Trapped in the Underdark ~ Out of Character discussion

[Pervy]

Re: Trapped in the Underdark ~ Out of Character discussion

It could be done lewdly and well, but maybe better in a 1 on 1 thing with the gritty fodder coming from NPC investigators.

I'd volunteer, but yous busy busy.

 

[BlueSlime]

Re: Trapped in the Underdark ~ Out of Character discussion

True. But for now I'm enjoying the games currently on my plate.

Maybe if storylines resolve it would be possible.

 

[Pervy]

Re: Trapped in the Underdark ~ Out of Character discussion

True. But for now I'm enjoying the games currently on my plate.

Maybe if storylines resolve it would be possible.

We got quite a while to go here and I hope the same for Rovana and Sylvia not sure on Overquest personally, it seems to be stumbling a bit, but if I were to give a % done counter for this campaign it'd float around a fifth of the full story, maybe a fourth as the next thingie begins after this bit of socializing.

 

[Zilrax]

Re: Trapped in the Underdark ~ Out of Character discussion

I'd argue that you're missing the point of tiers if you're thinking solely in the context of combat. Can a tier 5 kill a tier 1? Sometimes, sure. Can a tier 5 travel across the galaxy in 6 seconds? No. Can a tier 5 survive a trip to the sun? No. Not on their own class merits. They can burn money to imitate a Tier 1 to solve it. But that's not a class thing since most T5's can't even make their own magic items anyways.

Most T5's can only solve things with dm fiat that aren't in their specific wheelhouse, which is in the case of the rogue, skills and the fighter and monk, hit thing with stick. That's why they are T5. It has nothing to do with can this class kill that class (though that can correlate) because build matters and so does circumstance. But there's many challenges you simply can't do without magic by the rules. And they aren't even the best at their roles to boot. Every other tier can out fight the fighter, and many of the other tiers can out skill the rogue since all he really get's is more skill points. Stealth probably being the one thing he can kinda push. But skills are so easily invalidated by spells.

T4 contains those still heavily limited but aren't bad at their roles.

T3 contains limited but with more wide options. That it contains almost all the low tier casters speaks to that, and that the Barbarian is there speaks to jsut how damn good he is at his job.

T2 contains all the 6 casters, and arguably the spontaneous primary casters since this area holds the classes that can solve lots of problems, but not all of em.

T1 is the Wizard, Cleric, Arguably the druid, possibly the Arcanist, the Summoner and possibly the Psion.

And you've not seen stealth focused Rangers if you think they can't do it and do it well. Mind you, they do it best in forests. Especially dense ones. You don't deal with mid level onwards rangers in forests easily.

I mean I can build ranger and show you, but it could be higher if I multiclassed four times haha. But it'd lose out in other areas.

And do I think the low ranks are worthless? No. Do I think they need heavy mastery to become as good as higher tier characters with lower mastery can be? Yes. Acknowledging their flaws does not mean I think they are worthless. I'd rather they be made on par with their peers. I mean, I brought a Fighter to a campaign primarily with enemy rogues and the dm kept trying to nerf me by making my platemail into a bomb and such. So I've no doubt they can be effective. But I also coulda had the same effect but done way better with a Paladin.

Now, I don't have an issue with your playstyle either, but in my mind that involves relying more on the dm to do things. I like the rules. The rules give me something I can say this is how x works. That way when my dm turns my platemail into a bomb somehow, or fuzes a rod of wonder into my hand because he doesn't like my sorceror or what not, I at least have something to back me up. Relying on the dm is a coinflip on whether you get to do something or not. I'd rather be able to do what it says I can do. And what I know therefore I can do. It's not a coinflip for me if I can climb that tree, or if I can ignore certain covers from it and so on. It just says what the dc is and the relevant rules. It's why I know I can make certain magic items and so forth.

Now I discourage new players from the T5's and 4's because they often suffer from being overshadowed by the T3's and because they aren't the best teaching tools. I find Ranger is best for that because they do, well, everything. They fight, have good saves, get free good feats, gradually get a few spells and a pet, and lots of skill points. I consider them the jack of all trades way more than the bard.

Mind you some rules are somewhat vague or contradictory and some are just dumb (Looking at you, removal of a single important word in the paladin code. Still pisses me off.) and I am okay with dms making rulings there. I'm fine with them having unusual items and so forth or variant monsters and such. I'm fine with house rules if I'm told ahead of time. Personally I find most house rules make the game worse because they're done without consideration of why certain things are the way they are but yeah. Surprising me with them, does not go over well. Because it often feels like the dms changing the rules arbitrarily. And often in my experience, it's not to the player's advantage.

But yes, I have a lot of experience with dms who'll strike at my characters for various reasons or change rules to stop them or what not. So my preference for the rules is reinforced.

 

[Pervy]

Re: Trapped in the Underdark ~ Out of Character discussion

Now, I don't have an issue with your playstyle either, but in my mind that involves relying more on the dm to do things. I like the rules. The rules give me something I can say this is how x works. That way when my dm turns my platemail into a bomb somehow, or fuzes a rod of wonder into my hand because he doesn't like my sorceror or what not, I at least have something to back me up. Relying on the dm is a coinflip on whether you get to do something or not. I'd rather be able to do what it says I can do. And what I know therefore I can do. It's not a coinflip for me if I can climb that tree, or if I can ignore certain covers from it and so on. It just says what the dc is and the relevant rules. It's why I know I can make certain magic items and so forth.

I heavily contest this, you have turned to rules lawyering in response to bad DM's, but the DM is supposed to work with the players, not against them and the cointoss thingie is nonsense, imo. A DM will decide on whats best for the story, and if need be, guide you back on track. Frankly, if you don't trust your DM to interprete the rules benevolently you miss out on most of D&D's creative fun. Granted, DM's trying to screw with me end up either killing everyone but me or watching me screw them back harder because I know how to play D&D dangerously good, but the point is.. you shouldn't.

Obviously if you go into a campaign with such a confrontational attitude DM's will lash back, but whats the point? I begin my campaigns usually with a rough story outline in my mind, in this case, I already know the final villain, I want you to beat 'em, but I wont make it easy on you for your sake. I don't intend to make you lose. If I wanted to do that nothing, and I mean NOTHING stops me from spawning a CR 20 + creature and going to town, or simply a group of equal leveled adventurers that can take advantage of your weaknesses, I've not noticed any of you cast any scrying protections so far.

But whats the point? Roleplay is a conjoined storytelling, I provide the world, you the force that moves it, without Dasyra for example, Ventus would continue to guard that wall for centuries if not millenia, doesn't mean I'll let Dasyra cast shatter and be done with the blade, but more to that later.

 

[BlueSlime]

Re: Trapped in the Underdark ~ Out of Character discussion

imho, rules lawyering back and forth between DM and Player turns the game confrontational, and it gets incredibly uncomfortable for me when I'm at that sort of table.

I think for a DM and for a group of players who are all very into the rules, it would work fine. But if someone like me is in the mix, who doesn't mind handing some power over to the GM with the tacit understanding that people in the group get their moments to shine within the story, then the rules pounding just gets in the way of fun.

Because a player who can build their character to solve all problems *sadly* solves all the problems. And that puts other characters out of the lime light and makes them feel irrelevant, unheroic, and/or just a spectator. It also makes the defeating of challenges formulaic. I'd prefer a system that supports dynamics that aren't explicitly determined by rules - something that rewards spontaneity.

As it is, and I'm sorry to use it as an example but it's relevant, there's the situation in overquest where we know there's a warrior enemy, and because we know the swarm summoning mechanic is super effective by dint of rules and numbers, we're going into this scenario with a good idea of what's going to happen. I could be wrong, but as it stands, it doesn't make me look forward to the fight, at least from the standpoint of "huh, I wonder if my bard will be able to do something cool?"

 

[Pervy]

Re: Trapped in the Underdark ~ Out of Character discussion

I can only agree with blue, to roll on with the example, my only way to handle this as DM, the summon swarm that is, is either give an extended 'you win!' or dive into rules as to why you don't win, turning things confrontational.

Now, what I'd rather do is 'you summon a swarm, its super annoying for her for a round or two, she deals with it, Sangria slaps her, bard helps Sangira slap, insert naughty innuendo'
Ultimatly its the balance of powers.. theres no problem having a group pof powerbuilder pcs.. if EVERYONE knows thats coming, then I can sent you CR 5 and 6 threats on lvl 3 and you can smack 'em around and still feel challenged.

That said, unconcerned about the overquest thing, I had a thing prepared anyway.

 

[Zilrax]

Re: Trapped in the Underdark ~ Out of Character discussion

Well as it stands you're the front line and I'm not expecting to use the swarm thing in a crowded street. I'm already considering alternative tactics. But that's just it. I've options. But as a Bard you too have options. You can fight up front reasonably well, you've buffs, you can support our martial inclined ally and so forth. It just so happens that anything without magic doesn't deal well with swarms. Honestly it's a flaw in swarms in general. Never been a fan.

And it's not that I consider a dm an enemy. Usually I'm just doing things before suddenly the crackdown happened in the name of story. My armor became a bomb because the dm decided as a story that my backstory was all actually based on a lie and my mentor betrayed me and my armor was a devil bomb. Because rogues have terrible terrible accuracy.

But the rules can allow a story too in their framework. Hell one can build around it. A game doesn't become less fun because the dm plays by the same rules as everyone else. They have more pieces with own rules and so forth but it's not like the story can't happen because you need to find a reason in context for certain things. Hell it can give ideas the pcs may decide to do on their own and such. A castle pops up overnight. How'd that happen? Well a wizard with wall of stone, wall of iron and fabricate can construct places in rapid pace. Or like Everfrost. Hows the place always iced up? Well one possibility is a permanent widespread Unhallowed effect with some temperature spell tied to it. It'd make sense given all the undead.

As an aside I always want to call it Eversong for some reason...

Spontaneity can certainly happen even in the rules. I can think of plenty of creative uses. Hell some spells, particularly illusions, force creative thinking. you need to tailor the illusion to what you are trying to do. Course it also relies heavily on dms for working, so illusions can be very powerful or very useless depending on the dm.

And that's sorta the kicker. When you have to rely on the dm for everything, everythings just a maybe. Because maybe the dm is good or not or you agree or not and such. It's something solved by communication generally. But the rules provide a baseline everyone can work from at the start so you don't have to ask the dm may I do this for every single thing. I don't need to ask can I roll climb to this tree or can I take 10 to succeed on balancing on this rope. With a baseline I know if I can or cannot.

And I've found many dms require the world to move in ways they want else tantrums may get thrown. Hell that's what one of my irl dms liked about 4e, how monsters and stuff used diffrent rules from the pcs so he can have them just do whatever he wants.

As for the all solutions thing well... That sorta runs into the tier system problem. Despite nominally being made equal, not all classes are in fact equal. The more magic you are, the better you are because Pathfinder applies realism unevenly. The more magic you get the more rules you get to ignore. Which means anyone without magic, gets the short stick because he can have 30 strength but still can't jump more than 5 feet high in the air. He can survive 3 mile drops repeatedly in a day but he still can't swim up a waterfall. He can take fire that can literally melt solid steel and survive but is unable to trip a storm giant because "it's too big." And you can't jsut get rid of the full casters cus the games balanced around having them and without them there's tons of things you just can't solve.

It's a problem I'm hoping to help address once we get the new system we're working on's alpha going.

In any case, I'm not looking to screw the dm or anything. I just want my character to be good at what they are out to do. So in Kaila's case, she's designed around both summoning and have a combat capable familiar cus why not. In Sekla's case, she was built to compensate for the lack of healer at the time and be versatile, which has proved a good idea given we lost our healer.

I don't worry about interpretations so much. I worry more about dms making things up to mess with people or changing the rules entirely. As in the rod of wonder suddenly fuzed in my hand so whenever I cast a spell I get a rod of wonder effect AND he uses a d1000 table he printed online, causing my attempt to save the party from an undead summon an abyssal dragon that also tried to kill us. Or yeah you can climb the tree but then the branches break and you fall down taking damage. Or you pass something to the bard, roll an attack roll. Oh you lightly slapped him, roll an attack roll and deal unarmed damage. etc etc etc.

 

[Pervy]

Re: Trapped in the Underdark ~ Out of Character discussion

Or like Everfrost. Hows the place always iced up? Well one possibility is a permanent widespread Unhallowed effect with some temperature spell tied to it. It'd make sense given all the undead.

Ventus dropped the most epic soft ice ever on it, thats also why shes so sad nowadays.

And that's sorta the kicker. When you have to rely on the dm for everything, everythings just a maybe. Because maybe the dm is good or not or you agree or not and such. It's something solved by communication generally. But the rules provide a baseline everyone can work from at the start so you don't have to ask the dm may I do this for every single thing.

You cannot account for human creativity in a game system, but thats the beauty of it too. If you want rigid rules, theres online servers with set rules, where you can't win a fight by talking your way out of it or pretend the shoe polish covered glass marble you have is actually a black pearl, but I guess the real question is, why are you so afraid of failure? Failure for character is a good thing, Blue will confirm that my characters get into deadly danger or hard to escape seeming situations and almost mess up, we have different ideas how its possible to escape and argue.. but that helps them develope too, you learn .. or at least change a lot from making mistakes.
Failure helps you grow, so if you don't make mistakes..
You cannot eliminate errors and confrontations with the DM, it happens to the best and worst of us, its human nature, all you do is limit the rp you can do by not allowing yourself to be creative. *chuckles*

But perhaps one day I'll run my campaign involving the seven sins here, you can't beat most of those without creativity. I'll give you an example, to honor your essay, One of the Seven sins, Pride, has a unique power that always lets them roll one higher than you, no matter what is rolled, how do you beat them? OP spell? Overpowering with numbers? Nope. You have to fail intentionally, because Prides nature will compel 'em to fail even harder than you just did.

 

[Zilrax]

Re: Trapped in the Underdark ~ Out of Character discussion

Ah yes, those. I sorta didn't mention before. The problem with those is that's the sort of thing you'd see in a game like Undertale. And I'd rather fail or succeed on my own merits, not on because the dm decided I fail now. The problem with this sort of idea is both that it's kinda... silly "I pride myself on the best of failure so I can only be beaten by not beating me therefore I win at losing and..." And sorta why do you need a hero for that? Just send a random peasent. They've equal odds of success. If anything these all seem to just be reasons not to deal with them since you beat them all by not interacting. If I do nothing to Pride, Pride will do nothing to me even harder. If I don't fight wrath, wrath doesn't fight. Etc. So what's the point other than to be a sort of dm gotcha moment? It literally goes against what the entire structure of the games built around which involves getting stronger and thus surmounting harder obstacles. These are obstacles you surmount by not surmounting them.

And rigid rules is not the same thing. I really get annoyed by this argument. Dm carteblanche not supported = go play an mmo. I hear this sooo often. First off, there's rules for the shoe polish thing. There's bluff. Craft. Disguise. And so forth. And there's Appraise and sense motive in opposition. Second, again. Not an issue with adapting. But there's one thing about ruling in grey areas like say, which skill do I use for trying to make a fake pearl. There's another in say, oh and it's the full moon so your spells all go wild magic now. Unless that was outlined before you started anyways. I don't have a problem with house rules if they're outlined prior, as I said.

 

[Corruptivespirit]

Re: Trapped in the Underdark ~ Out of Character discussion

@Pervy, Zilrax

Went and checked. Lior's Bluff isn't that great by a long shot so it looks like everyone knows she's armed and dangerous now. Well, everyone in the room

 

[Zilrax]

Re: Trapped in the Underdark ~ Out of Character discussion

Aight, was just waiting on that.

 

[Pervy]

Re: Trapped in the Underdark ~ Out of Character discussion

Ah yes, those. I sorta didn't mention before. The problem with those is that's the sort of thing you'd see in a game like Undertale.

And rigid rules is not the same thing. I really get annoyed by this argument. Dm carteblanche not supported = go play an mmo. I hear this sooo often.

Undertale is the greatest story driven game I've ever played, yes. As for the sins.. it seems you haven't understood what I mean at all.. Its a moment for the players as well.

Perhaps theres a reason you hear a certain thing often and that may be that you seem to genuinly prefer non creative gameplay. Thats what I'm getting out of this. See, I started with MMO's and when I realized the incredible creativity roleplaying with a good DM offered, I instantly prefered this.

I also can't help but notice that you completely avoid my main question and focus on sideline arguments.

Why is your character not succeeding such an issue?

 

[Zilrax]

Re: Trapped in the Underdark ~ Out of Character discussion

It's not. But it should be my failures not the omnipotent hand of the dm who just says nah you fail barring something really ridiculous. If dice don't go my way, if tactics don't work out and so forth, that's on me, or at least on chance.

If the guy who gets to judge just says nah you fail now cus I decided you fail, that's not particularly enjoyable because then why do I have a sheet? If it's all just predecided then why not just skip the dice and just go free form? Seems like the dice and rules are just getting in the way anyways then. If you're going to do that sort of thing it needs to be done really sparingly and usually because the pcs were being really dumb.

And a challenge for the players? Kinda metagaming isn't it? It's the sort of gygaxian design I've never been fond of since it's better suited to just nameless characters going into a tournament sorta deal where the players prowess matters more than the characters. An int 30 Wizard is as smart as you are despite being able to think more than creatures from beyond time and space. Though funnily enough usually that doesn't stop people accusing the int 7 guy who solves it from metagaming even though the int 30 guy doesn't get to autosolve it .

But if the challenge is for the players, you don't need characters. I can be random peasent 6 and the results the same. So it seems like if the goal is to have characters interact with it, it just asks for tpks. Or pcs just noping out when they see one because thats how you solve it after they realize nothings working. It's not really something to be solved, it's just there to be there. Even if you stopped fighting Wrath then what? You're probably fighting Wrath for a reason. Wrath just goes back to doing what made you fight her in the first place. Nothings resolved. It's just a thing that happened. A story nonsequitor. If you ignored it entirely nothing would have changed. So... What is it meant to be other than a punishment for not playing how you want them to play? Because it's like a riddle who's answer is to ignore the riddle and just go through the door. Subversive, but mostly just kinda annoying.

I like Undertale. I like Undertale as Undertale. Dnd is not designed to be Undertale. Dnd and other rpgs like it were what Undertale was subverting. If you just suddenly toss things that just upend the system like that, you're gonna either get players who enjoy it, or players that hate it. I wouldn't enjoy it. Since I came to play dnd and not Undertale.

And it's not just said to me. It's said to anyone who disagrees that dms should be allowed to do anything and pcs just have to take it. It's not exactly cooperative storytelling if the dm gets to just say screw you story goes my way because and it says you fail. Because this isn't just a story. It's also a game, and if the guy with the board just says got to jail on monopoly and because he owns the board you have to, well... That's not gonna go over well. If you want pcs to succeed, then why force failure on them?

As I said. It's not about failing. That happens. I don't like to fail. Who does? But it's also inevitable. But failing because of dm fiat does not feel good because if you just want to play my character and have em do and end up where you want, you don't really need me for it right? If my input is just to play the predefined part, what's cooperative about it?

Incidentally this does not mean I hate all surprises and so forth, but something like this with totally binary answers does not promote creativity in my eyes because it only has one way to solve it each time. Do the thing that you wouldn't normally do. Which probably amounts to ignoring them.

 

[Pervy]

Re: Trapped in the Underdark ~ Out of Character discussion

On phone so too lazy to format.

on fate and strategy ... the dm is fate.

You got me with gygaxian design and I take that as a compliment. I like to test the players.

Either way. Your logic is beyond me. If l want to mess some player up as DM I need not step out of the rules.. and vice versa. You start on the basis of the d&d rules being -fair-. They are made for cooperative storytelling. A dm that wants to tpk ya will do so and if you memorized every rule.

Also character growth is not just in numbers. I have characters I've kept for years and... not to discredit Ventus or Xirce... the difference is massive. Perhaps I'll spawn one as npc to show ya.

 

[BlueSlime]

Re: Trapped in the Underdark ~ Out of Character discussion

A game that hand waives the rules from time to time, even at PC's expense, isn't necessarily a binary nightmare landscape with the players having no input. I believe that there should be an ebb and flow. Players comfortable in letting the DM get them into trouble, and the DM comfortable in letting the players kickass and look good doing it.

What it boils down to for me is, never let the rules get in the way of a good yarn.

 

[Zilrax]

Re: Trapped in the Underdark ~ Out of Character discussion

Of course it's not just numbers. But forced failure is artificial. And sure, the dms fate. He's also supposed to not be the person who says hey so you guys lose. Cus I think it makes things more interesting. Why not simply see if they lose or win and act accordingly? That way you're not taking player agency away. It's the only thing they get really. I mean if you want them to start a campaign having lost something, sure. But just suddenly going yeah you fail now because is just... Well it's boring for the players because whats it matter how far they've come if the dm just yanks the rug out from under them?

The pcs will mess up on their own account. They don't really need to be shoved down the hole. And if they don't, well. They didn't fail. Wasn't the story that happened. If they did fail, then they failed. The story that happened. It's the difference between letting the pcs make their own calls and failures and the dm just picking the players up and tossing them where the dm wants them to be. It's also more engaging for the players.

And yeah, you don't have to step out to mess with players. But you do have to step out of basic game assumptions. It's why things like CR exists and such. And creature wealth guidelines and so forth. The dm can do whatever. But by that logic, we don't need rules at all cus the dm can just do whatever. So why have guidelines or rules or balance at all? The dm can just narrate to everyone and they say what they do and the dm decides if they succeed or fail. It's not like that's bad, I play free form all the time. But if you're not going to use the rules or what not to begin with, why use the system? It seems like it's just getting in your way of what you want.

Also gygax testing players was also an artifact of the time that you didn't really make a character expecting them to live very long. Most folks didn't even name their adventurers til they got em past level 3. It was a lot more wargamey. And many of the tests and such were built for tournament con games with see how far you can get before dying styles of things.

And let's put it this way. If I'm the dm and decide that you fail, I can. But what benefit is there to it? Is it fun for the players? I doubt it, because it has no input from them. It's just a thing that happens. It's just a slightly less ending rocks fall everyone dies. Same with the undetectable rogue who steals the wizards spellbook or pickpockets pcs, and the impossible to stop scryings and so forth. If there's nothing you can do about it, it just becomes well. Why should the players care? There's no investment then. No struggle. No drama. All you can do is toss your hands up, go welp, and wait til you're allowed to actually do something. It's probably unfortunate for the characters. Course I can give more horror stories that are more on the dot of taking away player agency.

If we're starting at the point the rules are being fair, then obviously when dm's start bending those rules, it's kinda unfair. Hence the problem I have. They've ways to do things

And most DMs I don't think are of the mindset, I'm gonna mess up my players. Most I think are in the mindset I'm the gm, this is my story and this will make the pcs fit into the molds I want them in. So if I need to force them to fail now for my story to work, then they fail now. Rather than letting the story adapt around the pcs decisions and successes and failures. It's not something I support in the least.

When I DM generally I'm of the mindset the pcs will live or die. I try to be fair and I balance carefully but I don't pull punches. I roll in the open and everything. If the pcs use their abilities to do awesome things and further their goals and such then it's great. If they have setbacks, they have setbacks. I'll set obstacles, and see how they overcome them. I know the rules and I know the balances so I know generally what resources pcs can pull to solve problems. I am the pcs biggest fans. But my jobs to make things interesting. And generally taking away their chances to be awesome is not interesting because, well... It takes away chances for them to do things instead of gives them. Them failing at things on their own merits can be interesting. Them succeeding against the odds is interesting too. But it's my job to set the world, adjudicate gray areas, respond to the pcs actions, and operate the various antagonists, allies and so forth. I don't tend to plan heavy details too far ahead because you never know when pcs find a way to circumvent things or surprise you.

As an aside, Scry has a will save so, generally not too worried about being scried. Since you have to scry on a creature. Generally one you know in some manner. Not like the whole party can get anti divinations going most the time anyways and blocking those sorts still leaves you open to more indirect divinations like Augury, Legend Lore, Contact Other Plane, Divination, Commune and so forth.

Now for a game like the Innocent one where I've got warning ahead of time? I'm fine with that. I know what I'm going into. I volunteered for it and such. That's the other thing. Communication tends to help smooth things a lot. I don't like feeling like I'm getting ambushed by rule deviations.

And binary? No. Might indicate a trend? Certainly. It's not like I've never been in this before. Or in this argument. It's a really common one. It even has it's own insulting names. I think the combined version is tyrant dm vs special snowflake player argument. Personally, I'd disagree on that. Since it runs into the question of why have rules if you're not gonna follow em? If you're gonna change the rules ahead of time with warning that's one thing. Randomly deciding yeah every mondays wild magic day now, is kinda dickish if someones playing a caster, even if it might be a good yarn. Especially since if there's no rule consistency then what can the players rely on? If you tear out the bedrock, what does everyone have to stand on? I think we both agree on there being a balance. We disagree on what getting pcs into trouble should endeavour.

 

[BlueSlime]

Re: Trapped in the Underdark ~ Out of Character discussion

I advocate following the rules 98% of the time. And in the other 2% it's usually down to the rule of cool.

My main objection is to the ruleset. I don't think it's very fair, and when followed to a level of system mastery, it takes the feel of the game in a direction that I have just traditionally had a bad experience with.

You've had your GM fiat horror stories. I've had my min-maxer fellow player woes -- with them just flying around doing crazy stuff while I sit back and yawn, getting bored at the table, feeling marginalized, and the game feels less like a role-playing experience and more like a board game that I'm just not that good at.

It's a subjective thing. I recognize that. But it's how I feel. And no amount of telling me the rules make everything fair because then we've all got an equal baseline to work from is going to fix that, because the sad truth of the bloated ruleset is that we're not at the same baseline level of understanding of those rules and we never will be.

And I shouldn't be punished for wanting to play a rogue because I'm inspired by a video game or TV character that makes me think up of fun rogue stories... and then get to the table and have someone one crafting potions/elixers/wands etc and having them tell me that these things now make my character - my story - irrelevant.

 

[Zilrax]

Re: Trapped in the Underdark ~ Out of Character discussion

I'll clarify. The rules can be quite lopsided and are heavily flawed and I wouldn't be working to help make a whole new game system if I was in love with them.

When I say fair I mean more when the gm and the players work roughly in the same framework. The Dm has wiggleroom the pcs don't to make things and so forth. But I'm not that fond of railroading in that manner. It doesn't feel organic and it makes the man behind the curtain appear more to me. It sort of invalidates the players as a whole.

Sadly the games not built with everyone being equal despite claiming it and it can show. Generally I deal with it by making sure I'm damn good in my role, and avoiding under T3 unless I've a specific thing in mind I know will let me keep up. Because I also don't enjoy feeling like I'm dead weight tacked on.

Generally speaking this is why I don't build Master Blaster spellcasters who can invalidate martials by out damaging them. I typically stick to crowd control, buffs, summons and utility as it can be less overbearing. It's also why Kaila has reater Magic Weapon on her sheet and so forth. It's not like her or Vel can get any mileage out of it.

That said, you also don't need to play the class "Rogue" to be a rogue. Anyone can be a rogue. Barbarians can be "rogues". Barbarians could be samurai if your refluff the rage as a sort of battle trance or focus thing. Besides paladin/Antipaladin, most classes fluff is fairly mutable. Long as your mechanics work the same, does it matter what you call it? It's not like everyone in the game world walks around with a giant sign over their head that proclaims their class. Rogue is a lot like Lawyer there. Anyone can be a Lawyer. So if you want an assassin who nobody escapes from, a Ranger chasis is probably a better design than the rogue is. Or that the assassin prestige is. Though Slayer might do it better too. If you wanna be a smooth talking roguey type, there's several bard archetypes that replace bardic music with something more personal and such. And if you want to be something like the guy from Thief, Investigator or Alchemist can work nicely. There's so many ways to be a "rogue" or a "wizard" or a "witch doctor" or "hedge mage" and so forth than simply sticking to the chasis' fluff like it is gospel. Besides paladin/antipaladin and even that is sorta doable.

 

[DaBomb]

Re: Trapped in the Underdark ~ Out of Character discussion

Jesus Christ, what are these wall of texts I missed?