To be honest, I would love to see a game where a bunch of WW2-era soldiers end up in D&D/fantasy setting.
[QUOTE=gufu;45089619]To be honest, I would love to see a game where a bunch of WW2-era soldiers end up in D&D/fantasy setting.[/QUOTE]
Well the opposite of that has certainly happened before
[img]http://paizo.com/image/content/Blog/9071RasputinMustDie.jpg[/img]
I love weird universes. In my Only War game, I had a tzeentch space hulk which had all sorts of weird stuff.
Inside of an old abandoned tunnel, they found a retro style Flying saucer with nazi swastikas on it. They came across a door which opened up to find them on a boat in the middle of the ocean, to a giant leviathan eating them. After they escaped that, they opened up a door to a concentration camp, and killed many scores of Nazis.
The moment which they seemed to like the most was when they came across a huge forest inside of the space hulk, which had thousands of species inside of it, and a massive living statue, who called himself "Oak", because it was the only name he could remember. When they were looking into his backstory, they figured out that he was one of the pilots of the Nazi spacecraft, who had somehow become immortal, and in his immortality, infinitely wise, and peaceful.
In the conclusion, when they went back to the ship, the Colonel, upon getting the info of what he wanted out of the ship, blew it to smithereens, and everyone went "No, Oak!"
That was my proudest moment as a GM. I think.
[editline]13th June 2014[/editline]
Also, all the Nazi shit was because I was directly linking them to the Imperium.
Dat allusion tho.
[QUOTE=LiquidNazgul;45089666]Well the opposite of that has certainly happened before
[IMG]http://paizo.com/image/content/Blog/9071RasputinMustDie.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Why the fuck are they just not cut down with a hail of bullets?
Jesus fuck, they brought in the Tzar Tank!
[QUOTE][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/teuOlox.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
[editline]13th June 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;45089711]
In the conclusion, when they went back to the ship, the Colonel, upon getting the info of what he wanted out of the ship, blew it to smithereens, and everyone went "No, Oak!"
[/QUOTE]
BRB, stating all the pokemen for OW, so you can have Oak's Revenge.
[QUOTE=gufu;45089877]Why the fuck are they just not cut down with a hail of bullets?[/QUOTE]
This module begins with the characters at 13th level, so I'd imagine that scales pretty well with the horrors of WWI-style warfare. Large amounts of soldiers are simplified as [url=http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/creature-types#subtype-troop]troops[/url] so combat doesn't get bogged down and BOY are they threatning as fuck, even to 13th-level PCs. Variant troops include flamethrower troops, mortar troops, and DID I MENTION THIS ADVENTURE HAS WWI TANKS THAT ARE CONTROLLED BY THE PICKLED BRAINS OF RUSSIAN COMMANDERS ALSO YOU KILL RASPUTIN
This adventure got some flak before it was released, criticized by people who thought Paizo was jumping the shark for having an adventure set on Earth. Even the naysayers clamped their traps shut when the module came out because it was [I]so sick.[/I]
Some of the various creatures you face in the module:
[quote][img]http://static1.paizo.com/image/product/catalog/PZOPDFPPMJBM/PZOPDFPPMJBM000020E.jpg[/img][/quote]
The entire adventure path, [url=http://paizo.com/pathfinder/adventurePath/reignOfWinter]Reign of Winter[/url], is pretty cool, but this particular module takes the goddamn cake.
I must be the only person in here who doesn't jizz for weird crossovers
In fact I like my genres to be fastidiously kept separate, for me putting wizards in WWII bombers is the equivilant of dumping the desert into the bolognese
[QUOTE=MakoSkyDub;45090443]I must be the only person in here who doesn't jizz for weird crossovers
In fact I like my genres to be fastidiously kept separate, for me putting wizards in WWII bombers is the equivilant of dumping the desert into the bolognese[/QUOTE]
It really depends for me. Silly shit like cavemen with laser guns is fine in a comedy game, but a platemail wearing knight fighting dudes with machineguns... and WINNING? Not really cool, imo, because it's not funny it's just retarded.
Wizards are wacky in almost any setting though, and would only be in a bomber plane to be dropped down AS the bomb.
Well it's certainly not for everyone, so no you're not the only one. However I'd hardly file it as only being worthy of comedy. For me, if it's Earth stuff then a one-time deal in a campaign is enough, but something like science fantasy (ie the upcoming Iron Gods adventure path for Pathfinder) I'd be behind it for a whole campaign.
Actually I guess it's just because I don't care for the idea of a comedy campaign in the first place. The way I see it the players provide the comedy element no matter the setting or whatever, making things intentionally wacky and stupid just seems like forcing it to me
but it's not a comedy campaign?
what's funny about getting dragged into the midst of ww1
[QUOTE=Chronische;45090759]It really depends for me. Silly shit like cavemen with laser guns is fine in a comedy game, but a platemail wearing knight fighting dudes with machineguns... and WINNING? Not really cool, imo, because it's not funny it's just retarded.[/QUOTE]
I don't really see how soaking bullets like they're nothing is any different than doing the same with swords, spears, arrows, fireballs, lightning bolts, dragon's breath and meteors. Which DnD characters do on a regular basis.
Comedy campaigns are the lamest shit ever. Once you actively set out and try to be funny, it's just not funny.
All the times I've ever laughed in a RPG was spontaneous stuff.
[QUOTE=elowin;45091397]I don't really see how soaking bullets like they're nothing is any different than doing the same with swords, spears, arrows, fireballs, lightning bolts, dragon's breath and meteors. Which DnD characters do on a regular basis.[/QUOTE]
I don't see how you can't understand the difference. D&D is an established fantasy world with its own rules for reality. Dumping D&D characters into another reality, and especially one so close to our own, can cause a form of (cultural) dissonance. It's basic stuff and the reason crossovers have always had their fair share of naysayers.
[QUOTE=Axznma;45096379]I don't see how you can't understand the difference. D&D is an established fantasy world with its own rules for reality. Dumping D&D characters into another reality, and especially one so close to our own, can cause a form of (cultural) dissonance. It's basic stuff and the reason crossovers have always had their fair share of naysayers.[/QUOTE]
Depends, some crossovers have people retain the physics of their original universe.
Also, I think D&D is meant to 'actually' be like reality with spears and daggers being deadly rather than tickling impliments and it's just the gameplay that makes the players made of iron. In which case a modern/WW2 Earth crossover really infair against melee characters and maybe ruin spellcasters if magic and divine powers don't hop dimentions with them.
[QUOTE=DiscoInferno;45096673]Depends, some crossovers have people retain the physics of their original universe.[/QUOTE]
That just makes the dissonance more pronounced. If someone is already suffering through it that just makes the experience worse.
[QUOTE=DiscoInferno;45096673]Also, I think D&D is meant to 'actually' be like reality with spears and daggers being deadly rather than tickling impliments and it's just the gameplay that makes the players made of iron. In which case a modern/WW2 Earth crossover really infair against melee characters and maybe ruin spellcasters if magic and divine powers don't hop dimentions with them.[/QUOTE]
D&D is whatever the DM wants it to be, which tends to be standard preconceptions but that's besides the point. The preconceived [I]notion[/I] of D&D is the problem, and not one that many people are willing to get past even if they could.
3rd edition D&D at least has some acceptable rules to reflect reality, which can be read about further in this neat article [URL="http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/587/roleplaying-games/dd-calibrating-your-expectations-2"]here[/URL]. You can make D&D lean toward realism if you make use of those concepts (such as my own game, where you'll never meet any "[I]normal, not special in any way[/I]" human above 5th level [in fact being 5th level already makes them the pinnacle of normal humanity]). You're in the small minority, however, if you actually bother to reflect these concepts in your game, which leads us back around to standard D&D; less simulation and more gameplay (that continually rises to absurdity as levels progress).
I don't care for crossovers, but I can see their appeal the same way I understand while so many others [I]don't[/I].
By the way, a hail of bullets would be no more deadly than a flurry of stabs. In fact, I'd say a flurry of stabs is more deadly.
HP is just an abstract concept of how well the player is feeling, rather than like, an account of how many hits theyve taken.
[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;45098193]
HP is just an abstract concept of how well the player is feeling, rather than like, an account of how many hits theyve taken.[/QUOTE]
Then wouldn't a 7,62 to the face would be instant death once it passes AC?
Stop trying to get your realisms in my fantasy if I wanted that I would play WHFRP
[QUOTE=gufu;45099117]Then wouldn't a 7,62 to the face would be instant death once it passes AC?[/QUOTE]
No. Again, its an abstract concept. You aren't really damaged at all until you go down to 0 health; You're just shaken by the hits and losing confidence in your defense. That's why they offer the alternative vital points system if you're looking for something slightly more realistic.
[QUOTE=Oliolio;45099179]No. Again, its an abstract concept. You aren't really damaged at all until you go down to 0 health; You're just shaken by the hits and losing confidence in your defense. That's why they offer the alternative vital points system if you're looking for something slightly more realistic.[/QUOTE]
This kind of falls apart with all the "Cure (X) Wounds" spells
[QUOTE=Oliolio;45099179]No. Again, its an abstract concept. You aren't really damaged at all until you go down to 0 health; You're just shaken by the hits and losing confidence in your defense. That's why they offer the alternative vital points system if you're looking for something slightly more realistic.[/QUOTE]
I think bullets are pretty definitive in this sense, you're unlikely to be battered a bit but not really wounded by a hail of bullets. If one bullet hits you you're likely to take enough damage to be on 0
Besides, I don't think a lot of GMs treat HP that way, since it's pretty boring. Hits deal damage in all of my D&D experience
[QUOTE=MakoSkyDub;45099416]I think bullets are pretty definitive in this sense, you're unlikely to be battered a bit but not really wounded by a hail of bullets. If one bullet hits you you're likely to take enough damage to be on 0
Besides, I don't think a lot of GMs treat HP that way, since it's pretty boring. Hits deal damage in all of my D&D experience[/QUOTE]
Near misses and glancing hits are reflected in this.
[QUOTE=Konork;45099277]This kind of falls apart with all the "Cure (X) Wounds" spells[/QUOTE]
Not really, it's more like, restore energy.
[QUOTE=MakoSkyDub;45099416]Besides, I don't think a lot of GMs treat HP that way, since it's pretty boring. Hits deal damage in all of my D&D experience[/QUOTE]
It certainly is dull, and doesn't take full narrative advantage of AC and HP. Treating HP like AC has always been a waste to me, and I've made sure to never do so in any of my games.
[QUOTE=Axznma;45099745]It certainly is dull, and doesn't take full narrative advantage of AC and HP. Treating HP like AC has always been a waste to me, and I've made sure to never do so in any of my games.[/QUOTE]
HP is not armor class. HP is like how well the character is feeling. It CAN include actual hits, but it doesn't have to.
We've had this discussion before, so I won't be redundant, but it's however the GM decides narratively that the player is hit. The barbarian will take the blow full on, whereas the rogue will have his fancy suit torn.
Thats WAY more narrative than treating both characters as taking the blow the same way.
[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;45099768]HP is not armor class. HP is like how well the character is feeling. It CAN include actual hits, but it doesn't have to.[/QUOTE]
Contextual comprehension, that's all I'm saying on this.
[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;45099768]Thats WAY more narrative than treating both characters as taking the blow the same way.[/QUOTE]
I'm almost insulted that you would even remotely suggest the notion that I might subject my players to something subpar like that. That would ignore their characters as individuals, let alone as different classes. I would take that akin to insulting the efforts toward making their character "their own".
[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;45099768]The barbarian will take the blow full on, whereas the rogue will have his fancy suit torn.[/QUOTE]
All of which can be done using AC. Your system simplifies the narrative far below what I use in my own games. I will also never waste my narrative channels using HP to mechanically determine how a character is "feeling" when I have the medium of roleplaying (or do people not give enough of a shit about their games to roleplay how their character is "feeling" because there's not a number that forces them?). I have my systems broken into three:
AC is the first system for narrative fluff detailing [I]not[/I] taking damage from an attack. Evasion, parrying, blocking, absorption, reduction, armor, any and all methods of avoiding taking HP damage all fit in here.
Race, class, level, size, weapon type, environmental factors, and situational factors determine any and/or all aspects of the descriptor for any given attack -- calculated for the attacked and attacker together and/or separately. Cheap and primitive examples of class calculation: Swashbuckler avoids injury with evasion/parrying, Fighter with armor/shield/parrying, Wizard with evasion, Barbarian with evasion/reduction/absorption. None of those factor in the opponent however (or really anything else but that's not the point), thus cheap and primitive. For my own game I fine tune these to the exact nature of the character, including their backstory, skills and skill ranks, weapon proficiency, personality tendencies, character concept, specific advantages/disadvantages (which can tie into any one of the previous methods), and others. We had a Wizard that built himself for melee combat from the ground up, thus the descriptors were not strictly about avoiding damage (since he wasn't the typical frail spellcaster) but parrying it too since he specialized in using weapons suited to that purpose (using buffs also changes these methods, since having something like Bark Skin allows him to logically absorb attacks too, either with or without armor descriptors since it can function as both).
HP is the second system for narrative fluff detailing actual damage and most easily serves toward GM/player use of the third system. Type of injury, severity, and possible effects of injury over short and/or long periods of time fall under this system.
Race, class, level, size, current HP, max HP, HP loss against current HP, HP loss against current HP against max HP, weapon type, environmental factors, and situational factors determine any and/or all aspects of the damage descriptor for any given attack -- calculated for the attacked and attacker together and/or separately. Similar to AC but with the added headache of calculating the effects of any one attack against HP values (current, max, current against max, current loss against current against max) while taking into account all other previous methods. No one person takes damage the same way as another in severity or placement of hit. A Barbarian can be gutted and would not suffer as the Wizard would. Their reactions to the damage I leave to the players since they dig the roleplaying stuff and I like them to feel involved. Also I can trust them.
In the end situational factors become the biggest changer in both AC and HP since it can influence any and all parts of the previous methods and quickly creates a trickle down effect.
Roleplaying closes out the third system, using either or both of the previous systems to work off. One short example is my favorite player and one of his recent adventures with his character. He took an impressive hit to his leg with a rather large mace and lost a fair chunk of his health as a result (the hit to his leg means nothing mechanically, it was only fluff like everything else). Being the guy he is he immediately self-imposed a 1/2 movement penalty on himself and (at no direction or action from the GM) faltered on more intensive actions later in the fight due to being exhausted from lugging around his crippled body with such haste. Months later, even though he's healed now, he still brings up subtle references to his leg taking that wound; the player figures it will take a few years before he considers the wound truly healed, if nothing else it's a phantom pain. It's amazing what people will do when they give a fuck.
Using HP as "intended" condenses what can be three different narrative systems into one. Anyone can use whatever the hell they want; no one is going to ever convince me using HP as intended in narrative is comparable to mine. Which I might add changes nothing mechanically. The beauty of it all is that it's just words that mean [I]nothing[/I] unless the GM enforces them, or the players self-enforce (in the case of mine).
I will say it again: HP as "intended" is dull and isn't taking advantage of AC for narrative purposes, nor does it even take full advantage of HP itself. All in all a wholly lackluster system and one I dropped as soon as I read about it. It works just fine, but a "working" system isn't good enough for me.
You're quite a D&D fanatic Axz, do you have a job that relates to trpgs somehow?
[QUOTE=Axznma;45097151]You can make D&D lean toward realism if you make use of those concepts (such as my own game, where you'll never meet any "[I]normal, not special in any way[/I]" human above 5th level [in fact being 5th level already makes them the pinnacle of normal humanity]).[/QUOTE]
I'd say 3rd level is more accurate, personally.
[QUOTE=DiscoInferno;45096673]Depends, some crossovers have people retain the physics of their original universe.
Also, I think D&D is meant to 'actually' be like reality with spears and daggers being deadly rather than tickling impliments and it's just the gameplay that makes the players made of iron. In which case a modern/WW2 Earth crossover really infair against melee characters and maybe ruin spellcasters if magic and divine powers don't hop dimentions with them.[/QUOTE]
Well, it is. A low level character would be severely wounded by being stabbing with a knife or sworded by a sword. But after the first few levels you pretty quickly go into the realms of being more like a mythical hero than a mortal. At high enough level, you'd be able to take on entire legions of regular humans, because you are essentially a demigod at that point.
[QUOTE=Axznma;45096379]I don't see how you can't understand the difference. D&D is an established fantasy world with its own rules for reality. Dumping D&D characters into another reality, and especially one so close to our own, can cause a form of (cultural) dissonance. It's basic stuff and the reason crossovers have always had their fair share of naysayers.[/QUOTE]
I don't really see how that matters that much. Your character is still a hero, even if he is no longer in his original world. They are still capable of doing all the things they were before, including soaking damage like a motherfucker.
[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;45099768]HP is not armor class. HP is like how well the character is feeling. It CAN include actual hits, but it doesn't have to.
We've had this discussion before, so I won't be redundant, but it's however the GM decides narratively that the player is hit. The barbarian will take the blow full on, whereas the rogue will have his fancy suit torn.
Thats WAY more narrative than treating both characters as taking the blow the same way.[/QUOTE]
You're right, we did have this discussion before. And I brought up the exact same argument last time as I'm going to do this time.
That makes absolutely no sense.
If you removed everything from the game except completely normal melee attacks, then you could maybe convince me that it did, but as soon as you add just about anything else to the mix, it instantly becomes completely fucked.
How do you trip someone if you don't actually hit them? And how do you disarm someone? How does a called shot to the arm make it harder to attack, if you didn't even hit it anyway? How the hell does poison work? And how about damage resistance? What about touch attacks, they pretty clearly only work if you're touching someone, so how can they work if you actually "missed"? And how in the name of all that is holy do you grapple someone without being able to touch them?
[editline]14th June 2014[/editline]
oh fuck this is a massive wall of text
Starting to look like a srsgaemurs backstory here with all this text.
[QUOTE=DiscoInferno;45101865]Starting to look like a srsgaemurs backstory here with all this text.[/QUOTE]
dnd is srs bsness
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
