Teh Storm's blog

Reality- your basis for understanding

2010-10-29T21:41:07Z

I have heard on this site over and over again that D&D is just a game and that reality should not factor into game mechanics. I agree with the first part, but it is the second that pisses me off. Without an element of reality, any table top gaming system is in the dark with a bunch of confused people staring around at each other.

1 Fact 1- Reality is the Base Line
2 Fact 2- Reality is the Best Secondary to Rules
3 Fact 3- Reality Prevents Absolute Ridiculousness
4 Fact 4- Reality is Fucking Insane

Fact 1- Reality is the Base Line Edit

Like it or not, reality is the only life experience anyone has anything to base anything else on. Take the following sample:

As you splortch afog the egenquack, you skik a brogen wiggersnat on the floberous guggle itchilating your zatch. What do you do?

No really, what do you do? Anyone? I will be very surprised if anyone without some form of mental disease would have any fucking idea whatsoever what to do. In the poem "the Jabberwocky" we find that nonsense can make some sense if given meaning. In fact, we gamers have this very poem to thank for our various vorpal weapons. But we still need a hint of meaning, and reality is the most convenient and costs less than drugs.

Fact 2- Reality is the Best Secondary to Rules Edit

Question- how much damage does a character take in the vacuum of space? Is it once or per round? What type? What is the Heal DC? Is there a save?

I have never found a rule, cannon or otherwise, that answers any of these questions. And these aren't exceptional circumstances. And unless you are playing FATAL, there is always going to be a hole in the rules. And where the rules don't go, you need something as a backup. Reality suits this perfectly, because everyone has experienced or can find someone who has experienced some aspect of reality. You could easily divine the answers of the above questions with a google search. And if you reverse engineer the rules using reality as a starting point, the rules can make sense.

That said, there will always be someone disappointed. Professional climbers are never happy with D&D climbing rules. In a group I'm running I have a guy who was a corrections officer and has lived and breathed conflict for a solid 25 years or so, and he hates the combat system to death. And his background in physics often results in arguments about how much damage things do. But if a perfect gaming system existed, we would all hate it.

Fact 3- Reality Prevents Absolute Ridiculousness Edit

There is a skit from Seth Green's Robot Chicken that demonstrates this point well:

A terrified man is walking through the woods at night. When a werewolf jumps out, the man screams and shoots the WW with a pistol. "Ha HA! Only a silver bullet can kill me!" the wolf boasts. The man then pulls out a minigun. All the wolf can say is "oh" before he is shot repetitively. The wolf tries to take cover in the trees but is soon reduced to a bloody pulp, which the the man scoops into a bucket and sets on fire. The man goes home and snorts the ash. Then he takes a dump. Then we get to see our lovely waste purification system at work. And then we see a bunch of little nerds sitting around playing D&D, the GM explaining to one of the players, "I'm sorry, the rules say it has to be a silver bullet." In frustration the player screams, "WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!"

And I doubt that anyone here would agree with the GM. I would leave the table and find a new group at that point. As I had to before. Mostly this is a problem I see with munchkin groups that formed because they can't handle reality, and I note that these games are often composed to prepubescent to preteen players. In the groups I play with now I am often accused of being the rules lawyer that can't tear his nose away from gaming books. I regret how I got into gaming (*cough* KODT *cough*) and strive to be a better gamer as well as a better person in all life's aspects. And part of that maturity is understanding that rules by themselves can cause true and absolute stupidity.

Here is the gaming maturity test that I failed the first time I took it:

1- Do you need rules to have fun?

2- Who are the rules in place to keep in line: the player or the GM?

Fact 4- Reality is Fucking Insane Edit

Reality is awesome. Reality has real adventure sites with disturbing histories, standard adventuring equipment for sale, real monsters (including dire animals), and ancient conspiracies that have spanned generations! Seriously, anytime you get bored with the standard dungeon crawl, try throwing something from real life in and it will scare the shit out of everyone!

Play to the Goal: Why D&D Kicks ASS! (unless you like reality)

2010-10-06T08:10:47Z

There are a variety of systems out there for role players that display a wide range of systems from the heavily detailed to the over simplified. Here is what I see as the pros and cons of D&D, if not D20 in general:

1 The Level System
2 Combat
3 Character Variety
4 My Conclusion

The Level SystemEdit

D&D operates on a skill level system that determines a maximum limit on a characters traits and a way to divide up special abilities to certain skill rankings. This makes character power increase suddenly and across the board, making more skilled characters stronger, more skilled, better in their capabilities, and more survivable than their lesser counterparts. This is a fun system for fantasy play and often has me thinking of the various Final Fantasies. But it can and does result in some retardedness that makes me queazy sometimes. By D&D standards, if your favorite smith can make masterworks without rolling, he can beat the living shit out of your veteran fighter. In fact, wiping out merchants row would probably yield as much XP as taking out a 3rd to 6th level dungeon. But if a GM decides to band aid it by filling the world with low level characters, then we face problems. Like merchants- in any D&D world, a merchant would be a very decent career that could let characters advance to 15th level, at least. D&D roads are dangerous, bandit and monster infested, and link together cities filled with thieves and sewer monsters. But flipping through Races of Destiny, the only place where a typical merchant is given stats as a monster, I see that all D&D merchants average at... 2nd Level? WTF!!!

On top of this, there is hit points going up in level. Again, great for a FF game, but terrible for realism. A human-sized creature can, at most, have 20 hit points. Thus, if you wanted to make a very realistic D&D game, the hit points you have now at 1rst level are all you get. I have played in such a game, and it was very realistic. But, it requires a major modification to the crux of many level based systems- more experienced characters are harder, if not impossible, to kill. When in real life, a shot gun used by Chuck Norris's love child with Superman and Mr. T gets the same amount of dead as you and your baby when tied up and decapitated by a shotgun. Thus, I have to conclude any level based system is bad for realistic play.

Combat Edit

D&D combat is annoying. According to D&D, I, the Storm (Fighter 1/Rogue 2) would get only one attack in 6 seconds if I only made a slow advance of 5 feet. Which is the same number of attack I would get if I jogged 30 feet or calmly drew my sword before striking. And yet, I timed myself and this is what I found I can do in 6 seconds:

I can walk 30 feet and make 3 accurate strikes.

I can run 80 feet, making five accurate attacks along the way, and finish with a powerful lunge or leaping downward strike.

I can make 10 accurate attacks while advancing 7 feet, pause to take a breath, set up for a power strike that can cleave through three inches of wood with no resistance, and execute it.

Fire and cock a pistol crossbow, but not reload it.

Grab, roll and throw, pin down, and strike a target a 6 times.

It is very clear to me and those like me that none of the Wizards on the Coast have ever been in a fight or touched a weapon, archaic or modern. In the sense of what a combatant can do, D&D is the three-year-olds fanfic version.

But it is good for the high fantasy mortal combat duel. Played like it's supposed to every other attack deals damage that for some reason does not hinder fighting ability or risk tetanus, is very flashy and favors outlandish maneuvers, and lets people do shit they can't in a real fight, like hold a conversation. (Seriously, throw a donut in a cops face and try to say clearly "no, this isn't right, this is illegal police brutality." I can almost promise you it will sound completely unintelligible as he proceeds to beat your face in with a flashlight.)

Character Variety Edit

I love the awesome potential D&D has for characters. By selecting from race, class, and alignment, then assigning feats, spells and skill points, nearly any fantasy hero you can imagine can come about. But what blows my mind is some of the completely stupid shit that gets created by this process.

I like most of the races out there. The elven subraces, Hadozee, genasi, demon born, centaurs... the list goes on. But some races are just plain WTF. Like many of the races in the Book of Erotic Fantasy. For those unfamiliar with this one, all I can say is the title is only slightly more dirty than it is, but it is still the go-to book for campaigns that get within ten feet of PG-13. But past all the rules there are two things that annoy me in there, and one of them are the new races. I like that this is the only book that gives options past the generic "fiend-blooded" by giving a difference between the devil and demon blooded. But then it goes into Felids... WTF?!? It isn't even a race, just a template that can be added to other races. And those aren't even the only ones! You can also give your elf a template that makes it a reptilian humaniod. Why? No really, if there are any commenters that can tell me why and how it would happen, please tell me.

Also, while I love prestige classes, I HATE extra bases classes. The original thirteen are great and cover many of the bases of heroic fantasy, especially once you throw feats and variant features into the mix. But the new bases classes that WotC have made are retarded. The Duskblade? How is that balanced? Same problem with the Warlock, only it doesn't even have the excuse to the Duskblade of appearing in heroic literature. The Ninja- a rogue that sucks in even more situations! The Scout- because Rangers don't get extra damage by running in circles! The Dragon Shaman- because my 1rst level magic user can't destroy a village yet! The Spellthief- because I'd like Ray to pick my spells for me. The most laughable ones come from the Book of Erotic Fantasy- three new classes, so that you too can be either a porn star with spells, a porn star with monk abilities, or a porn star with divine spells.

My Conclusion Edit

I like D&D for fantasy play, even if there are details that don't make sense, which is why I will continue to play it. But I also recognize other gaming needs, and D&D will never fit them. So instead of of gutting D&D of ALL its stupid bits, I'll be lazy and switch to a different system that will be easier to tweak. Thank you.

Diplomacy: a skill that should involve role playing

2010-10-04T18:05:32Z

Negotiation and diplomacy: only the most munchkiny, hack festival, break down the door, hardcore mercenaries of war groups have never had a use for it. And yet I think making it a skill and a die roll is a mistake, if not only for the following reasons:

First, the actual skill is flawed in it's write-up. Taking a look at the rolls and DCs, I can see a 10th level bard that never needs to enter combat simply by announcing he is using diplomacy and converting everyone he meets into friendly groupies waiting on his every word. There is no scaling DC, no contested roll of any sort, no will save, and yet it duplicates the effects of some of the games most useful spells. While this is not bad in and of itself, it becomes bad when one reaches the "never roll" skill threshold. Even groups that want to keep the diplomacy skill should need a rewrite of it to keep it from becoming game breaking. I recommend this variant for any who agree with me so far but do not like the other options.

I think that a lot of skills and actions make more sense as ratings. As it is, a first level character has a small chance to make a red dragon friendly and helpful, discover gun powder, and remember that the arch villain of the campaign is deathly allergic to celery. To create a rating, just assume that a character is always taking 10 on certain actions. This is great for reducing the abuse of other skills and makes standard event like ambushes easier. For example, lets assume the Jay the Bard is shopping for a good deal and is haggling with a merchant. If the merchant has a good diplomacy rating, then that might be a signal to the GM that this merchant has thus far been able to sell at 50% above market price with no complaints. But if Jay has a good diplomacy rating, too, than maybe he can haggle the merchant down to base price. Lower if Silent Bob succeeds on an intimidate check...

This also aids role play, as there is less die rolling. While this variant can lead to some unfortunateness, like the shy kid being asked to talk to the scary GM because his character has the best rating, a quick reference to the character sheet as well as what is actually said can allow role play to resolve many situations. And emphasis on "what is actually said", because I think that should be a determining factor in whether a diplomacy check wins or fails. Offering 10,000 gold for a serfs hat should always succeed, just as offering not to take a dump on the throne in exchange for a night with the queen should always fail. Also, diplomacy does not seem to allow haggling, as there is no chance for a counter offer. You either succeed or fail in convincing someone and it's done. Same problem with fast talk and groveling. In addition, there should be some form of contested roll if rolls are to be involved. I like the idea of a will save or sense motive, but I could also see another diplomacy (counter offer), intimidate (threat), or a bluff (deception) as very viable options, although I do prefer a rating system for these skills as well.

So, in summery, diplomacy is and should be a viable skill, but not as it is written. Thank you.--Teh Storm 18:05, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

Strategy: Real vs. Metagaming

2010-10-04T07:54:13Z

I've said it once, and I'll say it one more time: if a strategy involves dice, it is not strategy. Here's why:

Rolling dice is random. Always. This introduces an element of chaos. People have tried to explain to me that chaos is bad for strategy and planning. I have never argued against this, and agree with it completely. No, the problem is when in the same breath they start mentioning how they flank to get die bonuses and blah blah blah. I honestly think that they had contracted amnesia at this point. Once you are in game die rolling, be it combat or shopping, you have sworn away any rights to choice in the outcome, throwing caution to the wind and letting fate and chance decide for you. This is really shitty strategy. Gaining bonuses only dress up this shit to make it seem less shitty. So please, follow my thought process out of the shit and into the deep water.

From here on in my focus is D&D. While the principals work in any game, or in life, for now we are narrowing our focus. We established that die rolling is bad for strategy. So, where is the next step? Forcing the other guy to roll dice should come to mind. If rolling dice sucks, then make the people you don't like suck and force them to take chances. While it is not widely announced, all spell casters are powerful because this of this: spells force others to roll dice. Think about: the fighter and rogue spend their actions making attacks on orcs, then the wizard simply announces he is using fireball. Now everyone is sweating, because now everyone but the wizard is rolling dice to avoid the damage the wizard is doing.

But from here let's say that you are just the friendly local orc barbarian, and don't have crap for magic. So you are stuck in the die rolling crap shoot, right? NO! You too have options! Again, die rolling being bad, we have to look over options for mundane methods of getting the job done. Ah, coup de grace! "The Touch of Mercy" that deals maximum damage with no attack roll. If killing people is your goal, this is the prime way to do it. So, how do you get a coup de grace? You set them up. If you can stake out a location long enough to get the guard shifts down, good. If you found a hole in the shifts that you can sneak in with, better. If you know where the guards nap, great. If you know where they keep their food and can poison it, excellent. And if you know the boss executes incompetent guards and make the poison a sleep inducer, perfect! Of course, they need not be elaborately set up. If you can sneak up behind the guard and slit his throat, don't set up some bull shit Scooby Doo distraction and ambush/trap unless that can kill more guards more efficiently.

Which brings up my final point in strategy: resources. If you can set it up so that you aren't even there when shit hits the fan, do it. Set off traps, rig mines, start negotiations out of bow range as an ally takes a walk and scans for snipers, coat a field in oil and throw a fireball or flaming arrow from way the hell and gone. My personal favorite: get outsiders involved. If you are fighting orcs who have the princess you are supposed to rescue, ask for some knights from her realm, start a war, and sneak her out as they are fighting. Oh, and make sure the dragon that lives in the nearby mountain knows that orcish mercenary dragon slayer will be in this keep, and the pretty girl is the bait they are going to use to poison her. That will make so many things work better. The further away you are from harm and blame, the longer you will live.

I recognize that die rolling is inevitable in gaming. When a giant fucking worm pops out and eats your favorite torch bearer, there is no time to set up and ambush and back up: this IS the ambush! While die rolling is a shitty way to go about solving problems, all I can say is when one is deep shit, shit is all they have and better start flinging.

Thank you.--Teh Storm 07:54, October 4, 2010 (UTC)