Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2017 22:22:36 GMT -5
STILL fast on my feet for somebody as old and pudgy as I am!
|
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Darci on May 15, 2017 22:25:14 GMT -5
STILL fast on my feet for somebody as old and pudgy as I am! You're old and pudgy!  My whole mental image of you was just shattered, TMI @gronanofsimmerya TMI!  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2017 22:26:19 GMT -5
Hey, I make it look good!
I was once told I look like a Bond villain who has retired and gone good.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2017 22:44:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Darci on May 15, 2017 22:50:38 GMT -5
Hey, I make it look good! I was once told I look like a Bond villain who has retired and gone good. Emilio Largo or Nick Nack or Jaws? |
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Darci on May 15, 2017 22:52:45 GMT -5
That is 6 and a half years ago, so you are telling us you have gotten pudgy in the last 6 and a half years since that picture was taken?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2017 23:04:22 GMT -5
Awww, you're so sweet. I used to weigh about 185, now I'm about 260.  |
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on May 15, 2017 23:06:28 GMT -5
Awww, you're so sweet. now I'm about 260. That's even older than I! |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 16, 2017 3:14:17 GMT -5
Awww, you're so sweet. now I'm about 260. That's even older than I! But not wider, erm, i meant wiser... |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 16, 2017 7:08:11 GMT -5
Awww, you're so sweet. now I'm about 260. That's even older than I! I thought that you testified elsewhere that you were at least 400 years old? |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 16, 2017 7:27:38 GMT -5
That's even older than I! I thought that you testified elsewhere that you were at least 400 years old? It depends, as time-slipping can be "forwards" or "backwards," and we have seen both states with him! |
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on May 16, 2017 7:32:58 GMT -5
That's even older than I! I thought that you testified elsewhere that you were at least 400 years old? In dog years. Since I'm always in the doghouse. |
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on May 16, 2017 10:26:56 GMT -5
This is an interesting point, Rob. And begs us to ask the question, if such persons (monsters, 50th level warriors, whatever) could survive that long, how could they possibly be taken out by a critical (or single) hit? Yet, such instances, in literature, have repeatedly shown that such things certainly do not make the reading thereof, un-readable. Achilles, Smaug, Goliath, were all taken out with a simple shot. Were the stories less enjoyable because of such? Should games be less playable because of such? or is it that we all just haven't agreed upon the proper method/mechanic for such actions?
As is usual,
t.e.h.o.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2017 10:34:18 GMT -5
Games aren't stories.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 16, 2017 11:05:02 GMT -5
This would have been my answer to the jump CCC made, though perhaps less concise.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2017 12:17:47 GMT -5
Games also aren't simulations of reality. To judge the strength of a rule based on its ability to scale well between purely theoretical extremes of play and still reflect plausible reality is an academic exercise. The whole point of the 'open system' is that the tools of the game arise when and where they are needed, and if they are not adequate in a given situation then they are amended or replaced. If 6000 characters jump into a fight together, it doesn't actually matter how many fumbles or critical hits might come up in 6000 standard combats, because there will be no standard combats. There will be a separate form of combat that is designed to handle the possibilities of combat at that scale.
I don't mean that to be snarky, I just think it's worth thinking about as a design philosophy.
|
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on May 16, 2017 14:23:12 GMT -5
This is not only where simulation meets playability, but where they run smack-dab into enjoyment. It doesn't mean Favor the PCs, since epic and/or heroic deaths can bring cheers from players and kibbutz erstwhile. It does mean that the principle of a gamesmaster, far more than a referee, is possibly the longest leap that Arneson (intuitively? trial-and-error? logically?) made.
|
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on May 17, 2017 0:01:49 GMT -5
This would have been my answer to the jump CCC made, though perhaps less concise. I didn't say they were. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 17, 2017 9:59:49 GMT -5
Games also aren't simulations of reality. To judge the strength of a rule based on its ability to scale well between purely theoretical extremes of play and still reflect plausible reality is an academic exercise. The whole point of the 'open system' is that the tools of the game arise when and where they are needed, and if they are not adequate in a given situation then they are amended or replaced. If 6000 characters jump into a fight together, it doesn't actually matter how many fumbles or critical hits might come up in 6000 standard combats, because there will be no standard combats. There will be a separate form of combat that is designed to handle the possibilities of combat at that scale. I don't mean that to be snarky, I just think it's worth thinking about as a design philosophy. Yes, in one sense alone, that "games are not simulations of reality". However fair a gesture that comes from only one side of the aisle, from the "games as pure abstraction for enjoyment" clan. The other clan was around in my day and before then (i.e., the simulationists) and their views and peoples and theories persist to this day. I fall somewhere in the middle depending on what one is attempting to represent within a game or games, and that is a wildly expansive category indeed. |
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on May 17, 2017 11:49:35 GMT -5
I'm not sure if I am even in the same building, let alone on one side of the aisle or another, in regards to any decades long debate regarding Dungeons & Dragons.
I've always, simply, thought of it as--some kind of a game.
I am willing to listen to intelligent discussion and argument regarding any and all components of the game. But in the end, and from all that I have taken away from the philosophical sub-text of it, is,
that-- I can make up whatever I want about it, how I want it to be for me and any that participate in my approach to it, and as long as we are enjoying ourselves, then we shouldn't give a rats ass what anyone else thinks of us, nor care about their attempts to explain to us how and why we are doing it wrong.
If this isn't, at least part of, the fundamental principle to spending our free time and energies pursing the benefits of playing the (or any) game, then I've never understood any of it at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Darci on May 17, 2017 14:22:17 GMT -5
TEHO is an energy drink manufactured by Olvi company of Finland. "Teho" is Finnish and means "efficiency" or "power" in English. It contains caffeine, taurine, guarana, maltodextrose and a small amount of B vitamins. |
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on May 17, 2017 15:05:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on May 17, 2017 15:07:27 GMT -5
No idea how that Google link got in there and I can't get it out.
So-called smart virtual keyboard.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 17, 2017 15:11:57 GMT -5
I'm not sure if I am even in the same building, let alone on one side of the aisle or another, in regards to any decades long debate regarding Dungeons & Dragons. I've always, simply, thought of it as-- some kind of a game. I am willing to listen to intelligent discussion and argument regarding any and all components of the game. But in the end, and from all that I have taken away from the philosophical sub-text of it, is, that-- I can make up whatever I want about it, how I want it to be for me and any that participate in my approach to it, and as long as we are enjoying ourselves, then we shouldn't give a rats ass what anyone else thinks of us, nor care about their attempts to explain to us how and why we are doing it wrong.If this isn't, at least part of, the fundamental principle to spending our free time and energies pursing the benefits of playing the (or any) game, then I've never understood any of it at all. In which case this topic was null and viid to begin with, no? |
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on May 17, 2017 15:17:30 GMT -5
For the most part. But I may be mistaken of the intent of the OP's query. You'd have to ask'em.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 17, 2017 15:51:10 GMT -5
Well, in that light I will assume that it is either a party of opinions or a glee club meeting. |
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on May 17, 2017 17:32:22 GMT -5
Well, in that light I will assume that it is either a party of opinions or a glee club meeting. Rats! I was hoping for an ice cream social. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 17, 2017 17:38:46 GMT -5
Well, in that light I will assume that it is either a party of opinions or a glee club meeting. Rats! I was hoping for an ice cream social. Oh there's still ice cream at both functions; the latter one sees it gleefully consumed with aplomb. The former sees it melt as everyone argues about which flavor is best... Edit: To stay on topic, this completes the circuit of realism vs. playability (via ice cream). |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 18, 2017 8:34:52 GMT -5
No idea how that Google link got in there and I can't get it out. So-called smart virtual keyboard. Google gets into everything, don't blame the keyboard, Google is like a virus or a parasite. |
|
|
|
Post by Hexenritter Verlag on Feb 7, 2018 3:30:29 GMT -5
I allow critical hits - double damage or a cleave of a shield if it is wood & the player has a axe, hammer, pick or two-handed sword; if it is metal only with a magical cleaving weapon if the creature carries one & the PC sees the benefit (a high HD monster with shield or hard to hit AC + shield).
If the critical hit kills a 1 HD* or lower creature, they get another attack if the creature is 1 HD or lower & within 5' of the PC; the maximum that this can be used is equal to the PC's Con bonus - in OD&D that = 1 additional attack or up to 3 additional attacks if the PC rolls a Natural 20 each time. No save or die unless it is undead & is hit on a natural 20.
*: 1 HD includes 1 HD+/-__ modifier. They are just a bit tougher than a standard 1 HD creature.
|
|
My whole mental image of you was just shattered, TMI @gronanofsimmerya TMI! 
