btw, I want cards !!! I was supposed to get a box yesterday but it didn't pan out /sigh
I like MtG a lot, but I'm a sucker for minis. I mainly sold off my old cards that were somehow worth money, which turned out to be a lot of them. Still, kept all my fun cards, and MtG is really about doing crazy stuff with fun cards haha (At least to me).
We summoned a devil once. All we used was the D&D books, too. It was pretty kwazy.
God of Arrested Development and Intelligence Resident Left Hand of Stalin and Banana Stand Grandstander Pie-Cooling-On-A-Windowsill of the House of Trolls In the morning HK'll be sober but you'll still be a meatbag. I know I misspell "Danke" in my posts. It's an inside joke. "Ten cents gets you nuts." -George Michael Spoiler:Show
''Being president is like running a cemetery: you've got a lot of people under you and nobody's listening.'' —Bill Clinton
You are not a moral man. There are not enough middle fingers in the world for you.
"Heroes"...I wish I had those. I remember in my first-ever campaign one PC went around shootin all the unconscious baddies in the head to gain Dark Side Points...
Whaaaaaat?!??
Wow...way to waste perfectly good potential slaves.
Er...no wait I mean..uh...something not evil!
(Quotes screwed up on the next one, won't give the poster's name. It's in the Best Lines thread on the D&D forum)
First, an experience from a game I played in a few years back. Our DM didn't like 3.5 as a whole but liked parts of it. So he hands us a big ass rules packet for his modified FR campaign, complete with quotes from important NPC's on the front. I can't remember most of the HRs, just that some how gods like Cyric and Bhaal existed at the same time, despite the obvious problems there. In the end the game became a problem more because of the railroading than the HRs, but it ended with this classic line, after our ranger tried to disarm the strange woman following us WITH HIS BOW: DM: You just killed (insert random noble sounding name here) JP: Was she important? Jack: Dude, she's quoted on the front of the rules packet!
"Why in the wide,wide, world of all things irrational would I help you? -Daniel Jackson "Fun will now commence." -Seven of Nine
Cut the last encounter on your way out after dealing with the Darth. He's the BBEG. Treat him as such. Play up that Darth Revan is THAT much of a badarse. When the shuttle landed, I had no less than 13 JEDI MASTERS step off the shuttle. The PCs were slack-jawed. After the meetup with Bastila (as she's carrying Revan's body), only TWO jedi masters remained with her. Let me tell you, the player whining about not getting to fight Revan himself shut up pretty quickly when he saw that.
1. Cleric cast protection from fire on Tank. 2. Tank goes in and get surrounded by enemies. 3. Wizard cast fireball and blows them up. 4. ??? 5. Profit
I go by the saying," If it ain't friendly fire then it's not working."
Also why not do it? Well is it MORE or LESS interesting than an ATTEMPTED assassination on the king? The answer is, neither. Neither is necessarily more or less interesting. However, if you decide which one you, as DM, have occur...that is arbitrary...and, if it is something the players might not like, is punitive. Arbitrary + punitive = bad, in my opinion. It is not realistic for all things to hinge on the PCs. That is silly.
The statement bothered me a bit since my understand of the word 'arbitrary' clashes a bit with its use here (it felt rather insulting to me). Not being a native English speaker I double checked dictionary.com: 1. subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision. 2. decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute. 3. having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical: an arbitrary government. 4. capricious; unreasonable; unsupported: an arbitrary demand for payment. 5. Mathematics . undetermined; not assigned a specific value: an arbitrary constant.
#1 and #2 definitely applies to the example of the assassination of the king. The irony is though that using the dice is just as arbitrary according those definitions. After all, you as a the DM assign an effect to the die result, and a self imposed restriction is just as open as a less narrowly defined one by a DM who just makes the decision based on story considerations. Considering there is no rule on how to deal with the assassination, it is obvious that #2 applies to both situations. It is the judge that decides what happens even if he hides behind a dice roll on a table that the judge designed
On the other hand, the most often used definition is #4 and to say that deciding assassinating the king is somehow capricious or unreasonable is really unfair to the DM. Sure, it could be, but so could be the dice roll if it is done on the fly and not much thought has been given to what the die roll actually means (although I agree that using dice greatly reduces the chance of there being no thought behind it). On the other hand, the DM might very well have given it a lot of thought. It might be for the wrong reasons (such as punishment), but it is still not without reason
The funny thing about the official definition of "arbitrary" is that Iserith's way of running the game is the least arbitrary way to run it. The DM lacks the power to decide what happens without restrictions (definition #1), and while it might be a capricious decision (#4), if 5 people discuss the situation it is much less likely to be so and if all agree to it is certainly not unreasonable
Just to be clear, personally I don't care whether you use dice for everything. It is your game, and you should obviously play it in a way that is most fun for you In fact, I can see how adding dice rolls can be fun, because it adds surprise and exploration to the DM which can keep the story alive and energetic. To call it less arbitrary then a more freeform way of running the game is unfair to those DMs. You are also hiding yourself behind the dice since ultimately you (and only you) decided the concequences of a dice roll and assigned the chances of something to happen. In short, it is still *your* decision.
The funny thing about the official definition of "arbitrary" is that Iserith's way of running the game is the least arbitrary way to run it. The DM lacks the power to decide what happens without restrictions (definition #1), and while it might be a capricious decision (#4), if 5 people discuss the situation it is much less likely to be so and if all agree to it is certainly not unreasonable
Interesting take, Madfox11. I've never broken it down like that. For my part, I can see the value in random charts to reduce the perception of bias on the part of the DM (setting aside the obvious statement of lack of trust that might generate this approach) and to add an element of surprise, but I find we get better results by discussing what's going to happen or how something is or what the dice results mean as a group. This way, we're sure to settle on something we all find fun at that moment. As well, with a group of people building on each others' ideas, you also tend to end up with a result that is unexpected. So it's something like a random chart, but the "best" result is chosen and tempered to fit the context. Nobody ever rolls "badger" on the Reincarnate chart, if you catch my meaning.
No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues. Reduce DM Prep & Increase Player Engagement:Don't Prep the Plot | Structure First, Story Last | Collaborative Roleplay | "Yes, and..." | Prep Tips Games I'm Running on Roll20: Island of the Frog | Vanguard of Dis | Star*Juice | Tesseract | The Crucible | Fimbulvetr | The Delve | Draj, City of the Moon Follow me on Twitter:@is3rith
Also why not do it? Well is it MORE or LESS interesting than an ATTEMPTED assassination on the king? The answer is, neither. Neither is necessarily more or less interesting. However, if you decide which one you, as DM, have occur...that is arbitrary...and, if it is something the players might not like, is punitive. Arbitrary + punitive = bad, in my opinion. It is not realistic for all things to hinge on the PCs. That is silly.
The statement bothered me a bit since my understand of the word 'arbitrary' clashes a bit with its use here (it felt rather insulting to me). Not being a native English speaker I double checked dictionary.com: 1. subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision. 2. decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute. 3. having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical: an arbitrary government. 4. capricious; unreasonable; unsupported: an arbitrary demand for payment. 5. Mathematics . undetermined; not assigned a specific value: an arbitrary constant.
#1 and #2 definitely applies to the example of the assassination of the king. The irony is though that using the dice is just as arbitrary according those definitions. After all, you as a the DM assign an effect to the die result, and a self imposed restriction is just as open as a less narrowly defined one by a DM who just makes the decision based on story considerations. Considering there is no rule on how to deal with the assassination, it is obvious that #2 applies to both situations. It is the judge that decides what happens even if he hides behind a dice roll on a table that the judge designed
On the other hand, the most often used definition is #4 and to say that deciding assassinating the king is somehow capricious or unreasonable is really unfair to the DM. Sure, it could be, but so could be the dice roll if it is done on the fly and not much thought has been given to what the die roll actually means (although I agree that using dice greatly reduces the chance of there being no thought behind it). On the other hand, the DM might very well have given it a lot of thought. It might be for the wrong reasons (such as punishment), but it is still not without reason
The funny thing about the official definition of "arbitrary" is that Iserith's way of running the game is the least arbitrary way to run it. The DM lacks the power to decide what happens without restrictions (definition #1), and while it might be a capricious decision (#4), if 5 people discuss the situation it is much less likely to be so and if all agree to it is certainly not unreasonable
Just to be clear, personally I don't care whether you use dice for everything. It is your game, and you should obviously play it in a way that is most fun for you In fact, I can see how adding dice rolls can be fun, because it adds surprise and exploration to the DM which can keep the story alive and energetic. To call it less arbitrary then a more freeform way of running the game is unfair to those DMs. You are also hiding yourself behind the dice since ultimately you (and only you) decided the concequences of a dice roll and assigned the chances of something to happen. In short, it is still *your* decision.
My remark was merely that as DM, once I place something in the world I do not continue to guide it and make pass/fail decisions regarding it. I have a die-based methodology for resolution. And no, the word "arbitrary" does not apply to that resolution.
Arbitrary -
Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
There is a system in place. The system in place is beyond my control. Even within that system I do not assign the end result of pass/fail...it is hard-coded into the system in place. So, no, I am not assigning the chances of something to happen. The likelihood of pass/fail are equally likely.
The mistake you are making is that "random choice" and a die roll are not the same thing. If a die roll has a system attached to it, it is non arbitrary, otherwise the results of games like craps would be "arbitrary"...and they are definitely not, as any casino in the world can attest.
Here, I will show you while you are wrong (it mostly comes from an assumption about how I do things rather than asking):
If I have the assassination plot in play in the game I assign it a frequency (how often the die is rolled) and an intensity (how likely the situation is to change). I will say it is a weekly frequency with an intensity of a d6 (fairly likely to change). There are only four results worth mentioning on any given resolution die...the highest & second highest as well as the lowest and second lowest results...so on a d6 that is 1 & 2 and 5 & 6. A second highest result has the goal move noticeably closer to success...and a highest result means success. A second lowest result means the goal is moved noticeably further away from success and a lowest result means the goal is a failure. Any roll result that is neither of these things means the event continues without major change.
A second highest or lowest result also creates a "buffer" for its opposite most extreme result...so if a 5 was rolled before a 1, the 5 would create a "buffer" where its success would prevent a total failure. Similarly, a 2 rolled some point before a 6 would create a "buffer" before total success.
So, no there's nothing "arbitrary" about this because I am not making a decision regarding resolution...nor am I even assigning a resolution range. There is a system in place...that is what makes it non arbitrary.
I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end.
If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it. #SuperDungeonMasterIITurbo
Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
You do realize that dice by definition is random? And that to say that the DM deciding the king is killed is doing so based on random choice or personal whim could very well be considered insulting or at the very least presumptious?
There is a system in place. The system in place is beyond my control. Even within that system I do not assign the end result of pass/fail...it is hard-coded into the system in place. So, no, I am not assigning the chances of something to happen. The likelihood of pass/fail are equally likely.
The mistake you are making is that "random choice" and a die roll are not the same thing. If a die roll has a system attached to it, it is non arbitrary, otherwise the results of games like craps would be "arbitrary"...and they are definitely not, as any casino in the world can attest.
Here, I will show you while you are wrong (it mostly comes from an assumption about how I do things rather than asking):
If I have the assassination plot in play in the game I assign it a frequency (how often the die is rolled) and an intensity (how likely the situation is to change). I will say it is a weekly frequency with an intensity of a d6 (fairly likely to change). There are only four results worth mentioning on any given resolution die...the highest & second highest as well as the lowest and second lowest results...so on a d6 that is 1 & 2 and 5 & 6. A second highest result has the goal move noticeably closer to success...and a highest result means success. A second lowest result means the goal is moved noticeably further away from success and a lowest result means the goal is a failure. Any roll result that is neither of these things means the event continues without major change.
A second highest or lowest result also creates a "buffer" for its opposite most extreme result...so if a 5 was rolled before a 1, the 5 would create a "buffer" where its success would prevent a total failure. Similarly, a 2 rolled some point before a 6 would create a "buffer" before total success.
So, no there's nothing "arbitrary" about this because I am not making a decision regarding resolution...nor am I even assigning a resolution range. There is a system in place...that is what makes it non arbitrary.
You still assign frequency and intensity, so you still are making decisions regarding the resolution. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying your method is arbitrary and it certainly adds a sense of surprise and a feel of impartiality to the situation. What I am trying to say is that using dice to resolve resolution can be just as arbitrary as a DM using story reasons. similarly, a DM using story reasons is not doing so arbitrarily automatically either. It depends on the reasoning behind that decision and I can assure you it rarely is because of a personal whim There are reasons why your method could be considered superior/more fun (at the very least for you), but arbitrariness or lack of it, is not.
Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
You do realize that dice by definition is random? And that to say that the DM deciding the king is killed is doing so based on random choice or personal whim could very well be considered insulting or at the very least presumptious?
There is a system in place. The system in place is beyond my control. Even within that system I do not assign the end result of pass/fail...it is hard-coded into the system in place. So, no, I am not assigning the chances of something to happen. The likelihood of pass/fail are equally likely.
The mistake you are making is that "random choice" and a die roll are not the same thing. If a die roll has a system attached to it, it is non arbitrary, otherwise the results of games like craps would be "arbitrary"...and they are definitely not, as any casino in the world can attest.
Here, I will show you while you are wrong (it mostly comes from an assumption about how I do things rather than asking):
If I have the assassination plot in play in the game I assign it a frequency (how often the die is rolled) and an intensity (how likely the situation is to change). I will say it is a weekly frequency with an intensity of a d6 (fairly likely to change). There are only four results worth mentioning on any given resolution die...the highest & second highest as well as the lowest and second lowest results...so on a d6 that is 1 & 2 and 5 & 6. A second highest result has the goal move noticeably closer to success...and a highest result means success. A second lowest result means the goal is moved noticeably further away from success and a lowest result means the goal is a failure. Any roll result that is neither of these things means the event continues without major change.
A second highest or lowest result also creates a "buffer" for its opposite most extreme result...so if a 5 was rolled before a 1, the 5 would create a "buffer" where its success would prevent a total failure. Similarly, a 2 rolled some point before a 6 would create a "buffer" before total success.
So, no there's nothing "arbitrary" about this because I am not making a decision regarding resolution...nor am I even assigning a resolution range. There is a system in place...that is what makes it non arbitrary.
You still assign frequency and intensity, so you still are making decisions regarding the resolution. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying your method is arbitrary and it certainly adds a sense of surprise and a feel of impartiality to the situation. What I am trying to say is that using dice to resolve resolution can be just as arbitrary as a DM using story reasons. similarly, a DM using story reasons is not doing so arbitrarily automatically either. It depends on the reasoning behind that decision and I can assure you it rarely is because of a personal whim There are reasons why your method could be considered superior/more fun (at the very least for you), but arbitrariness or lack of it, is not.
Here is where the disconnect is.
If someone says "Pick a number between 1 and 10" and you think for a moment and say "7"...your answer was arbitrary.
If I programmer makes a program that generates a number between 1 and 10 and then someone says "Use this program to give me a number between 1 and 10" and the program outputs 7 that is not an arbitrary result. It is the result of a system generating a number.
Do they look very VERY similar? Yes. They are not the same thing, however.
That is the difference between the DM deciding something and the DM rolling a die, then inputting that result into a pre-designed system.
Does that clarify it? if not, let me know and I'll try a different approach
As I've already been attacked a couple times already, please don't bother taking this post as sarcasm...I am being 100% serious in trying to help you understand, especially as I am not sure of how much of a disconnect might be being created by you not being a native speaker (though I would not have realized that otherwise)
I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end.
If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it. #SuperDungeonMasterIITurbo
@yagami there is still the choice of when to put the number into the system, and whatever choices the designer of the system put in place when making it.
In your programmer example what if the program had a bias towards a certain number and it had better odds of coming up? If we view this as the system itself that the programmer created their might be some constraints and preferences towards certain random number techniques that may or may not be as random as some others.
It really comes down to what arbitrary means, and regardless of the situation there are always some arbitrary choices when it comes to situations where one player is the chief architect of the world. Not arbitrary in the unfair way, although one could argue it applies, but arbitrary in someone had sumpreme power and decided it.
This is not meant to be an attack on you, and I feel that many people are not trying to attack you. They're just asking you to defend your argument.
@yagami there is still the choice of when to put the number into the system, and whatever choices the designer of the system put in place when making it.
In your programmer example what if the program had a bias towards a certain number and it had better odds of coming up? If we view this as the system itself that the programmer created their might be some constraints and preferences towards certain random number techniques that may or may not be as random as some others.
It really comes down to what arbitrary means, and regardless of the situation there are always some arbitrary choices when it comes to situations where one player is the chief architect of the world. Not arbitrary in the unfair way, although one could argue it applies, but arbitrary in someone had sumpreme power and decided it.
This is not meant to be an attack on you, and I feel that many people are not trying to attack you. They're just asking you to defend your argument.
Oh no, I understand. And I understand your point entirely. Or at least I believe I do! Hah.
Frequency is very important, but in the system as explained, it is only a matter of "when" something resolves, not "how" it resolves. The actual outcome is still outside my authority as DM.
As DM, I limit my own arbitrary decision making to placing things in the world. Once they are there I am as hands off with resolving them as possible and that is where the situation resolution I have comes into play. The PCs come across things and either engage them or do not as their whims and fancy suit them...but those things remain in motion if they are ignored. I simply limit my attachment to that motion because I don't find it as fair (or as interesting) to have those events suit my own biases. In the assassin example, do the assassins succeed or fail? I do not know which will occur. Either is just as likely if the PCs do not get involved. In that way, I avoid having everything hinge on the actions of the PCs so they know that just because they aren't doing something it isn't resolving on a whim...it is still going on and who knows where it will end up?
Also I know you are not attacking me. You've been exemplary in every exchange we've had thus far. For that, I can only thank you though even that is probably unnecessary, as I don't think you're going out of your way to do it. On the contrary, you're just having good discussion.
So to sum up, decisions have to be made by a DM...this is normal and it is like placing pieces on a board. Is there whim and personal bias involved in that? Of course, it would be impossible for there not to be. Can this also be supplemented with randomness and what-not to add even more to the world that the DM might not think of on their own? Sure and I do that too. The "arbitrary" I avoid is in resolving those board-pieces once they are in the world...because after they're placed I try to keep them as much toys of the PC and world as possible...they're no longer solely mine.
I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end.
If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it. #SuperDungeonMasterIITurbo
@yagami there is still the choice of when to put the number into the system, and whatever choices the designer of the system put in place when making it.
In your programmer example what if the program had a bias towards a certain number and it had better odds of coming up? If we view this as the system itself that the programmer created their might be some constraints and preferences towards certain random number techniques that may or may not be as random as some others.
It really comes down to what arbitrary means, and regardless of the situation there are always some arbitrary choices when it comes to situations where one player is the chief architect of the world. Not arbitrary in the unfair way, although one could argue it applies, but arbitrary in someone had sumpreme power and decided it.
This is not meant to be an attack on you, and I feel that many people are not trying to attack you. They're just asking you to defend your argument.
Oh no, I understand. And I understand your point entirely. Or at least I believe I do! Hah.
Frequency is very important, but in the system as explained, it is only a matter of "when" something resolves, not "how" it resolves. The actual outcome is still outside my authority as DM.
As DM, I limit my own arbitrary decision making to placing things in the world. Once they are there I am as hands off with resolving them as possible and that is where the situation resolution I have comes into play. The PCs come across things and either engage them or do not as their whims and fancy suit them...but those things remain in motion if they are ignored. I simply limit my attachment to that motion because I don't find it as fair (or as interesting) to have those events suit my own biases. In the assassin example, do the assassins succeed or fail? I do not know which will occur. Either is just as likely if the PCs do not get involved. In that way, I avoid having everything hinge on the actions of the PCs so they know that just because they aren't doing something it isn't resolving on a whim...it is still going on and who knows where it will end up?
Also I know you are not attacking me. You've been exemplary in every exchange we've had thus far. For that, I can only thank you though even that is probably unnecessary, as I don't think you're going out of your way to do it. On the contrary, you're just having good discussion.
So to sum up, decisions have to be made by a DM...this is normal and it is like placing pieces on a board. Is there whim and personal bias involved in that? Of course, it would be impossible for there not to be. Can this also be supplemented with randomness and what-not to add even more to the world that the DM might not think of on their own? Sure and I do that too. The "arbitrary" I avoid is in resolving those board-pieces once they are in the world...because after they're placed I try to keep them as much toys of the PC and world as possible...they're no longer solely mine.
We seem to agree with many things so far with arbitrary or bias within a game. Correct me if I'm wrong, we both recognize that there will always be some form of bias in a game that has one player as the chief creator. Assuming the DM to be this player, they will do their best to keep minimize any bias or arbitrary choices within the game for the benefit of the other players. However one point of contention I'd like to make is that at some level even when using randomized game aids the DM is still making some arbitrary choice. The definition of arbitrary I'm using hear is the one relating to the choices that result from supreme power, not the one refering to unfair choices.
To provide an example let's talk about the PCs interactions with an NPC. Assuming this NPC is a diverse character with many different views about situations, there could be many different results for this same character. The DM at some point here has to make a choice about how this character would interact with the players, and that will result in some arbitrary choice. A DM could use a table to determine the temperment, and general personality of the NPC, but at some level will have to make a choice using that information.
My main point is that any action outside of the PCs in a game where the DM is the chief creator of content, results in every non-PC decision having some level of input from the DM that influences the game world. A DM with this style will try to make these choices as un-biased or fair as possible in the interest of achieving D&D's number one goal: have fun.
If someone says "Pick a number between 1 and 10" and you think for a moment and say "7"...your answer was arbitrary.
If I programmer makes a program that generates a number between 1 and 10 and then someone says "Use this program to give me a number between 1 and 10" and the program outputs 7 that is not an arbitrary result. It is the result of a system generating a number.
Do they look very VERY similar? Yes. They are not the same thing, however.
That is the difference between the DM deciding something and the DM rolling a die, then inputting that result into a pre-designed system.
Does that clarify it? if not, let me know and I'll try a different approach
As I've already been attacked a couple times already, please don't bother taking this post as sarcasm...I am being 100% serious in trying to help you understand, especially as I am not sure of how much of a disconnect might be being created by you not being a native speaker (though I would not have realized that otherwise)
That's actually ironic, because if you ask people to think of a number between 1 and 10, 7 is the result about 30% of the time or more. If you offer people 4 identical objects, they'll grab the third around 92% of the time.
Still, kept all my fun cards, and MtG is really about doing crazy stuff with fun cards haha (At least to me).
