misleading and unintuitive.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 04, 2009 - 3:07PM
#669
|
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
Well, the NPCs are "just sitting around," in the sense that they simply do not exist at all when the players are not present. In the same way, characters in a novel do not exist when you are not reading about them, and characters in a play do not exist when they are not on stage.
Every character has their own secret life, and a good actor will imbue the smallest role with a complete personality. He may imagine that the messenger has a wife who's three months pregnant at home and a new puppy, but that does not change the fact that his function in the story is to run on stage, announce that the war is over, and die.
Well, they're not "just sitting around" in my campaigns. I strive to make the world feel "alive", i.e. in the similar vein FR has always had hundreds upon hundreds of different things going on everywhere in the world, and PCs often hear about NPCs and events via rumours. Even if he PCs wouldn't do anything, the world does not exist in a stasis until they come along.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 04, 2009 - 3:41PM
#670
|
Date Joined:
Jan 22, 2008
|
Well, they're not "just sitting around" in my campaigns. I strive to make the world feel "alive", i.e. in the similar vein FR has always had hundreds upon hundreds of different things going on everywhere in the world, and PCs often hear about NPCs and events via rumours. Even if he PCs wouldn't do anything, the world does not exist in a stasis until they come along.
I like living worlds I hated old FR though because it seemed the pcs didnt matter. There was too much going on. The pcs should be the focus of the game. Everything that happens should center on their exploits.
|
|
|
