New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 11 of 50 FirstFirst ... 2345678910111213141516171819202136 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 330 of 1483
  1. - Top - End - #301
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    RangerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2017

    Default Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm

    Quote Originally Posted by Pex View Post
    This same principle applies to loathing critical fumbles. My warrior should not risk injuring or killing himself for the audacity of swinging his weapon in combat to attack.
    What would you think of a house rule where when you roll a 1, you get the option to re-roll, and if you fail on that you get a critical fumble? If you don't want to fumble, just don't take the re-roll.

    I can't understand it, but some people feel they are worse off when they are given an extra option to take a risk.

    Personally, I like the image of the desperate mage, overextending trying to cast a spell he normally can't control, with great risk to himself. Haven't really seen it well implemented, but I think that would be an interesting mechanic. Like, you normally can cast polymorph, and have fun with that, but in a perilous situation you may try to cast super-polymorph with some risk.

  2. - Top - End - #302
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Lacco's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Slovakia
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm

    Quote Originally Posted by Pex View Post
    This same principle applies to loathing critical fumbles. My warrior should not risk injuring or killing himself for the audacity of swinging his weapon in combat to attack.
    I understand that this goes against any power-fantasies, but...

    ...in real combat? You risk injuring or killing yourself. Even with your own weapon. There's just so many variables...

    You can get your finger crushed during parrying (happened to my friend during friendly sparring match because he put his finger little too forward during bind), you can slip and not only sprain your ankle but cut into your shin, you can swing and forget there's a shelf that your weapon can get stuck on if you overswing (happened to me *while practicing at home*, my wife almost killed me), you can step into a hole in the ground and fall on your own sword handle face-on, your weapon can get beat so hard it flies to your face...

    ...ok, maybe it's just my clumsiness

    ...and while I agree the 1 in 20 chance is perhaps a bit high for veteran warrior, the chance is always there. And it should be part of the game.

    Unless we are talking the anime/power-fantasy "I must be invincible or I'm not gonna enjoy myself" stuff (or "it should be possible to defeat my build only by things that have level X-2 or better!"). In that case, I'm outta here
    Last edited by Lacco; 2017-11-22 at 09:45 AM.
    Call me Laco or Ladislav (if you need to be formal). Avatar comes from the talented linklele.
    Formerly GMing: Riddle of Steel: Soldiers of Fortune

    Quote Originally Posted by Kol Korran View Post
    Instead of having an adventure, from which a cool unexpected story may rise, you had a story, with an adventure built and designed to enable the story, but also ensure (or close to ensure) it happens.

  3. - Top - End - #303
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Jun 2016

    Default Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm

    Quote Originally Posted by Pelle View Post
    What would you think of a house rule where when you roll a 1, you get the option to re-roll, and if you fail on that you get a critical fumble? If you don't want to fumble, just don't take the re-roll.

    I can't understand it, but some people feel they are worse off when they are given an extra option to take a risk.
    In the system that I am currently running (Savage Worlds) a critical fumble on a warrior means that they have damaged their weapon, a critical fumble on a mage means that they injure themselves. And the critical fumble chance is considerably lower, ranging between 4% for the unskilled and 0.8% for the hyper-competent.
    Firm opponent of the one true path

  4. - Top - End - #304
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Max_Killjoy's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    The Lakes

    Default Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm

    Quote Originally Posted by lacco36 View Post
    I understand that this goes against any power-fantasies, but...

    ...in real combat? You risk injuring or killing yourself. Even with your own weapon. There's just so many variables...

    You can get your finger crushed during parrying (happened to my friend during friendly sparring match because he put his finger little too forward during bind), you can slip and not only sprain your ankle but cut into your shin, you can swing and forget there's a shelf that your weapon can get stuck on if you overswing (happened to me *while practicing at home*, my wife almost killed me), you can step into a hole in the ground and fall on your own sword handle face-on, your weapon can get beat so hard it flies to your face...

    ...ok, maybe it's just my clumsiness

    ...and while I agree the 1 in 20 chance is perhaps a bit high for veteran warrior, the chance is always there. And it should be part of the game.

    Unless we are talking the anime/power-fantasy "I must be invincible or I'm not gonna enjoy myself" stuff (or "it should be possible to defeat my build only by things that have level X-2 or better!"). In that case, I'm outta here
    The "You just want an unbeatable power fantasy!" caricature rears its ugly head yet again. Maybe it's time to let the poor thing rest for a few decades...

    There are plenty of ways that combat is dangerous and risky for RPG characters, and plenty of "opportunities" for setback and failure, that don't require shoehorning in hackneyed random "you hit yourself with your own weapon" or "you just happen to drop your weapon" events.
    Last edited by Max_Killjoy; 2017-11-22 at 10:04 AM.
    It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.

    Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.

    The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.

    The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.

  5. - Top - End - #305
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Jun 2016

    Default Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm

    Quote Originally Posted by Max_Killjoy View Post
    The "You just want an unbeatable power fantasy!" caricature rears its ugly head yet again. Maybe it's time to let the poor thing rest for a few decades...

    There are plenty of ways that combat is dangerous and risky for RPG characters, and plenty of "opportunities" for setback and failure, that don't require shoehorning in hackneyed random "you hit yourself with your own weapon" or "you just happen to drop your weapon" events.
    The words from their example literally just appeared on the previous page. The biggest problems that I see are 1) poor fluffing on critical failures by GMs and 2) the fact that in D&D and several other systems the probability doesn't alter based on user skill or weapon type. However more in line with this thread is the fact that warriors have to worry about them and no other archetype does (aka doesn't apply to skills or magic). So in D&D and more specifically 3.X I definitely agree that it should be removed.
    Last edited by Tinkerer; 2017-11-22 at 10:23 AM.
    Firm opponent of the one true path

  6. - Top - End - #306
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Zanos's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm

    Quote Originally Posted by lacco36 View Post
    You can get your finger crushed during parrying (happened to my friend during friendly sparring match because he put his finger little too forward during bind), you can slip and not only sprain your ankle but cut into your shin, you can swing and forget there's a shelf that your weapon can get stuck on if you overswing (happened to me *while practicing at home*, my wife almost killed me), you can step into a hole in the ground and fall on your own sword handle face-on, your weapon can get beat so hard it flies to your face...
    Cool.

    How many demons have you killed, exactly?

    Legendary demon slaying heroes shouldn't trip and sprain their ankle. And it definitely shouldn't be more likely the more legendary they are (4 attacks per round vs 1).
    Last edited by Zanos; 2017-11-22 at 10:39 AM.
    If any idiot ever tells you that life would be meaningless without death, Hyperion recommends killing them!

  7. - Top - End - #307
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Max_Killjoy's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    The Lakes

    Default Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm

    Quote Originally Posted by Tinkerer View Post
    The words from their example literally just appeared on the previous page. The biggest problems that I see are 1) poor fluffing on critical failures by GMs and 2) the fact that in D&D and several other systems the probability doesn't alter based on user skill or weapon type. However more in line with this thread is the fact that warriors have to worry about them and no other archetype does (aka doesn't apply to skills or magic). So in D&D and more specifically 3.X I definitely agree that it should be removed.
    I'm having trouble finding the post where those words occur and actually link opposition to random fumbles with wanting to be invincible or be immune to all possible failure on the part of the person voicing the opposition.
    It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.

    Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.

    The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.

    The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.

  8. - Top - End - #308
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm

    Just as it is with randomly exploding when trying to cast a spell, there are many better ways to introduce risk, danger and tension into martial combat than a 5% chance to trip over your shoelaces every time you make an attack. And that's true whether we're talking about a gritty realistic system, an action-packed fantasy one or anything in between or off to the side. "Random mishaps" versus "risk-free" power trip is a false dichotomy the size of an adult gold dragon. In addition to being condescending and dishonest.
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Ashen Lilies. Sigatars by Ashen Lilies, Gullara and Purple Eagle.
    Interested in the Nexus FFRP setting? See our Discord server.

  9. - Top - End - #309
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Jun 2016

    Default Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm

    Quote Originally Posted by Max_Killjoy View Post
    I'm having trouble finding the post where those words occur and actually link opposition to random fumbles with wanting to be invincible or be immune to all possible failure on the part of the person voicing the opposition.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosi
    This is just "low level enemies scale off the RNG". I think this should be a continuous process that happens throughout the game so that a Level X character is always immune to Level X - N characters, give or take a level or two.
    Not specifically referring to fumbles however since the viewpoint was shared it explicitly states that this is an expectation that some people within this thread have.

    Back when I was running D&D I often fluffed critical fumbles quite differently based on the level. For a high level warrior against a high level opponent I would quite often fluff it as leaving a gap in their defenses which an opponent immediately took advantage of as a free action, or the warrior getting knocked back by the sheer weight of an opponents attack.

    I am quite curious as to where people keep getting that "the warrior attacks and injures themselves" from. Fumbles haven't been an official D&D rule for almost 20 years... actually come to think of were they even in 2nd edition? Anyways since 3rd at least it has always been an optional variant. And even within those optional variants it hasn't been "the warrior attacks themselves", it's been the warrior loses their next turn or something equivalent. We can't fix a rule which doesn't exist.

    EDIT: Yeah that's what I thought, they were never a rule in D&D. So not really relevant for discussions on how to change the caster beats mundane paradigm.
    Last edited by Tinkerer; 2017-11-22 at 11:40 AM.
    Firm opponent of the one true path

  10. - Top - End - #310
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    Goblin

    Join Date
    Feb 2017

    Default Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm

    Interesting Topic.

    To solve the Issue i would make Martials a bit better, they should get showy Warriory Stuff like Great Cleave, for free. Basically cutting down on the Insane Feat Taxes in Pathfinder for example would help a lot.

    When it comes to Magic, i have a different Idea altogether. Remove Spell Slots. Casters can cast all Day. BUT Magic should be more Risky the more Powerfull it is AND require Rare Material Components which the Caster first would have to collect. Now Wizard is like the Fighter really equipment depandent. Magic should not be easy or Safe. Also no Spell stacking, you can only be affected by one beneficial Spell Effect at the same Time. Also many Spells need to be made more Interesting, some Spells like Forcecage are just like: Well unless you have a Teleport/specific countermeasure with you, you just lose. Thats boring. Or the Fly Spell. Can't Fly? Haven't invested in Ranged Attacks?

    Some Examples:
    The Common Fireball only needs a bit of bat Guano. Yes you have to carry a lot of Bat excrement around with you. Now getting that is trivial, but like an Archer you now are limited in the Number of Shots you can take, and enemies can take away your ammunition.

    Teleportation
    If you want to Teleport Safely you need 5 Casters, with at least one at a certain High Lvl, and three Days of Work, to Draw Magical Circle, to arrive at your Destination unscathed, as well as a Unicorns Horn and a Scale of a Green Dragon. If you do this alone you can draw the Circle in 1 Hour, but you have 50% chance of ending up anywehre on the World, or even another Plane.

    Animate Dead
    You can Make as many Undead as you want, but each Undead requires 1 Gallon of Virgins blood to animate. Also high concentrations of Negativ Energy attract other Undead. So don't be suprised if Vampires show up if you run around with a Zombie army. The more Undead you have the more Undead you Draw to yourself, which get increasingly Powerfull. Some may be friendly, others will try to kill you and take over your Army.

    Dominate Person
    The Person being controlled here gets a save every Rounds, and can still think/Speak, but it has to obey the Caster, on a Made Save, the Dominated Person, can act like itself for 1 Round, but the Effect Still persists, until the Rest of the Day. This makes Dominate Person sooooooo much more Interesting, and makes for Nice Drama. (I,... can't control myself! Run! Leave me and Run!), (No! I will rather die than be your Slave! *coup the Graces himself*).

    Time Stop
    You literally Stop Time, and you can do ANYTHING you want. But such a Disruption of Space Time, calls an Army of invitables on your Ass, very very quickly. You also need the Hour Glass of a Grim Reaper, the Howl of a Banshee, a Nail from a Lich, and the Head of a very Powerful (Cr17 or higher) Invitable being to use this Spell.


    Maze Spell
    You put all Enemies you can see in an Extradimensional Maze, where they trapped, until they find their way into the Middle of the Maze, where a Sphinx sits. If they can answer the Riddle of the Sphinx, the they leave the Maze, and they can decide to appear directly near the Mage that trapped them. Also since they answered the Riddle of the Sphinx they can take a Powerfull Boon/Magic Weapon with them to slay the Caster that trapped them. This Boon/Weapon exsists/stays Active for a Number of Days equal to the Caster Lvl of the Caster that cast Maze.

    Summoning in general
    I really hate those, "yeah i snap with my Finger and Stuff just happens" Spells. Summoning Demons Should NEVER be Safe, or quick. You can Summon and Bind Demons, but there is a 50% Chance that the Demon breaks free. During his bound time you roll a percentile Dice every Day, to see if the Demon breaks free. Though nothing compels him to Attack immideatly, he can wait until he sees you in Peril. High Lvl Demons get a Chance to break free practically Every Round. The higher Lvl you get the lesser the Chance for the low Lvl Demons, but it should never be under 10%. Also you need, the Name of the Demon, and components again.

    Devils would be another matter, because they always have to keep their contracts, and will do so to the letter! However they follow the same rules.

    The mightier the Magic, the Worse the Drawback.

    Magic would still be Interesting and VERY Powerfull, but limited in it's practicallity. If you need a Dragons Heart, a Genies Tear, and an Angels Feather to cast Wish, just getting Components for the High Lvl Caster will be Quests on their own right. The GM can also directly intervine here, since Spells that would destroy the Story, will just not have their Components avivable. Also due the only 1 Buff Rule, Wizards and other Casters would be far more Fragile, and would depend on their Martial buddies more.

    Mudanes, will get their moments of Awesome all the Time, when they slay Dragons, to get the Casters their Components, and being All around Badasses all the Time. The Magic Users will still be very usefull all the Time, and they will get their Moments of Awesome, when they worked to get those Components together, and they finally can cast the Big Fat Spell off Mass Destruction.


    Magic right now in pathfinder is far too easy controlled and Safe. Magic should be more Wild, dangerous and hard to use.

  11. - Top - End - #311
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    GreatWyrmGold's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    In a castle under the sea
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm

    Spoiler: Cosi
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosi;22592983Different power levels allow you to tell different stories. You cannot do [I
    Chronicles of Amber[/I] if you do not mandate that all the PCs have plane shift. All characters are defined by their power level. Lord of the Rings happens the way it does because Gandalf can't cast teleport. The Second Apocalypse happens the way it does because Khellus can.
    You're not completely wrong, but you're not remotely right.
    First off, under no circumstances should a character be entirely defined by power, whether it's the power to defeat kingdoms single-handedly or the power to cut through wolverine claws and stuff. Your claimed character concept is all about the power fantasy. There's nothing wrong with wanting a power fantasy, but don't claim that it's a character and expect me to believe you.
    Second, power level influences plot, but it doesn't create plot, and it sure as HFIL doesn't create character. Speaking of HFIL, let's look at the original power levels. Dragon Ball started with Goku at a superhuman level of strength, able to lift cars and boulders but not to destroy mountains or anything like that. By the time of DBZ, planets were fair game for blowing up, Broly destroyed a galaxy, and as of Dragon Ball Super, universes are on the line. It's hard to argue that there aren't meaningful power level differences across the series, even if scouters have been long forgotten. Yet you still have much the same characters going through much the same plots.
    Or let's look at DC and Marvel. For a while, DC heroes were ridiculously powerful (aside from Batman, but his levels of preparation should probably count as a superpower) while Marvel heroes were relatively grounded. I mean, yeah, the Hulk was holding up mountains, but the top-tier DC heroes could casually move planets around. I could talk about the similarities between the two companies' stories and characters, but while that's a valid point, I'd instead like to bring up how Marvel has been subtly increasing the power levels of their heroes to "catch up" in the Who Would Win battles that people seem so weirdly passionate about. But does this matter? No. The Hulk is moving continental plates instead of mountains, but he's still the same Hulk doing the same smashing. For that matter, compare the Silver Age's madness (e.g, Superman sneezing planets around) to more modern comics. Sure, the stories told have changed, but not because of power levels so much as comics taking themselves seriously; the more serious Silver Age stories have modern parallels, and their characters are still essentially the same.
    But let's keep superheroes in mind for a second, because you're conflating two different ideas of power. You say that LotR happens the way it does because Gandalf can't teleport. Neither can Superman. That's part of his power set, but not his power level. Understand the difference? Your description of how all your specific abilities tied together was:
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosi View Post
    So in summary, you have someone who can plausibly destroy an entire kingdom on a whim, demolish any army that stands against him, has swarms of animal minions, and can beat down the most powerful servants of gods.
    That's power level, not power set. You could easily have the same power set at a different power level by tweaking how things work (say, by adding prep time or reducing numbers), but then you wouldn't be able to easily destroy kingdoms and armies, you wouldn't have a swarm of minions, and godly servants wouldn't be your bitches.

    No one ever asks people to justify why not having polymorph is important to their character concept. Why should I have to justify why having polymorph is important to mine?
    First off, see "power set vs. power level". Second, if your character is an actual character, it doesn't matter if you character has polymorph or not. They don't have to justify it because it doesn't matter.

    Spoiler: Max Killjoy
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by Max_Killjoy View Post
    You can have those "not magical" characters, and spellcasters who are balanced to be viable in the same game, and a setting that is not incoherent and not dissonant.
    You can have spellcasters on par with 3.5e casters, and fighters and rogues that aren't spellcasters but are still magic for that setting and can keep up with those spellcasters, and a setting that is not incoherent and not dissonant.
    You can have spellcasters on par with 3.5e casters, and "not magical" fighters and rogues that aren't spellcasters but can still keep up with those spellcasters without any magic at all, and a setting that has people being able to do those things baked into its "physics", and is not incoherent and not dissonant.
    You can have spellcasters on par with 3.5e casters, and "not magical" fighters and rogues that aren't spellcasters but can still keep up with those spellcasters without any magic at all, and a setting that doesn't reflect that and IS incoherent and IS dissonant... that is, objectively bad worldbuilding.
    You can have spellcasters on par with 3.5e casters, and "not magical" fighters and rogues that aren't spellcasters and cannot keep up with those spellcasters, and accept the imbalance between character types, and a setting that is not incoherent and not dissonant.
    What you CANNOT have is spellcasters on par with 3.5e casters, "not magical" fighters and rogues that aren't spellcasters but can still keep up with those spellcasters without any magic at all, no reflection of that in the worldbuilding, AND a setting that makes any damn sense at all.
    Something has to be sacrificed.
    The first thing to sacrifice is your verbosity. The second...well, D&D's vanilla worldbuilding is already threadbare at best and definitely not what people are playing the game for, so it's another good sacrifice. Skim the Monster Manual, full of ideas from a dozen mythologies and a hundred nightmares, each of which went through several permutations (sometimes just from edition to edition, sometimes taking ideas from works earlier editions inspired), and tell me it isn't an enormous kitchen sink before a single PC steps into the world.

    Quote Originally Posted by Max_Killjoy View Post
    The "You just want an unbeatable power fantasy!" caricature rears its ugly head yet again. Maybe it's time to let the poor thing rest for a few decades...
    One of the people in this thread described their character concept as "I can raze kingdoms and crush armies and slay the greatest servants of the gods". What do you call that?


    Quote Originally Posted by Zanos View Post
    Cool.
    How many demons have you killed, exactly?
    Legendary demon slaying heroes shouldn't trip and sprain their ankle. And it definitely shouldn't be more likely the more legendary they are (4 attacks per round vs 1).
    I get where you're coming from, but I have to disagree on principle. Even the greatest experts can screw up. Look up the cosmological constant sometime.
    "Legendary heroes don't just screw up" is a perfectly valid genre element that you can incorporate into your game, and saying "We're not doing fumbles because it goes against what I want our game to feel like" is valid. Saying "We're not doing fumbles because heroes can't screw up" is another thing entirely.

    P.S. Max Killjoy, what would you call wanting to be a legendary demon-slaying hero who is immune to making mistakes?
    P.P.S. No, the cosmological constant isn't dark energy. The two concepts have only a surface-level resemblance, and Einstein didn't throw in the constant because the universe's expansion was accelerating--he did it for close to the opposite reason.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Blade Wolf View Post
    Ah, thank you very much GreatWyrmGold, you obviously live up to that name with your intelligence and wisdom with that post.
    Quotes, more

    Winner of Villainous Competitions 8 and 40; silver for 32
    Fanfic

    Pixel avatar by me! Other avatar by Recaiden.

  12. - Top - End - #312
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Zanos's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm

    It's not about not making mistakes, it's about not making stupid mistakes, like literally tripping and spraining your ankle.
    If any idiot ever tells you that life would be meaningless without death, Hyperion recommends killing them!

  13. - Top - End - #313
    Banned
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2015

    Default Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm

    Quote Originally Posted by Glorthindel View Post
    The problem is the hypocrisy - you complain that someone suggests that your character concept shouldn't exist, but then immediately turn around and say that other peoples character concept (those who want to play bad-ass mundanes) shouldn't exist.
    You're being confused by (admittedly confusing) terminology. When I'm saying "game" in those posts, I mean the game system. I don't care what the power level of your personal game is any more than I care whether your personal game includes Druids or Legacy Weapons or Twig Blights or whatever other thing that exists in the game system. My problem is with people who want to remove things from the system because they don't fit into their games. So really, the hypocrisy is coming from the other side. I want the system to support both mundane and magical characters, even if a given group can't support both at the same time. Talakeal on the other hand wants the game system to exclude anything that a mundane wouldn't be able to beat.

    So lets lay off the "players of Rogues and Fighters can just f*** off" 'solutions'.
    In favor, of course, of the "players of Wizards and Druids can just f*** off 'solutions'".

    Quote Originally Posted by Frozen_Feet View Post
    This actually false. Just in discussions like this thread, examples abound: "Why it important your Fighter not use magic?" "Why is it important your Wizard not use a crossbow?" "Why is it important your telekineticist not be able to change shape?" "Why is it important for your Wizard to not be able to use healing magic?"
    Those are class distinctions. No one is asking people to justify why the game should support "badass mundane". That archetype is being taken as a given. So why do you need to justify the other end?

    Quote Originally Posted by Max_Killjoy View Post
    You can have spellcasters on par with 3.5e casters, and fighters and rogues that aren't spellcasters but are still magic for that setting and can keep up with those spellcasters, and a setting that is not incoherent and not dissonant.

    You can have spellcasters on par with 3.5e casters, and "not magical" fighters and rogues that aren't spellcasters but can still keep up with those spellcasters without any magic at all, and a setting that has people being able to do those things baked into its "physics", and is not incoherent and not dissonant.
    These things are not actually different. If you can do something, doing that thing is baked into "physics", because "physics" is just "our model of the world" and your model of the world necessarily includes all the things people in the world can do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zanos View Post
    Cool.

    How many demons have you killed, exactly?

    Legendary demon slaying heroes shouldn't trip and sprain their ankle. And it definitely shouldn't be more likely the more legendary they are (4 attacks per round vs 1).
    This. The story of how you lost because you accidentally shot yourself in the foot is not a good story. If you went to go watch Justice League and the conclusion was that Steppenwolf decapitated himself while smashing up a city, would you find that remotely satisfying?

  14. - Top - End - #314
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Jun 2016

    Default Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm

    Quote Originally Posted by Footman View Post
    Snip
    This is a possibility which has come up many, many times in the past. It is normally shot down. This was the exact solution which lead to Grod's Law. "Grod's Law: You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use." By implementing it you make things worse since instead of reigning in the casters power you have instead wrapped the entire campaign around the caster. "If we want to go and fight the lich I guess we have to go on these 50 side quests for the mage first."

    It seems great but trust me it is just a bad idea.
    Firm opponent of the one true path

  15. - Top - End - #315
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm

    Quote Originally Posted by Max_Killjoy View Post
    ...
    There are plenty of ways that combat is dangerous and risky for RPG characters, and plenty of "opportunities" for setback and failure, that don't require shoehorning in hackneyed random "you hit yourself with your own weapon" or "you just happen to drop your weapon" events.
    You are correct, in the sense that simply missing in combat is potentially life-threatening fumble as it allows an opponent to act for longer.

    The corollary to that is that in dangerous situations, magic simply not being a surefire thing is sufficient to introduce much-desired risk into the game.

    There are only two major reasons to add fumbles, or any other carrier effects, on failures:

    1) to speed up play by preventing long chains of "nothing happens".
    2) to create situations which wouldn't otherwise emerge from the game rules. For example, in combat, you don't need a fumble for the Fighter to drop their weapon, because a miss gives their enemy an opportunity to disarm them, creating the same result. But if swinging your sword at a wall, the wall is not legitimate user of "disarm" action, so under the simplest rules your sword could never be broken or fly off your hand. So a new rule needs to be added if it is acknowledged and desired that yes, if you swing your sword at a wall long enough and hard enough, something might happen.
    "It's the fate of all things under the sky,
    to grow old and wither and die."

  16. - Top - End - #316
    Librarian in the Playground Moderator
     
    LibraryOgre's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    No, it's "more magic" because there is no such thing as mundane. There is no "magic-user/muggle" divide. Everyone and everything embodies magic. If somehow you had an antimagic field, the area itself would cease to be. Creation itself is made of magic.

    I think this is a much better way to go. Separate "casters" from "non-casters," (a separation of how, not what, they can do) but abandon the idea that there are non-magical "muggles" (at least as player characters). Having one group of characters whose concept is "can do anything" and another who are inherently limited to "things normal people can do" is a good way to cause a mess. Instead, let everyone be "magical," just in different ways.
    Which gets us back to 4e... If my High-Int Warlord knows Ritual Magic and keeps up with his Ritual Book, he's just as good of a spellcaster as a Bard or a Cleric. Give them the same ritual book and they can all do the same "magical" things, but their class powers will differ... but, being as they're all Leaders, there will be a lot of similarity in the mechanics of those, too (why I chose bards over wizards for the example, in fact).

    Does the appearance of a Bard's, Warlord's, and Cleric's powers differ? Sure. But all of them have a way to give someone a Healing Surge plus something extra.
    The Cranky Gamer
    *It isn't realism, it's verisimilitude; the appearance of truth within the framework of the game.
    *Picard management tip: Debate honestly. The goal is to arrive at the truth, not at your preconception.
    *Mutant Dawn for Savage Worlds!
    *The One Deck Engine: Gaming on a budget
    Written by Me on DriveThru RPG
    There are almost 400,000 threads on this site. If you need me to address a thread as a moderator, include a link.

  17. - Top - End - #317
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    GreatWyrmGold's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    In a castle under the sea
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm

    Quote Originally Posted by Zanos View Post
    It's not about not making mistakes, it's about not making stupid mistakes, like literally tripping and spraining your ankle.
    Everyone makes stupid mistakes. They're misnamed; you don't need to be stupid to make them.
    Take tripping, for instance. Just about everyone on this forum has decades of experience walking, yet sometimes they screw up. Maybe it's tough to see, maybe they're distracted, maybe something else is impairing them, but it happens. It's not because we're stupid, it's because we're imperfect, and because walking in the real world is trickier than it is in theory, because the real world is a douche.
    Now, magnify that. People walk for hours most days of their life, but warriors rarely have real, life-and-death fights, and they might not even spar daily. (They certainly got a later start on learning, and will retire sooner.) Battles, by their very nature, tend to make things tough--tough to perceive (quickly enough, at least), tough to focus (especially if your opponent is tricky or not just one guy), and tough not to get impaired by fatigue or wounds or whatever. The legendary hero isn't stupid--they're just imperfect, and in a world which is not doing anything to make their job easier.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cosi View Post
    In favor, of course, of the "players of Wizards and Druids can just f*** off 'solutions'".
    Do you understand what "nerf" means? It doesn't mean "render the target worthless," it means "bring them in line with everyone else". Wizards and druids won't be able to single-handedly raze kingdoms anymore, and they'll need help to defeat the most powerful servants of the gods, but they won't be incapable.

    Those are class distinctions. No one is asking people to justify why the game should support "badass mundane". That archetype is being taken as a given. So why do you need to justify the other end?
    So, wait.
    You ask why people don't feel the need to justify why their characters can't use specific abilities.
    Frozen Feet responds with an explanation which points out that certain groups of characters can justify not being able to use groups of abilities.
    Logically, this would include specific characters within those groups not being able to use specific abilities within those groups. So, you naturally...complain that he's doing too much?

    These things are not actually different. If you can do something, doing that thing is baked into "physics", because "physics" is just "our model of the world" and your model of the world necessarily includes all the things people in the world can do.
    I've been arguing with you a lot, so I figured I'd point out a place where we agree.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Blade Wolf View Post
    Ah, thank you very much GreatWyrmGold, you obviously live up to that name with your intelligence and wisdom with that post.
    Quotes, more

    Winner of Villainous Competitions 8 and 40; silver for 32
    Fanfic

    Pixel avatar by me! Other avatar by Recaiden.

  18. - Top - End - #318
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    Goblin

    Join Date
    Feb 2017

    Default Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm

    Quote Originally Posted by Tinkerer View Post
    This is a possibility which has come up many, many times in the past. It is normally shot down. This was the exact solution which lead to Grod's Law. "Grod's Law: You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use." By implementing it you make things worse since instead of reigning in the casters power you have instead wrapped the entire campaign around the caster. "If we want to go and fight the lich I guess we have to go on these 50 side quests for the mage first."

    It seems great but trust me it is just a bad idea.
    Too keep things Fair, enemies need the same Components as well. So MR. Lich has maybe One or Two really Powerfull Components laying around, next to his normal Spells. Of course the Challenges you set need to be challanges, that can be overcome from mundanes mostly as well. Challanges that are like "haha you need this Exact Spell or GTFO" are bad. The Components for the really Powerfull Spells would essentially Turn into Plot Points. btw: Casters would get thos components as loot just like the Fighter gets a shiney new Sword.

    I know that right now there are many challanges that a basically "have this Magic option or you automatically loose." These of course need to be changed and have the same limitations.

    So sorry, no 50 Side Quest. By then the Cultists will have Sarificed the Princess! Oh whats this, they have a friggin Black Dargon! And now they are summoning a mighty Demon too! Wait, if we kill that Dragon, isn't his Heart just the component you need for that Banishment Spell? Yes, Yes quick now!"

    EDIT: And as loot he would find the Components for a Meteor Swarm Spell, where he can rain Down Hell, once whenever he chooses.
    Last edited by Footman; 2017-11-22 at 12:14 PM.

  19. - Top - End - #319
    Banned
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2015

    Default Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatWyrmGold View Post
    First off, under no circumstances should a character be entirely defined by power, whether it's the power to defeat kingdoms single-handedly or the power to cut through wolverine claws and stuff. Your claimed character concept is all about the power fantasy. There's nothing wrong with wanting a power fantasy, but don't claim that it's a character and expect me to believe you.
    That's not what I said. What I said is that I want to be able to tell stories at a particular power level. I gave a bunch of examples of stories like that. Maybe you could look at those examples.

    But let's keep superheroes in mind for a second, because you're conflating two different ideas of power. You say that LotR happens the way it does because Gandalf can't teleport. Neither can Superman. That's part of his power set, but not his power level. Understand the difference? Your description of how all your specific abilities tied together was:
    That was a summary. You can tell by my use of the phrase "in summary", which is used to indicate that something is a summary. This is a thread about what the power level of the game should be, not whether some particular character or other is compelling, so obviously the focus is on the question "how powerful should a high level character be" not "what are the desires, beliefs, and challenges faced by this particular Druid".

    I'm not sure what you want here. It's clearly not "what kinds of powers does this character have", because I said that -- "nature powers" and "demon powers" -- and you kept right on trucking. It's clearly not "a conceptual justification for having those powers", because I gave that -- a primal approach to nature that draws from Warhammer's chaos through a shared opposition to civilization and restraint -- and you kept right on trucking. It's clearly not "a set of stories you can tell that are particular to that character rather than similar ones", because you have rejected "stories with that character work differently" as an answer to your question.

    So what exactly are you looking for?

    First off, see "power set vs. power level". Second, if your character is an actual character, it doesn't matter if you character has polymorph or not. They don't have to justify it because it doesn't matter.
    Yes, it does. Your character is not just a list of beliefs. It's also the actions he takes. The abilities you have matter because they change how your character can be actualized. If you take away Tony Stark's engineering talent, he's not the same character even if he still has the same personality and desires. Because if he doesn't have that engineering talent, when he's locked in a cave and told to make weapons he f****** dies. Because the abilities matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatWyrmGold View Post
    Do you understand what "nerf" means? It doesn't mean "render the target worthless," it means "bring them in line with everyone else".
    Do you understand what "buff" means? It doesn't mean "make the characters exactly the same", it means "bring them in line with everyone else". Fighters and Barbarians will be able to punch out gods, and they'll have powers that let them change the course of battles, but they'll still be badass.

    Wizards and druids won't be able to single-handedly raze kingdoms anymore, and they'll need help to defeat the most powerful servants of the gods, but they won't be incapable.
    Telling me "you can have your character, you just can't raze kingdoms" is not a solution if the story I want to do is The Incursions. Because the ability to raze kingdoms (actually, worlds) is a prerequisite to be involved in that plot (as a PC). Telling me "you can have your character, you just can't travel to other planes" is not a solution if the story I want to do is The Chronicles of Amber. Because the ability to travel to other planes is a prerequisite to be involved in that plot. Telling me "you can have your character, you just can't fight the gods" is not a solution if the story I want to do is Dominions. Because the ability to fight other gods is a prerequisite to be involved in that plot.

    If you don't want the game to support my concept, fine. But be honest about it. Don't insist that you can take powers away from a character and have the same character because that is obviously false.

    Frozen Feet responds with an explanation which points out that certain groups of characters can justify not being able to use groups of abilities.
    Yes, and you can justify having the abilities I've described. But where exactly are the calls for the system excluding people who don't have polymorph? Because I'm not making those calls, and as far as I can tell I'm taking the most radically pro powerful characters position in this thread.

  20. - Top - End - #320
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Corvallis, OR
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosi View Post

    I'm not sure what you want here. It's clearly not "what kinds of powers does this character have", because I said that -- "nature powers" and "demon powers" -- and you kept right on trucking. It's clearly not "a conceptual justification for having those powers", because I gave that -- a primal approach to nature that draws from Warhammer's chaos through a shared opposition to civilization and restraint -- and you kept right on trucking. It's clearly not "a set of stories you can tell that are particular to that character rather than similar ones", because you have rejected "stories with that character work differently" as an answer to your question.
    "Nature powers" isn't very much of a "kind of power." It's super-duper vague. Anything can be fluffed as a nature power, or a demon power, or... If your only limitation is that you can convince the DM that it fits your broad theme, then it's not much of a limitation and might as well not exist. Choosing a theme should both open doors and close doors. Opportunity costs and trade-offs make for better games.
    Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
    Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
    5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
    NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
    NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.

  21. - Top - End - #321
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Max_Killjoy's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    The Lakes

    Default Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm

    Quote Originally Posted by Tinkerer View Post
    Not specifically referring to fumbles however since the viewpoint was shared it explicitly states that this is an expectation that some people within this thread have.

    Back when I was running D&D I often fluffed critical fumbles quite differently based on the level. For a high level warrior against a high level opponent I would quite often fluff it as leaving a gap in their defenses which an opponent immediately took advantage of as a free action, or the warrior getting knocked back by the sheer weight of an opponents attack.

    I am quite curious as to where people keep getting that "the warrior attacks and injures themselves" from. Fumbles haven't been an official D&D rule for almost 20 years... actually come to think of were they even in 2nd edition? Anyways since 3rd at least it has always been an optional variant. And even within those optional variants it hasn't been "the warrior attacks themselves", it's been the warrior loses their next turn or something equivalent. We can't fix a rule which doesn't exist.

    EDIT: Yeah that's what I thought, they were never a rule in D&D. So not really relevant for discussions on how to change the caster beats mundane paradigm.
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatWyrmGold View Post
    Spoiler: Max Killjoy
    Show


    The first thing to sacrifice is your verbosity. The second...well, D&D's vanilla worldbuilding is already threadbare at best and definitely not what people are playing the game for, so it's another good sacrifice. Skim the Monster Manual, full of ideas from a dozen mythologies and a hundred nightmares, each of which went through several permutations (sometimes just from edition to edition, sometimes taking ideas from works earlier editions inspired), and tell me it isn't an enormous kitchen sink before a single PC steps into the world.


    One of the people in this thread described their character concept as "I can raze kingdoms and crush armies and slay the greatest servants of the gods". What do you call that?



    I get where you're coming from, but I have to disagree on principle. Even the greatest experts can screw up. Look up the cosmological constant sometime.
    "Legendary heroes don't just screw up" is a perfectly valid genre element that you can incorporate into your game, and saying "We're not doing fumbles because it goes against what I want our game to feel like" is valid. Saying "We're not doing fumbles because heroes can't screw up" is another thing entirely.

    P.S. Max Killjoy, what would you call wanting to be a legendary demon-slaying hero who is immune to making mistakes?
    P.P.S. No, the cosmological constant isn't dark energy. The two concepts have only a surface-level resemblance, and Einstein didn't throw in the constant because the universe's expansion was accelerating--he did it for close to the opposite reason.

    Well my ignore list explains why I'm not finding the "ultrapower" posts, and to be frank it's past pointless endless circular "discussions" about power levels and discrepancies that finally lead to that particular addition to my ignore list out of raw frustration at statements very much like those evidently being made here about how certain sorts of characters are supposedly supposed to be ultrapowerful and godlike and that's supposedly the whole point of the game.

    As for "verbosity", based on past experience the alternative is yet another multipage derail over terminology and wording.
    It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.

    Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.

    The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.

    The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.

  22. - Top - End - #322
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Max_Killjoy's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    The Lakes

    Default Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm

    Quote Originally Posted by Frozen_Feet View Post
    You are correct, in the sense that simply missing in combat is potentially life-threatening fumble as it allows an opponent to act for longer.

    I'd say that "fumble" in this context has a specific meaning, and it's best to not conflate it with "missing is dangerous".

    Quote Originally Posted by Frozen_Feet View Post
    The corollary to that is that in dangerous situations, magic simply not being a surefire thing is sufficient to introduce much-desired risk into the game.

    There are only two major reasons to add fumbles, or any other carrier effects, on failures:

    1) to speed up play by preventing long chains of "nothing happens".
    2) to create situations which wouldn't otherwise emerge from the game rules. For example, in combat, you don't need a fumble for the Fighter to drop their weapon, because a miss gives their enemy an opportunity to disarm them, creating the same result. But if swinging your sword at a wall, the wall is not legitimate user of "disarm" action, so under the simplest rules your sword could never be broken or fly off your hand. So a new rule needs to be added if it is acknowledged and desired that yes, if you swing your sword at a wall long enough and hard enough, something might happen.
    1) If "nothing happens" for long stretches, it's often because the opponents are evenly matched, or because the people playing the characters aren't going outside a very small box. Introducing random comedic pratfalls isn't going to improve that beyond "hey, someone died faster".

    2) At least from that example, the random complication isn't necessary for that sort of stupidity on the part of the character to have an effect.
    It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.

    Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.

    The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.

    The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.

  23. - Top - End - #323
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2017

    Default Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm

    Quote Originally Posted by Footman View Post
    Too keep things Fair, enemies need the same Components as well. So MR. Lich has maybe One or Two really Powerfull Components laying around, next to his normal Spells...
    Two huge problems with this.

    First, npcs won't have to face annoying sidequests to get their components. 99% of the time, they'll just have them. Even if you abstract the components away to just a gp price, you still have the npc burning treasure the pcs would get from winning every time they cast a spell.

    Second, getting back to the main discussion, is the fact that we're talking about the wizard. Someone defined by their role. If a spell in Call of Cthulhu risks ability damage and/or summoning a demon to eat your face, that's more okay. The characters have their primary archetypes, spells are risky resources instead of your main shtick, and nobody's role is the spellcaster.

    Going to Shadowrun, that gives a better idea how costs and risks can be arranged without being overly punitive. The gunbunny always has a chance of fumbling, but the chance noticeably goes down as skill goes up. The magician can cause serious or even fatal injury to themselves if they really push their limits, but for the most part they pay a small cost of being a bit winded. (And while SR has its own issues, it also reminds me that the d&d wizard/cleric style is not the norm. Most games make it costly or impossible for the caster archetype to have a broad spell selection.) But SR is at least proof of concept that it's possible to have a casting cost without bring overly onerous and/or undermining caster concept characters.

  24. - Top - End - #324
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    GreatWyrmGold's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    In a castle under the sea
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm

    Spoiler: Cosi
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosi View Post
    That's not what I said. What I said is that I want to be able to tell stories at a particular power level. I gave a bunch of examples of stories like that. Maybe you could look at those examples.
    I have. None of them are defined first and foremost by their power level. Heck, the only decent characters I can think of defined primarily by their power level are side characters built as ideals for the protagonists to look up to and Saitama...and the latter only works because the entire story is built around it (things like how being that powerful makes him feel, and how it doesn't get him what he wants, and whatnot).

    That was a summary.
    Summaries generally go over the parts which are considered most important. The fact that you only talked about how much overwhelming power your character had in the summary is, I feel, quite telling.

    This is a thread about what the power level of the game should be--
    Actually, it's not. It's about ways to make sure that everyone in the game is at the same power level.

    I'm not sure what you want here. It's clearly not "what kinds of powers does this character have", because I said that -- "nature powers" and "demon powers" -- and you kept right on trucking.
    ...
    It's clearly not "a set of stories you can tell that are particular to that character rather than similar ones", because you have rejected "stories with that character work differently" as an answer to your question.
    So what exactly are you looking for?
    Did...did you read my post?
    I'm looking for a reason why your character can only exist with that particular set of powers, if the concept for his powers is just "nature powers and demon powers". I never argued with the existence of those two powersets or their inclusion together, only why that needed to be the set of powers you mentioned and why the sheer power was so danged important to you that it was all you mentioned in your summary.

    Yes, it does. Your character is not just a list of beliefs. It's also the actions he takes. The abilities you have matter because they change how your character can be actualized. If you take away Tony Stark's engineering talent, he's not the same character even if he still has the same personality and desires.
    That much is true. However, he's essentially the same character whether his engineering talent extends to semi-practical inventions which he uses to defeat down-to-earth criminals, physics-shattering giant mecha which he uses to punch out lesser gods, or anything in between. Moreover, I'd argue that what makes Tony Stark Tony Stark (and not, say, Bruce Wayne or Bulma Briefs) is his personal life outside his powers--things like his hedonism and how his actions lead to him not trusting in uncontrolled vigilantes like himself.
    TL;DR: If your character concept doesn't rely on being able to raze kingdoms, shatter armies, and slay the gods' greatest servants, power level doesn't matter. Stop conflating power level with power set.

    Because if he doesn't have that engineering talent, when he's locked in a cave and told to make weapons he f****** dies. Because the abilities matter.
    So, wait. You think it's absolutely critical to the story of Iron Man that he was, specifically, locked in a cave, told to make weapons, and broke out with a suit of power armor strong enough to deflect bullets? Is this true, or am I reading something wrong?

    Do you understand what "buff" means? It doesn't mean "make the characters exactly the same", it means "bring them in line with everyone else". Fighters and Barbarians will be able to punch out gods, and they'll have powers that let them change the course of battles, but they'll still be badass.
    First...do you know what "strawman" means? I have never argued that all characters should be exactly the same; in fact, I've argued the exact opposite! I'm starting to suspect that you don't actually care what I'm saying, aside from the fact that it's opposed to what you believe.
    Anyways, the problem isn't that martial characters can't do everything that the casters can; it's that the casters can do more stuff than the martials, and do it better. Martial characters will never be able to single-handedly raze a kingdom, nor defeat any but the smallest or stupidest of armies, and they certainly can't defeat the greatest servants of the gods (let alone the gods themselves), no matter what you assert. If they could do those things, tiers wouldn't exist. (Probably.)

    Telling me "you can have your character, you just can't raze kingdoms" is not a solution if the story I want to do is The Incursions. Because the ability to raze kingdoms (actually, worlds) is a prerequisite to be involved in that plot (as a PC). Telling me "you can have your character, you just can't travel to other planes" is not a solution if the story I want to do is The Chronicles of Amber. Because the ability to travel to other planes is a prerequisite to be involved in that plot. Telling me "you can have your character, you just can't fight the gods" is not a solution if the story I want to do is Dominions. Because the ability to fight other gods is a prerequisite to be involved in that plot.
    Remember what I was saying about Iron Man's story? This is what I'm talking about.
    Incursions (if it's the one I think you're talking about) isn't just a story about a few people going around destroying worlds. It's a story about a catastrophe which threatens everyone, where all parties involved fight and destroy each other in order to try and keep their own group alive a little longer. Aside from the "cleaning up our jumbled multiverse" angle, the same story could have been told on a smaller scale. Off the top of my head: An apocalyptic titan has come, and it will destroy anywhere that doesn't make enough blood sacrifices to it, so different nations start raiding each other. Or a kingdom starts to freeze, so people start killing their neighbors and burning their houses.
    Chronicles of Amber isn't just about world-hopping, though if it was a few seconds' thought would reveal that the same could be accomplished by travelling to different places within one world/galaxy/unusually large city/whatever. But beyond that, it's a story about a man with amnesia discovering his past and claiming the power he feels should be his, then defending his realm from outside threats. Yes, this involves going from world to world to get things he needs or to deal with threats, but it shouldn't be hard to see that the actual location of these things is hardly essential to the plot. It would be much the same if Avalon and the Courts of Chaos and Earth and whatnot were replaced by different islands around the continent of Amber, or if they were different planets in a space opera, or even if they were different cities scattered across a harsh wilderness.
    If the Dominions you're talking about is the one I found when Googling "dominions kill gods," well...its story is basically equivalent to Civilization or Age of Empires, crossed with a divine succession crisis. You could make a 4X game loosely based on the Westeros plot of A Song of Ice and Fire and have it work much the same, narratively and mechanically. Focusing on narrative, most of these works could fit the bill.
    You seem to have a bad habit of latching onto some cool, surface-level element that you like and assuming that it's a core part of the narrative. But it's not, any more than skin color is a core part of skeletal structure. Sure, skin color has some indirect impact on the skeleton--they're part of a complicated interconnected system--but you can have essentially the same skeleton under any color of skin.

    If you don't want the game to support my concept, fine. But be honest about it. Don't insist that you can take powers away from a character and have the same character because that is obviously false.
    ...What?

    Yes, and you can justify having the abilities I've described. But where exactly are the calls for the system excluding people who don't have polymorph? Because I'm not making those calls, and as far as I can tell I'm taking the most radically pro powerful characters position in this thread.
    I'm not sure what you're talking about here, either. Though given that I didn't understand your argument here in the first place, that's not surprising.


    Spoiler: Max Killjoy
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by Max_Killjoy View Post
    Well my ignore list explains why I'm not finding the "ultrapower" posts, and to be frank it's past pointless endless circular "discussions" about power levels and discrepancies that finally lead to that particular addition to my ignore list out of raw frustration at statements very much like those evidently being made here about how certain sorts of characters are supposedly supposed to be ultrapowerful and godlike and that's supposedly the whole point of the game.
    Ah.
    I might have to follow in your footsteps.

    As for "verbosity", based on past experience the alternative is yet another multipage derail over terminology and wording.
    Okay, fair enough. I've been guilty of the same. (Though I tend to prefer making shorter, more complicated statements instead of repeating variations on the same simple one. Personal taste, of course.)
    Quote Originally Posted by The Blade Wolf View Post
    Ah, thank you very much GreatWyrmGold, you obviously live up to that name with your intelligence and wisdom with that post.
    Quotes, more

    Winner of Villainous Competitions 8 and 40; silver for 32
    Fanfic

    Pixel avatar by me! Other avatar by Recaiden.

  25. - Top - End - #325
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Zanos's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatWyrmGold View Post
    Everyone makes stupid mistakes. They're misnamed; you don't need to be stupid to make them.
    Take tripping, for instance. Just about everyone on this forum has decades of experience walking, yet sometimes they screw up. Maybe it's tough to see, maybe they're distracted, maybe something else is impairing them, but it happens. It's not because we're stupid, it's because we're imperfect, and because walking in the real world is trickier than it is in theory, because the real world is a douche.
    Now, magnify that. People walk for hours most days of their life, but warriors rarely have real, life-and-death fights, and they might not even spar daily. (They certainly got a later start on learning, and will retire sooner.) Battles, by their very nature, tend to make things tough--tough to perceive (quickly enough, at least), tough to focus (especially if your opponent is tricky or not just one guy), and tough not to get impaired by fatigue or wounds or whatever. The legendary hero isn't stupid--they're just imperfect, and in a world which is not doing anything to make their job easier.
    Characters aren't real people. More importantly D&D characters are not ASoIaF characters. Typically D&D characters don't wrestle in the mud for a piece of bread and stab eachother in the face with rusty nails. You're describing level 2 human warriors(an npc class), not level 10 fighters.

    Again as highlighted above, the paladin tripping over his improperly secured shinguard and impaling himself through the eye with his holy avenger is not interesting. It's slapstick, at best, and blatantly unfun. Not always succeeding isn't the same as constantly fumbling.
    Last edited by Zanos; 2017-11-22 at 01:30 PM.
    If any idiot ever tells you that life would be meaningless without death, Hyperion recommends killing them!

  26. - Top - End - #326
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    GreatWyrmGold's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    In a castle under the sea
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm

    Quote Originally Posted by Zanos View Post
    Characters aren't real people.
    True, but making a change from "real people" should be an intentional choice based on the style of game you want to run, not the default you need to change away from.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Blade Wolf View Post
    Ah, thank you very much GreatWyrmGold, you obviously live up to that name with your intelligence and wisdom with that post.
    Quotes, more

    Winner of Villainous Competitions 8 and 40; silver for 32
    Fanfic

    Pixel avatar by me! Other avatar by Recaiden.

  27. - Top - End - #327
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Zanos's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatWyrmGold View Post
    True, but making a change from "real people" should be an intentional choice based on the style of game you want to run, not the default you need to change away from.
    D&D(and most RPGs, actually) is pretty explicitly a high magic land of epic heroes, where a single man can cut down 50 and live. That's been the "style" of most RPGs for decades. The vast majority of games are not about the playesr playing as the 5,000 starving peasants that die on the battlefield armed with pitchforks and dressed in rags. You can do something super low fantasy loaded with gritty realism, but it's actually not the norm in the genre because of the very conceits the setting needs to work. Specifically, that the PCs are generally more interesting and important than Joe the Mud Farmer.
    Last edited by Zanos; 2017-11-22 at 01:35 PM.
    If any idiot ever tells you that life would be meaningless without death, Hyperion recommends killing them!

  28. - Top - End - #328
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Lacco's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Slovakia
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm

    Quote Originally Posted by Tinkerer View Post
    The words from their example literally just appeared on the previous page. The biggest problems that I see are 1) poor fluffing on critical failures by GMs and 2) the fact that in D&D and several other systems the probability doesn't alter based on user skill or weapon type. However more in line with this thread is the fact that warriors have to worry about them and no other archetype does (aka doesn't apply to skills or magic). So in D&D and more specifically 3.X I definitely agree that it should be removed.
    Couldn't agree more - especially about no.2.

    Considering human factor failure rate decreases tenfold between "untrained" and "trained", a veteran should have much lower chance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zanos View Post
    Cool.

    How many demons have you killed, exactly?

    Legendary demon slaying heroes shouldn't trip and sprain their ankle. And it definitely shouldn't be more likely the more legendary they are (4 attacks per round vs 1).
    And I agree with you!

    A demon-slaying hero could trip only if the whole floor is covered in slimy demon blood - but he should be able to ignore the sprained ankle. But these examples were not given for a demon-slaying hero.

    Considering I'm level -1 at best and the friend I mentioned is somewhere around LVL 1 or 2, these examples could be used for maybe level 0-3.

    But... a demon-slaying hero still could overswing and hit & destroy an adjacent pillar, leading to the collapse of the ancient temple. Or jam the damn sword two feet deep into wall. Or even stick it so deep into the demon he loses grip and the sword sticks from the surprised demon's body

    Considering the opponents he faces, even a miniscule opening can be exploited - missed step is much worse when fighting high-level enemies.

    And yes, the worst part is if a system increases the chances of fumble the more skilled the fighter is. That needs some serious fixing (there are systems that lower the probability with increase of combatants' skill).

    I'm not against demon-slaying legendary heroes. I'm all for them - but even those guys should fumble once in a while. How often? Definitely much less than us, negative level guys

    EDIT: Also, I'm one of the guys who plays games where 5000 peasants die on battlefield... that's why I usually provide low-magic solutions/examples.

    EDIT 2: @GreatWyrmGold: As someone who still gets tunnel vision during sparring, I agree on most points. I'm quite proud of my footwork, yet I stumble too often when trying to coordinate everything at once. Practice makes it better. So, complete agreement.

    @Max_Killjoy: Apologies for the caricature. I agree that a productive discussion does not lie that way - and I'm off to tend to my games
    Last edited by Lacco; 2017-11-22 at 01:46 PM.
    Call me Laco or Ladislav (if you need to be formal). Avatar comes from the talented linklele.
    Formerly GMing: Riddle of Steel: Soldiers of Fortune

    Quote Originally Posted by Kol Korran View Post
    Instead of having an adventure, from which a cool unexpected story may rise, you had a story, with an adventure built and designed to enable the story, but also ensure (or close to ensure) it happens.

  29. - Top - End - #329
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Jun 2016

    Default Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm

    Quote Originally Posted by Zanos View Post
    D&D(and most RPGs, actually) is pretty explicitly a high magic land of epic heroes, where a single man can cut down 50 and live. That's been the "style" of most RPGs for decades. The vast majority of games are not about the playesr playing as the 5,000 starving peasants that die on the battlefield armed with pitchforks and dressed in rags. You can do something super low fantasy loaded with gritty realism, but it's actually not the norm in the genre because of the very conceits the setting needs to work. Specifically, that the PCs are generally more interesting and important than Joe the Mud Farmer.
    Which is why the problem is really in the fluff of the fumble. People keep presenting it as some comedy slapstick routine featuring a bumbling hero when what it really means is either your character made a slight error in attacking or something happened. Maybe they swung their sword too hard and the enemy dodged, causing the blade to be embedded in the nearby table. Maybe they missed the swing and left a split second critical opening allowing the enemy a free attack. Maybe there was a circumstance which was entirely beyond the control of the PC such as when fighting in the middle of a collapsing flying castle the ground gave way under the fighters foot causing them to go crashing to the floor below. That is what a fumble means to me and I've seen situations similar to those in nearly all high fantasy unrealistic settings in fiction.

    And just to remind people again, the fumble is not a rule in a most RPGs, including D&D. The fact that it has stuck around as much as it has should be enough to prove that people seem to really want it for some reason, which is why I re-implemented it in several games after removing it.
    Firm opponent of the one true path

  30. - Top - End - #330
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Max_Killjoy's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    The Lakes

    Default Re: Changing the "Caster beats Mundane" paradigm

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatWyrmGold View Post
    Okay, fair enough. I've been guilty of the same. (Though I tend to prefer making shorter, more complicated statements instead of repeating variations on the same simple one. Personal taste, of course.)
    Forgot to answer this -- what I was trying to do there was lay out a set of differing options in such a way that I covered all the bases and got down to "but the one thing you can't do is have your cake and eat it too."
    It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.

    Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.

    The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.

    The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •