[QUOTE=No Party Hats;49912732]Bretty much this. the more systems = more options for awesome shit imho[/QUOTE]
By the same logic, though, less rules = less restrictions on what kind of awesome shit you can do.
[QUOTE=Rats808;49912815]By the same logic, though, less rules = less restrictions on what kind of awesome shit you can do.[/QUOTE]
yeah except no
it doesnt
[QUOTE=elowin;49912826]yeah except no
it doesnt[/QUOTE]
I agree. Not having rules for something points the GM towards the "you shouldn't be doing this" response, while crappy rules can be easily overwritten on their discretion.
[QUOTE=Rats808;49911860]"35 new posts since I went to bed oh man I wonder what it could be?"
"Oh, it's literally just an edition war now. Okay then."
All editions are good in their own ways. Some people are bound to like one more than others, and they may not like the edition you love, but that doesn't make them hitler. :dog:[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry ;_; i just wanted some advice for a new player/DM, i didn't want this.
Reading the above posts about Titan Mauler makes me want to buy Pathfinder books now.
Guess I should start clearing space on my bottom shelf.
I like Pathfinder.
[QUOTE=Alsojames;49913478]Reading the above posts about Titan Mauler makes me want to buy Pathfinder books now.
Guess I should start clearing space on my bottom shelf.[/QUOTE]
Pathfinder is [URL="http://www.d20pfsrd.com/"]totally free online.[/URL]
[QUOTE=Alsojames;49913478]Reading the above posts about Titan Mauler makes me want to buy Pathfinder books now.
Guess I should start clearing space on my bottom shelf.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/barbarian/archetypes/paizo---barbarian-archetypes/titan-mauler[/url]
It's not that great, you lose uncanny dodge and fast movement to either use a regular two handed weapon in one hand at a -2 penalty, or use an oversized two handed weapon at a -4. Personally, I'd go regular barbarian, take bastard sword proficiency so they're one handed for you, and then use a oversized one as a two handed weapon at a -2 penalty. That way you're only out one feat for something thematically similar, maybe bug your GM if you want an axe/club/whatever equivalent to the bastard sword.
[QUOTE=IrishBandit;49913770]Pathfinder is [URL="http://www.d20pfsrd.com/"]totally free online.[/URL][/QUOTE]
I'm a sucker for hard copies, though :v:
So I joined my friends in their 3.5 campaign today, and the DM had me go through a singleplayer session beforehand to tie my character in with the rest of the story. My character (an aasimar bard) had been travelling with a paladin (and 3 soldiers who aren't terribly important) who had been fighting the good fight against undead and helping him out, not knowing how zealous he was about this until one day he tried to execute 4 people by hanging under suspicion of summoning undead with absolutely no proof. I try to reason with him, but he wasn't really having it and politely told me to leave if I didn't want to witness this. Now, the area we were in was the outskirts of town where the paladin (on a horse) and his 3 soldiers had set up some gallows. 1 soldier was doing the nooses (he had no weapons on him) and the other 2 were on either side of the paladin, weapons ready. 2 people were already in nooses about to be hanged, and the other 2 people were waiting for the guy to tie their nooses.
I was dead set on preventing this possible miscarriage of justice, so I cast glitterdust on the area the paladin was in, blinding the 2 soldiers, the paladin, and his horse, which spooked and fell over while he was still mounted. Immediately the 2 people waiting to be noosed booked it towards the city, and 1 of the people already noosed managed to follow them shortly afterwards because the soldier tied the knot completely wrong on him, so it completely undid itself when it was pulled. The soldier who wasn't blinded went behind the gallows to get his weapons and interposed himself between me and the last guy, but I managed to persuade him that the cause he was following was unjust in this case and he let me untie the guy, then left. I take a while untying the guy because I failed my first check for it, and by this time 1 of the soldiers near the paladin starts swinging wildly because he's starting to regain his vision and thinks he sees me. He hits the paladin and gets decapitated in retaliation. Finally the paladin can see and he looks straight at me and sees that everyone he was trying to execute had escaped and he was FURIOUS.
I really didn't want to fight him, so I cast expeditious retreat on myself before the paladin could right and mount his horse and hauled ass towards the city, which was closing its gates because they know of the paladin's reputation. They stopped closing for me briefly enough for me get through because I was recognized as the person who saved their people from execution. One of the people I saved helped me out by leading me through an underground passage to get to another city so I could escape the paladin's wrath, but before I could complete the trip, a skeletal minotaur who was the servant of a demigoddess showed up and recognized me as one of the people the demigoddess was trying to recruit to help being back a nature goddess who had died, as well as stop people like the paladin and whoever he works for. Speaking of him, the paladin somehow managed to find the passage and would have killed the fuck out of me if the minotaur hadn't put himself between myself and the paladin, so I was rather motivated to take up that offer of being transported to meet her in person to hear the details of what needed to be done. After learning that I needed to help a group of people with their quest (hint: they're the other PCs already in a dungeon), I was told to go through a door and ended up unconscious when I went through it.
I wake up and get shot by an arrow the size of a medium sized branch, fired from one of the other PCs after she was woken up by the person keeping watch during their rest when she saw me start moving. The reason I was shot was because earlier they had accidentally killed an insane spellcaster while trying to get information out of him, and I was mistaken for a zombie version of him because my body was found where they left him in sight of their camp and they have been dealing with quite a few undead recently. There's a lot more stuff that happened afterwards, but this post is already getting long and the session went on for much longer than the singleplayer part I went through. I might try and summarize the other events later if people are interested.
[QUOTE=Rats808;49912815]By the same logic, though, less rules = less restrictions on what kind of awesome shit you can do.[/QUOTE]
no because then youre in the realm of 'i can do this because i say so'
Again, simple systems are ok but there's nothing restrictive about having options
they're two entirely different cups of tea really
I love 5E and it's simplicity, but I also love shadowrun and it's catalogues of different stuff and playstyles
my own work takes inspiration from both ends of the spectrum too
I like the WH40k rules, Shadowrun and D&D 3.5, so I don't really mind complex rules that much. As long as they make sense and don't contradict each other back and forth, they're fine.
But I do like rules-light systems. Apocalypse World/Monsterhearts, Remnants/Warbirds and the End of the World line are fun.
[QUOTE=Alsojames;49918891]As long as they make sense and don't contradict each other back and forth, they're fine.[/QUOTE]
I thought you said you liked Shadowrun?
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;49918119]no because then youre in the realm of 'i can do this because i say so'
Again, simple systems are ok but there's nothing restrictive about having options[/QUOTE]
You aren't disagreeing with him there, btw. You just don't like it.
Which is reasonable, a game with absolutely zero crunch would just end up looking like a bunch of schoolkids playing imaginary fights.
"Yeah, well my character has a Shield of sword destroying which DESTROYS your sword"
"Nuh-uh, my sword has the special condition 'destroys sword destroying shields'"
"But you forgot about my special Amulet of Repelling Sword-Destroying-Shield-Destroying-Swords!"
[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;49919951]You aren't disagreeing with him there, btw. You just don't like it.
Which is reasonable, a game with absolutely zero crunch would just end up looking like a bunch of schoolkids playing imaginary fights.
"Yeah, well my character has a Shield of sword destroying which DESTROYS your sword"
"Nuh-uh, my sword has the special condition 'destroys sword destroying shields'"
"But you forgot about my special Amulet of Repelling Sword-Destroying-Shield-Destroying-Swords!"[/QUOTE]
My attack is infinity [i]plus one[/i].
[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;49919951]You aren't disagreeing with him there, btw. You just don't like it.
Which is reasonable, a game with absolutely zero crunch would just end up looking like a bunch of schoolkids playing imaginary fights.
"Yeah, well my character has a Shield of sword destroying which DESTROYS your sword"
"Nuh-uh, my sword has the special condition 'destroys sword destroying shields'"
"But you forgot about my special Amulet of Repelling Sword-Destroying-Shield-Destroying-Swords!"[/QUOTE]
how is 'what you're saying is wrong' in any way read like that's not a disagreement? And you're basically demonstrating exactly what's wrong with the 'it doesn't say I can't so I can' with your little example, and is precisely why a lot of people are iffy about letting people do things that go around the rules. Hell, it's one of the defining characteristics of munchkins that they see 'it doesn't say I can't, so I can', and understandably that's why you don't let people do that bar very specific circumstances
Which is the right course, I think. Gaps in the rules, bar the ones where they just say 'GM go nuts here whatever' tend not to lead to creativity, because most GM's I can think of would rather not let things happen when there's no way to easily define what the hell would happen from a given course, and more importantly, it would be much harder for them to define what would happen in a way that is mechanically satisfying within the rules, that's not just making instant-win buttons or being so worthless there's no fun to be had by doing it
Like, just from an example that comes to mind, Numenera. Cool system, but mechanically it is complete trash because there are immense gaps in what all you can actually do with the rules, and there's so much interpretation to be had, that it's very, very difficult to get anything satisfying out of the mechanics, because it's spells and abilities tend to be narrowly defined, and even the most liberal reading of them still doesn't give you a lot of ways to go about things. The less rules do not lead to more stuff in practice, because either you're forcing the GM to write half the system on his own (which, incidentally, is terrible and says nothing good about the system in question) and forcing him to design systems to let the players have more freedom, or you're giving the players so much freedom that every descends into meaningless playground stuff and you might as well not have a system at all
Because anyone can fluff things to be crazy awesome, whether they're in a mechanics heavy or a mechanics light system. But I think part of the reason you pay the toll that you do in the form of more required reading for players and GM alike in complex systems is that you gain the ability to be awesome [i]within[/i] the mechanics as opposed to around them. Like, I will stand up on a hill and admit that if there was anything right about Exalted 2e, it was that despite being an utter nightmare of a system that basically nobody can properly run in it's entirety simply due to it being so complicated, it was that it had an utterly fantastic return on mechanics to awesome, and that was a system that had extreme limitations on the scope of most abilities, but in exchange, when you could figure out how to work all those pieces together in an awesome way, it was legitimately cool, and some of my most mechanical fun ever has come from just thinking through how to do crazy shit in Exalted. Is it balanced, fuck no, does it take forever, you bet it does, does it require investment, hell yes, but in the end if you want to be creative, you can guarantee it's got your back and has probably given at least some token thought to what you're doing and how it might work without forcing the GM to make up things on the spot. And that's far more awesome than just going 'the rules don't say I can't, so I must be able to, here's this awesome thing'.
[QUOTE=SiberysTranq;49920064]how is 'what you're saying is wrong' in any way read like that's not a disagreement? And you're basically demonstrating exactly what's wrong with the 'it doesn't say I can't so I can' with your little example, and is precisely why a lot of people are iffy about letting people do things that go around the rules. Hell, it's one of the defining characteristics of munchkins that they see 'it doesn't say I can't, so I can', and understandably that's why you don't let people do that bar very specific circumstances
Which is the right course, I think. Gaps in the rules, bar the ones where they just say 'GM go nuts here whatever' tend not to lead to creativity, because most GM's I can think of would rather not let things happen when there's no way to easily define what the hell would happen from a given course, and more importantly, it would be much harder for them to define what would happen in a way that is mechanically satisfying within the rules, that's not just making instant-win buttons or being so worthless there's no fun to be had by doing it
Like, just from an example that comes to mind, Numenera. Cool system, but mechanically it is complete trash because there are immense gaps in what all you can actually do with the rules, and there's so much interpretation to be had, that it's very, very difficult to get anything satisfying out of the mechanics, because it's spells and abilities tend to be narrowly defined, and even the most liberal reading of them still doesn't give you a lot of ways to go about things. The less rules do not lead to more stuff in practice, because either you're forcing the GM to write half the system on his own (which, incidentally, is terrible and says nothing good about the system in question) and forcing him to design systems to let the players have more freedom, or you're giving the players so much freedom that every descends into meaningless playground stuff and you might as well not have a system at all
Because anyone can fluff things to be crazy awesome, whether they're in a mechanics heavy or a mechanics light system. But I think part of the reason you pay the toll that you do in the form of more required reading for players and GM alike in complex systems is that you gain the ability to be awesome [i]within[/i] the mechanics as opposed to around them. Like, I will stand up on a hill and admit that if there was anything right about Exalted 2e, it was that despite being an utter nightmare of a system that basically nobody can properly run in it's entirety simply due to it being so complicated, it was that it had an utterly fantastic return on mechanics to awesome, and that was a system that had extreme limitations on the scope of most abilities, but in exchange, when you could figure out how to work all those pieces together in an awesome way, it was legitimately cool, and some of my most mechanical fun ever has come from just thinking through how to do crazy shit in Exalted. Is it balanced, fuck no, does it take forever, you bet it does, does it require investment, hell yes, but in the end if you want to be creative, you can guarantee it's got your back and has probably given at least some token thought to what you're doing and how it might work without forcing the GM to make up things on the spot. And that's far more awesome than just going 'the rules don't say I can't, so I must be able to, here's this awesome thing'.[/QUOTE]
lol, in case you didnt catch it I was agreeing with you. I was clearly not advocating for that style of play.
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;49918119]no because then youre in the realm of 'i can do this because i say so'[/QUOTE]
this would only be true if you were playing in a system without a game master
I cast 'Silence' on the D&D thread!
[t]http://images.halloweencostumes.com/products/3258/1-1/kids-magic-wizard-costume.jpg[/t]
as a sonic being, I am utterly destroyed
my people declare war on yours and within a year your land is ravaged by war and turmoil
suck it loser
[QUOTE=Mellowbloom;49920510]as a sonic being, I am utterly destroyed
my people declare war on yours and within a year your land is ravaged by war and turmoil
suck it loser[/QUOTE]
Quit railroading me!
[QUOTE=SiberysTranq;49920064]:dogwow:[/QUOTE]
If the mechanical return on trying to do awesome shit was your favorite part of 2e, I really recommend looking at 3e. They streamlined a lot of it, and made what 2e had for 2-die stunts the minimum expectation to qualify for a stunt instead of the mid-level of them. Which means with the right mindset and teamwork from your ST, [I]any[/I] attempt to stunt is going to let you bend the rules a bit if you need to in order to pull your Rule of Cool moment.(Assuming you succeed on the roll, that is)
It's also still anime as hell, though they reigned it in a bit iirc.
[QUOTE=gufu;49911384]Hey you fucks, who wants to eventually help me test an expansion for Magical Burst. You get to be gruff military men and women and kill anime. No, it's not finished, but I need to gauge interest, and I can probably finish it up if I see people wanting.[/QUOTE]
No idea how to play magical burst but killing anime sounds great
[QUOTE=gufu;49911384]Hey you fucks, who wants to eventually help me test an expansion for Magical Burst. You get to be gruff military men and women and kill anime. No, it's not finished, but I need to gauge interest, and I can probably finish it up if I see people wanting.[/QUOTE]
Ill play if you let me be a huge shirtless commando with a giant combat knife who beats the shit out of animes while slipping into fits of ptsd
because my cleric picked up a crazy fucking magic sword of fucking Cyric at level 2 my cleric is slowly going crazy because of the blade which meant I had to attack a fellow party member at one point. It was actually pretty fun, my cleric is of the tempest domain which meant i could hurt a lot of them at once. The paladin actually stopped me before my next turn because he had command, which he used to stop me in my tracks to the point I could regain my sanity. If they by any chance have to kill him i already have an elven bladesinger to take his place.
Our Paladin has finally pushed past the point of being a rogue element and into 'That Guy'. He's explicitly stated that he wants to play brash and impatient but there was a very palpable amount of disappointment after he basically sabotaged a potential political relationship and denied us a potential quest over what was basically 50 gold.
It ended the session with a bit of a bad taste in everyone's mouth. I think he realized this though because he mentioned he'll try to 'let us do more of the talking'.
If you're looking for something new and exciting to play, might I suggest taking a little trip [url=https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/4a6xh7/flavortown_the_guy_fieri_micro_rpg/]to Flavortown?[/url] I'm sure we could all use a little spice in our life.
i'm not really involved too much with DnD, but in my Brother's 3.5 campaign his character got eaten alive by a town of peaceful people literally made of crabs that were able to fool the whole party into thinking they were actually people, even though they were just talking crabs with clothes on them.
The reason why he was eaten? He ate a crab at the beach who was a spelunker for the townfolk. :downs:
[QUOTE=Aperture fan;49922627]If you're looking for something new and exciting to play, might I suggest taking a little trip [url=https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/4a6xh7/flavortown_the_guy_fieri_micro_rpg/]to Flavortown?[/url] I'm sure we could all use a little spice in our life.[/QUOTE]
This is almost as surreal as the existence of the [B]three[/B] separate Filthy Frank RPGs
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
