What do you expect from D&D?

[Arkhaic]

A Jedipotter thread with a twist? Inconceivable!

I'm starting to think that the statement about never making mistakes was tongue in cheek

[Arbane]

The long and short of it is ToB goes too far down the anime rabbit hole to achieve much of an effective parallel.

Yeah, anime like the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Táin Bó Cúailnge. Drat those weaboo ancient Celts.

I don't particularly see how pulling from anime removes how accurate or inaccurate ToB is as a depiction of real world martial arts.

It's as accurate as anything else in D&D combat.

Which is to say NOT EVEN SLIGHTLY. As far as I can tell, 'Real' combat generally involves lying face-down in the mud with a sucking chest wound because of bad luck at the start of the fight. The problem with D&D combat is not its lack of 'realism'.

[jedipotter]

The way I figure it, there are a lot of potentially valid reasons for the things Jedipotter likes to do. There are reasons to change the material components system, and there are reasons to impose secret house rules, and there are reasons to not allow ToB. The issue is, those reasons are just ridiculously divorced from Jedipotter's stated reasons for doing these things. Makes these discussions weird.

You mean my reasons like having everyone have fun, making the game more mysterious, making the game more random, making the game more dangerous and balancing out the game? Those reasons are not in line with secret house rules?

Do people really expect DMs to play RAW? That seems needlessly constrictive. I just expect that whatever the DM does will be in good faith.

It would seem so. I think this is why people get burned out playing D&D. They play by RAW hundreds of times. It gets very dull and boring.

. House ruling willy-nilly can lead to unforseen consequences.

Such unforeseen consequences like fun

I expect to play a post-apocalyptic midieval fantasy RPG with certain baggage for fluff, and to use the rules as presented in the book, except where specifically agreed upon by the group otherwise, or where an exception is plot-relevant as opposed to a pandemic ally applied thing.

This sounds like a great example of a burn out game.

[geekintheground]

i think people expect to play by RAW because its RAW. we dont MIND playing by not-RAW as long as we're told before hand for the most part. playing by the same rules isnt boring. that doesnt make any sense... otherwise LIFE would be boring. we all play by the same rules and do so for 50+ years, but it isnt boring. consistency is different from redundancy...

[eggynack]

It's as accurate as anything else in D&D combat.

Which is to say NOT EVEN SLIGHTLY. As far as I can tell, 'Real' combat generally involves lying face-down in the mud with a sucking chest wound because of bad luck at the start of the fight. The problem with D&D combat is not its lack of 'realism'.

That's really an issue with the underlying increase in resiliency inherent inherent in high level characters, and that resiliency is an intended chunk of non-realism. The idea is that, assuming folks in reality were more able to take a hit, then ToB would more closely model how people deliver those hits. While I'm not all that experienced in the ways of martial arts, plenty of folks with that sort of experience have said that ToB is a lot closer to how combat works, and I can't recall anyone with that experience saying that ToB is nothing like what they do.

You mean my reasons like having everyone have fun, making the game more mysterious, making the game more random, making the game more dangerous and balancing out the game? Those reasons are not in line with secret house rules?

My issue there is mainly with the houserules themselves. In particular, the idea is that there could be reasons to have secret house rules in the general sense, but that these particular cases are silly. If you wanna argue about that stuff though, there's still plenty of stuff in that thread that you've yet to respond to. In the meantime, however, I'll note that there are better ways to accomplish just about all of your goals. You don't need to change the rules to make the game more mysterious, more random, more dangerous, or more balanced, and those other methods tend to bring less problems with them than secret house rules.

[Arbane]

It would seem so. I think this is why people get burned out playing D&D. They play by RAW hundreds of times. It gets very dull and boring.

And that's why nobody ever bothers playing chess more than once. Once you know how all the pieces move, every game is exactly the same as the others.

[eggynack]

And that's why nobody ever bothers playing chess more than once. Once you know how all the pieces move, every game is exactly the same as the others.

I can't tell if you've read the place where she's said pretty much that exact thing yet. Cause she has.

[atemu1234]

I can't tell if you've read the place where she's said pretty much that exact thing yet. Cause she has.

I don't know about the poster, but I personally skipped about fifty pages of that thread.

[Psyren]

2. Every time this comes up my question is: Just how often do anti-magic fields actually come up in your games? Like, that is literally the only reason it would matter, because it would stop them from working. Along with all their gear. And any caster's spells (except instaneous conjurations, gyu-huh). Basically anything meaningful at all. Everyone's just going to walk out of it and go about business like normal. It's purely a game crunch tag. Why does it matter? I guess if they were you could apply things like Empower/Enlarge/Widen Supernatural Ability to some of them. Clearly that's what you want, right?

If you mean "AMF," i.e. the 10-foot radius emanation spell - then no, it doesn't come up very often at all and it would be ridiculous to expect it to.

But if you mean antimagic, i.e. the plot device that makes incarcerating magic-using characters and monsters possible, and is a lynchpin of every published setting - then hopefully you can see that yes, it does matter, unless your "good" protagonists have a habit of slitting throats.

[eggynack]

I don't know about the poster, but I personally skipped about fifty pages of that thread.

Different thread, actually. The relevant quote is in this post. I actually liked this thread more than the cheating one.

[Arbane]

I can't tell if you've read the place where she's said pretty much that exact thing yet. Cause she has.

*facepalm*

No, I hadn't, or I would've tried to come up with something even MORE sarcastic. Somehow.

Jedipotter: There's NO 'randomness' in chess, at least not on the board. What there is, is your limited capability to predict the actions of the other player. Yet somehow, people have been playing it their entire lives for hundreds of years and finding it engrossing. I predict JP's action will be more trolling.

[atemu1234]

Different thread, actually. The relevant quote is in this post. I actually liked this thread more than the cheating one.

Ah, thanks.

BTW, everyone should know by now there's another Jedipotter thread where his arguments are being annihilated right now. It's on the 3e/3.5e/PF page right now. Feel free to weigh in (you'll get the joke when you get there).

[The Insanity]

The long and short of it is ToB goes too far down the anime rabbit hole to achieve much of an effective parallel.

http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.ph...99343#msg99343

[Flickerdart]

What there is, is your limited capability to predict the actions of the other player.

You could fill an entire other thread with jedipotter's limited capabilities.

[eggynack]

You could fill an entire other thread with jedipotter's limited capabilities.

I found this far more amusing than I probably should have.

[atemu1234]

I found this far more amusing than I probably should have.

Especially considering there are at least two if not three of four or five.

[jedipotter]

otherwise LIFE would be boring. we all play by the same rules and do so for 50+ years, but it isnt boring. consistency is different from redundancy...

Um....you don't really think everyone in life plays by the same rules do you?

And that's why nobody ever bothers playing chess more than once. Once you know how all the pieces move, every game is exactly the same as the others.

Well, yes. There are only so many moves in chess. It is a very boring game. You have a set number of pieces, squares and moves. There is nothing new or original about chess. The moves used today, are the same ones used forever...again and again and again. Chess is nothing like a RPG where anything can happen. After all, what do you get together and play with a group D&D or chess?

My issue there is mainly with the houserules themselves. In particular, the idea is that there could be reasons to have secret house rules in the general sense, but that these particular cases are silly. If you wanna argue about that stuff though, there's still plenty of stuff in that thread that you've yet to respond to. In the meantime, however, I'll note that there are better ways to accomplish just about all of your goals. You don't need to change the rules to make the game more mysterious, more random, more dangerous, or more balanced, and those other methods tend to bring less problems with them than secret house rules.

What did I miss?

So how do you make the game more mysterious when rule X says y happens every time? There can be no mystery with such a rule. How do you make a game more random without changing the rules? The rules say this happens, is not random.

And you can't balance the game without changing rules, unless you just go ''Ban Happy' and say ''nothing from Core''.

[Flickerdart]

I found this far more amusing than I probably should have.

I aim to please.

Um....you don't really think everyone in life plays by the same rules do you?

I would ask if you've ever heard of physics, but I wouldn't be surprised if the answer was "no."

[atemu1234]

Um....you don't really think everyone in life plays by the same rules do you?

Well, we all breath, eat, sleep, etc.

So yeah, we do. We aren't here for an in-depth discussion on human philosophy, we're here to discuss what to expect from a new D&D group, which got into why ToB is/isn't good, and your little sideshow with no reasons for your behavior kind of sidetracked that.

[geekintheground]

Um....you don't really think everyone in life plays by the same rules do you?

actually yes i do. i dont mean LAWS, i mean physics. everyone exists in the same universe therefore we are all subject to the same rules. are YOU bored with life? i certainly am not, though i've only been here a very limited amount of time (going on 20 years in 2 weeks ). but you knew that. or tried very hard to read my post in a way that discredited it... and sure, there ARE a finite number of moves in chess, the point is that we ARENT BORED WITH IT. and i DO get together with friends to play chess, sometimes i even put off D&D to do so (usually when im playing chess with an old friend i dont see very often), and sometimes i play chess IN D&D.

[eggynack]

Well, yes. There are only so many moves in chess. It is a very boring game. You have a set number of pieces, squares and moves. There is nothing new or original about chess. The moves used today, are the same ones used forever...again and again and again. Chess is nothing like a RPG where anything can happen. After all, what do you get together and play with a group D&D or chess?

It's pretty obvious that you don't know crap about chess, and by extension, it's likely that you also don't know crap about this game.

What did I miss?

Just a whole lot of stuff. Like, most of the things I've posted. I think this post is one of the bigger ones that you've ignored.

So how do you make the game more mysterious when rule X says y happens every time? There can be no mystery with such a rule. How do you make a game more random without changing the rules? The rules say this happens, is not random.

Pretty trivially. Just make the mystery intrinsic to the setting instead of intrinsic to the rules. I would post examples for you, but I recall a thread from awhile ago where you were questioning the ability to create mysteries in a world with knowledge rules, and people posted a veritable pile of ideas for you that didn't involve house rules, secret or otherwise. Really, there are mysteries in our world all the time, and we mostly know the rules of our world. Not like every single aspect of physics or anything, but it's not like one out of every 20 gunshots spontaneously produces Orcus.

And you can't balance the game without changing rules, unless you just go ''Ban Happy' and say ''nothing from Core''.

I would be more likely to ban on a tier basis, because it makes more sense, but the idea is that you change the rules in a completely not-secret manner.

[Amphetryon]

Well, yes. There are only so many moves in chess. It is a very boring game. You have a set number of pieces, squares and moves. There is nothing new or original about chess. The moves used today, are the same ones used forever...again and again and again. Chess is nothing like a RPG where anything can happen. After all, what do you get together and play with a group D&D or chess?

Chess is infinite: there are 400 different positions after each player makes one move apiece. 72,084 positions after each player makes two moves apiece. More than 9 million unique positions from the third move. After the 4th move, more than 288+ billion different positions are possible. More 40-move games can be achieved than the number of electrons in our universe. There are more game-trees of Chess than the number of galaxies (100+ billion), and more openings, defences, gambits, etc. than the number of quarks in our universe! --Chesmayne

So, apparently 'only so many moves in chess' references a pretty big number.

[eggynack]

So, apparently 'only so many moves in chess' references a pretty big number.

But those cheating chess powergamers keep favoring the Sicilian. It's so unfair.

[Threadnaught]

Thousands or even millions of ways to play Chess and, every match is exactly the same just because the rules aren't constantly changed according to one player's whims?

jedipotter, do you just find gamers so you can insult them and whatever they play if it has a different set of rules to what you'd have?
That's what's been going on so far.


That said.

1: I expect to play D&D 3.5e.
2: Any changes to the rules to be brought up beforehand, if at all possible.
3: To know what sources are allowed for character building.
4: To know what power level the DM is confidant they can handle.
5: To know the power level the group wants to play.
6: To know the tone of the game.
7: To be able to control my character without being punished for using basic abilities.

It's really not all that much. It just sums up to being able to trust the other people at the table.

[Arkhaic]

If you mean "AMF," i.e. the 10-foot radius emanation spell - then no, it doesn't come up very often at all and it would be ridiculous to expect it to.

But if you mean antimagic, i.e. the plot device that makes incarcerating magic-using characters and monsters possible, and is a lynchpin of every published setting - then hopefully you can see that yes, it does matter, unless your "good" protagonists have a habit of slitting throats.

Seriously?
...
Let's take this from the top.

the plot device that makes incarcerating magic-using characters and monsters possible, and is a lynchpin of every published setting

—If you need something that's higher than 6th level to imprison casters then you're doing it wrong and your setting is either terrible or has bizarre scaling.

Seriously, just waterboard them once a day to keep them unconscious, maybe use some effect so they don't need to eat. Or use magic to keep them asleep. And don't keep them alone.

Honestly, if you've got a guy who can punch through a wall given a few hours, you don't leave him alone. Ever. If you can capture a mage, you can keep the mage captured.

For some reason people seem to think "imprisoned" means "stuck in a cell," rather than meaning "constantly watched, kept from doing anything, and possibly interrogated and/or tortured," which is what would happen to PCs and similar creatures.

then hopefully you can see that yes, it does matter, unless your "good" protagonists have a habit of slitting throats

Killing someone who would go on to kill others is at worst a neutral act if you aren't torturing them or the like.

Try again.

[atemu1234]

Seriously?
...
Let's take this from the top.



—If you need something that's higher than 6th level to imprison casters then you're doing it wrong and your setting is either terrible or has bizarre scaling.

Seriously, just waterboard them once a day to keep them unconscious, maybe use some effect so they don't need to eat. Or use magic to keep them asleep. And don't keep them alone.

Honestly, if you've got a guy who can punch through a wall given a few hours, you don't leave him alone. Ever. If you can capture a mage, you can keep the mage captured.

For some reason people seem to think "imprisoned" means "stuck in a cell," rather than meaning "constantly watched, kept from doing anything, and possibly interrogated and/or tortured," which is what would happen to PCs and similar creatures.


Killing someone who would go on to kill others is at worst a neutral act if you aren't torturing them or the like.

Try again.

I think they're trying to keep them from casting spells, and Antimagic is the best, RAW way to do it.

[Necroticplague]

I think they're trying to keep them from casting spells, and Antimagic is the best, RAW way to do it.

Invoke Magic and Initiate of Mystra would like a couple of words. The best way is to kill them, and you can use Speak with Dead on their corpse as need be.

[atemu1234]

Invoke Magic and Initiate of Mystra would like a couple of words. The best way is to kill them, and you can use Speak with Dead on their corpse as need be.

Guilty until proven innocent, are we?

[eggynack]

Guilty until proven innocent, are we?

That's what inquisition is for. Sweet spell, that.

[jedipotter]

Pretty trivially. Just make the mystery intrinsic to the setting instead of intrinsic to the rules. I would post examples for you, but I recall a thread from awhile ago where you were questioning the ability to create mysteries in a world with knowledge rules, and people posted a veritable pile of ideas for you that didn't involve house rules, secret or otherwise. Really, there are mysteries in our world all the time, and we mostly know the rules of our world. Not like every single aspect of physics or anything, but it's not like one out of every 20 gunshots spontaneously produces Orcus.

Your going back to the spiting hairs.....you you say ''secret setting rules'' everyone says ''ok, cool'', but when you say ''secret house rules'' everyone freaks out.

I think a big part of my problem with this line of thinking is that it's way too intent driven where it should be more results driven. I mean, what if our noble player, taking a complete shot in the dark, puts together a character based entirely around killing undead for the undead focused game? You still have all of the cited problems with that situation, like relatively underpowered cakewalk enemies, except it's apparently fine, because the player didn't mean to break the game over his knee.

If it happens by chance...it's by chance and fine. And a ''by chance'' anti-undead character player won't go all out like the cheating optimizer will to get that one more plus or whatever.

As was the case with stat allocation in a past thread, the solution here isn't to just leave things up to chance, but rather it is to just say what it is you want. If you want an undead focused campaign, but don't want undead focused characters, just say, "We're playing an undead focused campaign. Don't build a character focused particularly on killing undead, because the challenges are not calibrated for characters like that."

Well, I would never say ''i'm doing an Undead Game. I hate that. So your saying I should ask the players to be more random, mysterious and have more fun?

If you do want undead focused characters, or characters that can keep up with them, just say that instead. If a player builds a character not suited to the campaign, tell them that it acts against the explicit thing you said, and ask them to rebuild. As is usually true, simple transparency and honesty work far better than obfuscation and hope.

And not doing the lame ''Undead Game'' works best of all.


Guess I will never agree with the boring gamers, but then that is why my game is different. It is not fun, for me and some other people, to do the same thing all the time. And playing D&D by the RAW rules is boring after a while. And that is just one problem. So I add more.