|
3 years ago ::
Dec 17, 2010 - 11:55AM
#41
|
Date Joined:
Apr 21, 2001
|
But not every GM is an experienced player. So many gaming groups will not have this 'old, smart guy' to tell then 'hey, have some cool idea about this?'. This article helps this kind of players. And it´s not so bad to have a more 'newbie-friendly' article.
This argument is absolute nonsense. It really is.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 17, 2010 - 12:06PM
#42
|
Date Joined:
Jul 19, 2009
|
This argument is absolute nonsense. It really is.
Ok, I´ll try to explain (since the problem could be my english).
Many new players start the hobby playing only with other new gamers. So they don´t know even understand some basic things. This kind of article helps them.
I hope it´s understandable now.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 17, 2010 - 12:08PM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Oct 28, 2010
|
I don't deny that it's a useful thing for new players to be aware of. But all that takes is for their first DM to say 'hey, you left him alive, what do you want to do with him?' and then let the players' imaginations do the rest.
But not every GM is an experienced player. So many gaming groups will not have this 'old, smart guy' to tell then 'hey, have some cool idea about this?'. This article helps this kind of players. And it´s not so bad to have a more 'newbie-friendly' article.
All you need is a DM, or another player in the group, who knows that players can deal non-lethal damage. The rest is role playing things to their conclusion. A little reminder is helpful, an editorial, say, or a single generalised article about commonly forgotten things that can enhance your game (reflavouring, what you do with downed enemies, talking through your fights rather than just rolling dice and calling numbers, making sure the DM has everybody's passives and skills etc to hand) anything and everything that might make a less-experienced player or DM go 'hmm'. It could be a monthly column, even.
What it doesn't need to be is between 1/4 and 1/3 of the 'mechanics' content in a single month's magazine (between this and the reflavouring article, that's two out of the eight mechanics articles (I don't count, here, any of the editorial content, behind the scenes content, fictional content, or gamma world content - and I debate whether UA should be included, given that it's DM-discretion optional non-official rules) that consist, basically of 'hey, you know this slightly obscure rule, you can apply it, ain't it cool?' *poke poke*). I'm resigned to the fact, to be honest, that this month's Dragon is just going to be lacklustre. Maybe I'll resub sometime next year and see if things have improved.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 17, 2010 - 12:10PM
#44
|
Date Joined:
Apr 21, 2001
|
Actually, thats english grammar. You use 'she' instead of 'he'. And it doesn´t says 'mutilate genitalia' as, again, your implying.
So violently mutilating a womans looks is acceptable to you then? Shall we have PCs throwing acid on their faces perhaps? Also the article uses "she", I'll quote it below to prove my point:
To the Pain
You horribly disfigure the enemy, giving her hideous scars or unhealable wounds that forever mark her defeat at your hands. She loses the respect of her allies and subordinates, and strangers recoil from her sight. Particularly vain villains find this punishment completely unbearable.
Again, did you read the article Kimble? Because the connotations of that are not good and neither do they in any manner enhance the "story". Incidentally, neither does horribly disfiguring a male villain for that manner. Batman, as an example, did not deliberately disfigure the Joker to make him that way. When I think about Batman actually and his villains, I can't recall when he deliberately mutilated them to make them the way there were (Particularly Joker, Clayface and similar - products of accidents but not deliberate torture/disfigurement at his hands).
No. As the articles says, somethings are not adequate for some characters.
Let me get this straight with you:
Mutilating a womans looks = okay. This [somehow] enhances the story. You know, because this is in the actual article we are currently discussing.
The problem is, in your mind, a player having an idea about how to change a story equals 'something horrible and gore'. That´s not it.
Really?
Did you read the article Kimble? Because at this point I'm 100% convinced you did not. Or didn't read beyond the first page.
Player´s can have all kinds of great ideas, and this kind of mechanic is there only to help then use it.
There are no mechanics presented in this article.
As I said before, there are some things that could be better explained ("And I agree with you that 'more focus, more advice, more guidance' would be good."). With that, I agree.
No, it's just a terrible article. It should never have been published.
When we get to that point, I would agree.
Alternatively we could go with the suggestion offered here:
What would have been better? An article filled with mechanical ways to permanently deal with villains without killing them - banishment or binding rituals, magic items to use to imprison, etc. Ya know, crunchy bits that everyone can use, rather than things that anyone with a psychotic streak could think up on their own.
This is a far better and more interesting article, than basically something advocating mutilation, torture and disfigurement. All things immature 14 year olds don't need to be told about to want to do.
This argument is absolute nonsense. It really is.
Ok, I´ll try to explain (since the problem could be my english).
Many new players start the hobby playing only with other new gamers. So they don´t know even understand some basic things. This kind of article helps them.
I hope it´s understandable now.
Your english is absolutely perfect, but your argument is terrible and illogical.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 17, 2010 - 12:13PM
#45
|
Date Joined:
Jul 19, 2009
|
All you need is a DM, or another player in the group, who knows that players can deal non-lethal damage.
Actually, it goes well above just non-lethal damage. But I understand your frustation (and maybe now, Aegeri too). You think Dragon should be more 'crunch-foccused', while this kind of article could be something smaller or that should in Dungeon. Yeah, ok. I believed someone said that Dungeon would be more about the GM, this is something more story-oriented, than maybe it should be there.
So violently mutilating a womans looks is acceptable to you then? Shall we have PCs throwing acid on their faces perhaps? Also the article uses "she".
Again, english grammar. She instead of he or them, is common.
Let me get this straight with you: Mutilating a womans looks = okay. This [somehow] enhances the story. You know, because this is in the actual article we are currently discussing.
Again, no matter what you implies, I´m not saying that is OK. And again, I´m not saying that this enhances the story. But okay, wanna example about scars? Let´s do it.
Your wizard met an old necromancer that uses his powers to be young forever. He is handsome, young, perfect body. And he kills an innocent, each new moon, to keep himself like this.
You win the battle and decide to not kill him. Instead, you take away his powers and makes him as old, ugly and powerless. And let him live like that, knowning that he´ll die of old age soon.
Did you read the article Kimble? Because at this point I'm 100% convinced you did not. Or didn't read beyond the first page.
Again, I did. And I´m talking about they way you seen to understand this mechanic.
There are no mechanics presented in this article.
I´m using mechanics here as 'story-oriented' mechanics. Ways for the characters change the story, that don´t always need a dice or a power. Allowing, for example, sending someone to be judge by the PC´s god, is a kind of mechanic.
No, it's just a terrible article. It should never have been published.
When we get to that point, I would agree.
Then we won´t. I wish you many good games and great campaigns.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 17, 2010 - 12:14PM
#46
|
Date Joined:
Apr 21, 2001
|
I don't want to get distracted with a crunch argument here. The article is terrible because it's an awful piece of rubbish that effectively advocates brutal torture, mutilation and being purely vindicative - not in any way thinking towards "enhancing a story" whatsoever. Its lack of crunch is actually an entirely secondary complaint to that.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 17, 2010 - 12:18PM
#47
|
Date Joined:
Oct 28, 2010
|
Smaller would be fine by me. A sidebar or column in another article. A monthly editorial/opinion piece. Not two entire articles forming approximately 1/4 of the player's content for the month. I don't deny the use, I simply question the necessity of this amount of information.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 17, 2010 - 12:19PM
#48
|
|
|
Would I have preferred mechanics? Sure. I don't wish this particular article had mechanics, because we don't need mechanics for torture or mutilation. My point when I mentioned that stuff was how easy it was to come up with more useful ways of dealing with a villain that don't make the PCs no better than the villain themselves, to make for a more useful article. Anything would have been better than this cesspool of an article.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 17, 2010 - 12:24PM
#49
|
|
|
Hmm... How can I put what I'm feeling right now into words that won't get me banned? OK, I don't personally have a problem with evil campaigns or individual evil PCs. I don't object to such characters doing evil things. In fact, I expect evil PCs to do evil things. I don't necessarily want to dwell on the grisly details too much when I DM, but I've no problem with a party of evil PCs torturing a captured enemy 'in the background', as it were. But this article isn't about evil PCs. It is, or at least it appears to be, official WotC approval (actually, outright encouragement) for supposedly good (or at least 'heroic') PCs to do evil things to their enemies. The idea seems to be that the PCs' foes are evil and therefore 'deserve' such treatment. Couple this with the recent article on Corellon, which repeats the old drow origin fluff that makes them out to be an entire race of irredeemable monsters, marked as such by the colour of their skin (an idea I thought WotC had wisely backed away from), and I start to wonder what the hell is going on at WotC these days. If this sort of crap is going to be the future of D&D, then I'm out. I'd be ashamed to admit to being associated with a game that promoted this moral sewage. Please, WotC, for the sake of the game, leave stuff like torture and mutilation for evil characters. I don't object to such options being in the game, but don't imply that these are acceptable options for 'good' characters. You don't have to compete with Jack frikking Bauer to keep your game cool and relevant for the kids. They're not all bloodthirsty sociopaths yet. Man alive, at this point, I'm half expecting to hear John Yoo has started working for you guys... 
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 17, 2010 - 12:27PM
#50
|
|
|
If this sort of crap is going to be the future of D&D, then I'm out. I'd be ashamed to admit to being associated with a game that promoted this moral sewage.
That's the problem. This isn't the future of D&D, it's the past. 4e finally got the game actually advancing somewhere, now they've had a personnel flipover and we're getting back to wallowing in crap ideas that were archaic and reprehensible when they were first introduced.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
