|
Post by The Master on Mar 10, 2018 12:40:33 GMT -5
But I don't usually mark the adventure location on the area map. So no matter which way the party wanders, they just happen to end up at the adventure location anyway. That's interesting, I prefer sandbox play myself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2018 13:05:17 GMT -5
I disagree, I don't see it as a potential tool. This tap and no discussion thing won't fly with me. On the other hand I have never witnessed a child, even when playing with adults, hesitate to forward their opinion while playing a game. No sweat. Opinions differ all the time. I have seen players who were hesitant to speak up, though they tended to come out of their shell and really blossom after playing the game a few sessions. To me? That’s one of the great strengths of RPGs! It really aids people in developing social skills. At any rate? I’d certainly be the last to tell the referee an idea which seems to work well at his table is a bad idea.
|
|
|
Post by raikenclw on Mar 11, 2018 21:16:13 GMT -5
But I don't usually mark the adventure location on the area map. So no matter which way the party wanders, they just happen to end up at the adventure location anyway. That's interesting, I prefer sandbox play myself. I've found that the term "sandbox" means different things to different people. For me, it means that the players get a hex map with mountains, rivers, coastlines, cities/towns, political borders and other such mundane information marked upon it. This is almost never an actual physical object in the game, but is rather simply a handy reference tool for the players and GM, in that it is meant to represent what Everyone Knows about the local area. Marked on this map will also be entries in the nature of "The Dark Forest," "Ruined Ancient City," "Bottomless Pit of Doom," etc. The players are free to explore wherever they wish . . . because only rarely have I decided *what* any of those mysterious locations really are yet. That's why I say that - if I have the time to work out a detailed adventure before a given session - I deliberately don't link it to a particular marked location on the map. This way, whichever way the players end up going, I'm able to drop in the adventure at a suitable point along their way. [NOTE: I use the same basic procedure in my science fiction games, except that the hex map shows the relative locations of entire star systems - rather than mountains, rivers, oceans, etc - along with a paragraph or two about conditions (physical and sociopolitical) in each system.]
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on Mar 12, 2018 7:31:14 GMT -5
That's interesting, I prefer sandbox play myself. I've found that the term "sandbox" means different things to different people. For me, it means that the players get a hex map with mountains, rivers, coastlines, cities/towns, political borders and other such mundane information marked upon it. This is almost never an actual physical object in the game, but is rather simply a handy reference tool for the players and GM, in that it is meant to represent what Everyone Knows about the local area. Marked on this map will also be entries in the nature of "The Dark Forest," "Ruined Ancient City," "Bottomless Pit of Doom," etc. The players are free to explore wherever they wish . . . because only rarely have I decided *what* any of those mysterious locations really are yet. That's why I say that - if I have the time to work out a detailed adventure before a given session - I deliberately don't link it to a particular marked location on the map. This way, whichever way the players end up going, I'm able to drop in the adventure at a suitable point along their way. I run a sandbox and I don't give the players a map, I tell them what they know about the local area and let them draw their map and then they can correct and update the map as they go if they want to. When the players start out at first level they usually have not been more than 10 miles away from where they were born. IMHO repeatedly moving the adventure in front of the players no matter how many times they change direction is not sandbox, it is the opposite of a sandbox. YMMV
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on Mar 12, 2018 7:32:47 GMT -5
I voted with the majority for all three options.
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Mar 12, 2018 8:36:29 GMT -5
I would participate with an X-card only if pre-1975 Jean Grey was involved.
|
|
|
Post by raikenclw on Mar 13, 2018 1:08:01 GMT -5
IMHO repeatedly moving the adventure in front of the players no matter how many times they change direction is not sandbox, it is the opposite of a sandbox. YMMV You're rather missing the point. I just keep the location generic, so that I don't have create something completely from scratch, if the players surprise me with a different destination. Now, I *can* and *do* wing it totally, if I have nothing prepared. But if I've taken the time to create an intricate adventure, then the fact that the players choose to go to Beantown as opposed to Stringbeantown as they said at the close of the previous session isn't going to keep me from using it. THEY never need to know that The Prancing Badger Inn was originally going to be in Stringbeantown.
|
|
|
Post by raikenclw on Mar 13, 2018 1:23:52 GMT -5
I run a sandbox and I don't give the players a map, I tell them what they know about the local area and let them draw their map and then they can correct and update the map as they go if they want to. I find that most of the time, without a provided map, the *players* end up getting hopelessly lost in an area that their *characters* actually know intimately. A Common Knowledge map just keeps me from having to constantly remind them of things that their characters know without even thinking about it. On the other hand, NOT constantly reminding them punishes them for not knowing everything their PCs do (which is both cruel and absurd). That doesn't really work, if you think about it. Zero level farmers are the folks who stay at home and never leave. First level PCs are not zero level farmers. PCs most likely had to travel while earning the experience necessary to BECOME first level. Mercenaries go off to fight wars or travel while escorting caravans. Knights also go off to war, as well as to visit their liege lord to pay their respects and participate in councils. Clerics do the same, visiting the high officers in their church and participating in high holy days. Itinerant merchants and bards travel all over. Mages rarely settle among the rural populace, at least not until they are powerful enough to fend off the odd mob.
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on Mar 13, 2018 9:26:21 GMT -5
I run a sandbox and I don't give the players a map, I tell them what they know about the local area and let them draw their map and then they can correct and update the map as they go if they want to. I find that most of the time, without a provided map, the *players* end up getting hopelessly lost in an area that their *characters* actually know intimately. A Common Knowledge map just keeps me from having to constantly remind them of things that their characters know without even thinking about it. On the other hand, NOT constantly reminding them punishes them for not knowing everything their PCs do (which is both cruel and absurd). They do have a Common Knowledge map, I just let them draw it themselves, besides which not every thing that is "common" knowledge is factual. When they draw the map some items are presented as factual, other things are presented with qualifying words, implying that it may not be entirely accurate. If the player draw it themselves then there is no question about what they do or do not know, if it is not on their map, they don't know it. When the players start out at first level they usually have not been more than 10 miles away from where they were born. That doesn't really work, if you think about it. Zero level farmers are the folks who stay at home and never leave. First level PCs are not zero level farmers. PCs most likely had to travel while earning the experience necessary to BECOME first level. Mercenaries go off to fight wars or travel while escorting caravans. Knights also go off to war, as well as to visit their liege lord to pay their respects and participate in councils. Clerics do the same, visiting the high officers in their church and participating in high holy days. Itinerant merchants and bards travel all over. Mages rarely settle among the rural populace, at least not until they are powerful enough to fend off the odd mob. My world works differently from yours, first level PCs are anyone who has made the decision to go adventuring. The Decision activates the bit of magic within everyone that allows them the opportunity to increase in levels and the first bit is to become first level. None of the rest of what you have said affects anything in my campaign.
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on Mar 13, 2018 9:28:32 GMT -5
THEY never need to know that The Prancing Badger Inn was originally going to be in Stringbeantown. "You're rather missing the point." I would know!
|
|
|
Post by raikenclw on Mar 14, 2018 21:57:12 GMT -5
My world works differently from yours, first level PCs are anyone who has made the decision to go adventuring. The Decision activates the bit of magic within everyone that allows them the opportunity to increase in levels and the first bit is to become first level. So anyone at all has access to magic powerful enough to instantly grant them a Base Attack Bonus with most any weapon, makes them more difficult to kill (bigger hit die for most) and all the rest of being a special-snowflake player character . . . yet at one and the same time, those magic using characters who make this Decision can only throw a couple of puny spells. I must say that in over 35 years of gaming, this is the most unique interpretation of what being 1st level means that I have ever encountered.
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on Mar 14, 2018 22:11:28 GMT -5
My world works differently from yours, first level PCs are anyone who has made the decision to go adventuring. The Decision activates the bit of magic within everyone that allows them the opportunity to increase in levels and the first bit is to become first level. So anyone at all has access to magic powerful enough to instantly grant them a Base Attack Bonus with most any weapon, makes them more difficult to kill (bigger hit die for most) and all the rest of being a special-snowflake player character . . . yet at one and the same time, those magic using characters who make this Decision can only throw a couple of puny spells. I must say that in over 35 years of gaming, this is the most unique interpretation of what being 1st level means that I have ever encountered. No one asked you to like the way I do it over and above the way you do it, but on the other hand there is no reason to be insulting with your "special-snowflake" comment. I am not sure where you get the bigger hit die for most from since all humans and demi-humans regardless of class in OD&D use 1d6 including zero level humans. As for your Base Attack Bonus with most any weapon, the rules say specifically that normal men equal first level fighters in the attack matrix. So on both counts they get nothing extra for being 1st level vs normal men, so I don't know where you are getting the "rest of being a special-snowflake player character" stuff from. Magic-Users get to cast one spell per day at first level, although I do add a couple of minor effects that they can also do. I don't understand why you think this is a "most unique interpretation of what being 1st level means that I have ever encountered." You may explain if you would like.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2018 5:07:38 GMT -5
on the other hand there is no reason to be insulting with your "special-snowflake" comment. I believe he was saying that in many campaigns individuals able to progress in level were rather uncommon ... then trying to be light-hearted by drawing a parallel between these potential PCs and the "snowflake" label used in some circles to describe those who self-identify as standing out from the crowd. As I see it the scarcity or commonness of leveled individuals typically comes into play in only a few scenarios. For example, when players are trying to hire expert hirelings or acquire henchmen; or when the referee invokes the angry villager rule to curb a wayward PC's enthusiasm for carousing.
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Mar 15, 2018 7:42:07 GMT -5
re: snowflakes
They used to be called "charged language" and was used for arguing purposes, especially by politicians and lawyers. And my baby sister, of course, God rest her.
Today, they're called "trigger words" and even when accurate, perhaps we should avoid them here in Murkhill. It's too easy to misunderstand one another via internet conversation. Heck, I've read posts that offended me, then realized they were mine - which I'd forgotten.
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on Mar 15, 2018 9:25:19 GMT -5
on the other hand there is no reason to be insulting with your "special-snowflake" comment. I believe he was saying that in many campaigns individuals able to progress in level were rather uncommon ... then trying to be light-hearted by drawing a parallel between these potential PCs and the "snowflake" label used in some circles to describe those who self-identify as standing out from the crowd. As I see it the scarcity or commonness of leveled individuals typically comes into play in only a few scenarios. For example, when players are trying to hire expert hirelings or acquire henchmen; or when the referee invokes the angry villager rule to curb a wayward PC's enthusiasm for carousing. There is nothing in what I wrote that would in anyway imply that those able to progress in levels is anything other than uncommon. Few, very few choose to adventure. I just added a game explanation as to why they are able to progress in levels. Then regarding hit points and attack bonuses there are claims made about facts not in evidence. The combination of "snowflake" and "most unique interpretation" seems to strongly imply that I am having bad wrong fun, so I took it as something other than an attempt at humor.
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on Mar 15, 2018 9:28:52 GMT -5
re: snowflakes They used to be called "charged language" and was used for arguing purposes, especially by politicians and lawyers. And my baby sister, of course, God rest her. Today, they're called "trigger words" and even when accurate, perhaps we should avoid them here in Murkhill. It's too easy to misunderstand one another via internet conversation. Heck, I've read posts that offended me, then realized they were mine - which I'd forgotten. Just my opinion, but I do not believe that I misunderstood anything, I think I received the meaning that was intended to be conveyed. Someone doesn't like my houserules, fine say so and that will not offend me, but to hit me with the implication that I am having bad wrong fun, yeah, that offends me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2018 9:48:18 GMT -5
There is nothing in what I wrote that would in anyway imply that those able to progress in levels is anything other than uncommon. Few, very few choose to adventure. I just added a game explanation as to why they are able to progress in levels. Then regarding hit points and attack bonuses there are claims made about facts not in evidence. The combination of "snowflake" and "most unique interpretation" seems to strongly imply that I am having bad wrong fun, so I took it as something other than an attempt at humor. Fair enough! I think I can see where the disconnect between you and Richard took place, but I don’t mean to butt in.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2018 9:52:13 GMT -5
re: snowflakes Today, they're called "trigger words" and even when accurate, perhaps we should avoid them here in Murkhill. It's too easy to misunderstand one another via internet conversation. I’m going to agree with my esteemed colleague here. This is a charged term and runs the risk of turning a mild disagreement into a flame-fest. Could we please avoid using this label on one another or in a way that might be construed as an indirect use of the word on someone ?
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on Mar 15, 2018 10:02:44 GMT -5
There is nothing in what I wrote that would in anyway imply that those able to progress in levels is anything other than uncommon. Few, very few choose to adventure. I just added a game explanation as to why they are able to progress in levels. Then regarding hit points and attack bonuses there are claims made about facts not in evidence. The combination of "snowflake" and "most unique interpretation" seems to strongly imply that I am having bad wrong fun, so I took it as something other than an attempt at humor. Fair enough! I think I can see where the disconnect between you and Richard took place, but I don’t mean to butt in. By all means butt in, mods speaking up is never a problem unless they have an agenda and are taking sides where it is not *warranted and you are doing neither. Your job after all is to keep things from getting out of hand. *I recognize that sometimes taking sides is warranted, albeit not in the way it is usually practiced most places.
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Mar 15, 2018 13:50:05 GMT -5
*I recognize that sometimes taking sides is warranted, albeit not in the way it is usually practiced most places. They say "practice makes perfect." (They're wrong, but they do say that.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2018 14:22:43 GMT -5
They say "practice makes perfect." (They're wrong, but they do say that.) Perhaps they should keep repeating it until they get it right?
|
|
|
Post by makofan on Mar 15, 2018 14:50:28 GMT -5
I used to tell my kids "practice makes better"
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Mar 15, 2018 21:08:17 GMT -5
Michael Ammar taught me that "perfect practice makes perfect performance" and "poor practice makes for poor performance." Of course, NO practice makes for perfectly awful performance. (*cough* criss angel *cough*)
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Darci on Mar 16, 2018 10:04:23 GMT -5
I don't really see the need for this, on the other hand I was not raised to be shy and retiring either.
|
|
|
Post by raikenclw on Mar 18, 2018 0:46:38 GMT -5
I'm sorry if I offended in some way. As best I can recall my intentions in writing that post, I used "special snowflakes" to refer to all player characters in all games. Except possibly in the various iterations of Call of Cthulu, player characters are intended by the rules of the game to be very special people, somehow a cut above the rest of creation.
However, they still usually *seem* to be regular people, at least to outward appearances. They're born, they grow up, they learn skills and then at some point they decide that an adventurer's life is the one for them . . . except that this last bit isn't a universal case. Sometimes characters are forced into a life of crime, with their "first" adventure being just another caper in a long career of capers. Sometimes they're sold into slavery and become gladiators, then make enough money to by their freedom and need to find profitable work. Sometimes they're apprenticed to mages and learn a thing or two as a result, then decide to try and make their own way in the world. Sometimes the cloister is just too boring and they leave to minister to those truly in need.
The above rationales (and many, many, many variations on them) are how I've always understood player characters. Many is the time that I was encouraged by one GM or another to create my character's backstory for a new 1st level game; how my character learned to fight/cast/pray/sneak/etc, friends I made while doing so, enemies I made while doing so, etc, etc, etc. As much as my little storytelling heart desired.
So to have someone dismiss such logical backstory developments as valueless and replace them with a mystical magical switch that is simply turned on by desire struck me as very odd, to say the least. Especially when this switch is being used as a reason why the 1st level characters concerned have no more knowledge of the wider world than the rudest peasant or city slum dweller. I could see that in a post-apocalyptic game or a very high magic one, where to simply go beyond the protected boundaries of the village/town/city was to court gruesome death, to the extent that each population was totally isolated. But in the usual pseudo-medieval fantasy game setting, few people are really that uninformed. Travelling merchants and bards spread news far and wide, knitting the society together into a whole.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Mar 18, 2018 1:59:22 GMT -5
I'm sorry if I offended in some way. As best I can recall my intentions in writing that post, I used "special snowflakes" to refer to all player characters in all games. Except possibly in the various iterations of Call of Cthulu, player characters are intended by the rules of the game to be very special people, somehow a cut above the rest of creation. However, they still usually *seem* to be regular people, at least to outward appearances. They're born, they grow up, they learn skills and then at some point they decide that an adventurer's life is the one for them . . . except that this last bit isn't a universal case. Sometimes characters are forced into a life of crime, with their "first" adventure being just another caper in a long career of capers. Sometimes they're sold into slavery and become gladiators, then make enough money to by their freedom and need to find profitable work. Sometimes they're apprenticed to mages and learn a thing or two as a result, then decide to try and make their own way in the world. Sometimes the cloister is just too boring and they leave to minister to those truly in need. The above rationales (and many, many, many variations on them) are how I've always understood player characters. Many is the time that I was encouraged by one GM or another to create my character's backstory for a new 1st level game; how my character learned to fight/cast/pray/sneak/etc, friends I made while doing so, enemies I made while doing so, etc, etc, etc. As much as my little storytelling heart desired. So to have someone dismiss such logical backstory developments as valueless and replace them with a mystical magical switch that is simply turned on by desire struck me as very odd, to say the least. Especially when this switch is being used as a reason why the 1st level characters concerned have no more knowledge of the wider world than the rudest peasant or city slum dweller. I could see that in a post-apocalyptic game or a very high magic one, where to simply go beyond the protected boundaries of the village/town/city was to court gruesome death, to the extent that each population was totally isolated. But in the usual pseudo-medieval fantasy game setting, few people are really that uninformed. Travelling merchants and bards spread news far and wide, knitting the society together into a whole. My wife can't sleep, mind racing so that is why we are up at almost 3am. raikenclw , no one is mad at you so rest your mind on that. It is an interesting usage of "special snowflake", I don't think I have ever seen it used before as anything but an insult, if I used it, it would definitely be as an intentional insult and I suspect the majority would use it that way. So that is part of the disconnect. Another part of the disconnect is that many of us back in the day did not do any back story. We rolled up a character and in five minutes we were playing and never gave a thought to back story. The two female English majors in my group who were doing a lot of writing did not spend anytime on back story or if they did they never told anyone ref or other players about it. That is something that for many of us it came along late in the game and I still don't do it for my own character on those occasions when I get to play. The thing to remember is that everyone's campaign is different. I don't mind if players do back story IMC, but I am also fine if they do not. In True Black Raven's campaign, they likely have never done back story and I suspect he came up with his "mystical magical switch" off the cuff to give you an explanation for what they unconsciously have always done which is just play and don't worry about what came before. Either style of play is equally valid. Some people have no interest in "storytelling" they are all about "action" and "living in the moment". OK we are going to try to go back to bed now.
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on Mar 18, 2018 9:26:24 GMT -5
The above rationales (and many, many, many variations on them) are how I've always understood player characters. Many is the time that I was encouraged by one GM or another to create my character's backstory for a new 1st level game; how my character learned to fight/cast/pray/sneak/etc, friends I made while doing so, enemies I made while doing so, etc, etc, etc. As much as my little storytelling heart desired. Please accept that I don't play that way and the backstory of the PCs is not interesting to me, IMC backstory is for NPCs. Joe First Level Fighter will know something about the major NPCs where he grew up, those major NPCs could care less about Joe, ergo their backstory matters and his does not. The major NPCs will learn about Joe from what he does or doesn't do going forward and they still won't care about his backstory, in other words we don't use game time on any backstory except barebones for NPCs as part of what the PC knows. So to have someone dismiss such logical backstory developments as valueless and replace them with a mystical magical switch that is simply turned on by desire struck me as very odd, to say the least. Sorry but I am not into backstory. You wanted something more, so I gave you something more and after I thought about it I liked it and will keep it. Especially when this switch is being used as a reason why the 1st level characters concerned have no more knowledge of the wider world than the rudest peasant or city slum dweller. But that is not the case, you are only assuming that the 1st level characters have no more knowledge and that is not the case. That assumption is based on the fact that I don't hand them a fully accurate map. I have them draw it based on what I tell them they know, I fail to see what is bad about that. I tell them a bit up front about what they know and as the game progresses, I tell them more about what they know as we go. I could pass out big handouts, but we don't do that and aren't interested in that. We just want to play, we are all about doing things and the conversation around the table is what we are doing. I could see that in a post-apocalyptic game or a very high magic one, where to simply go beyond the protected boundaries of the village/town/city was to court gruesome death, to the extent that each population was totally isolated. But in the usual pseudo-medieval fantasy game setting, few people are really that uninformed. Travelling merchants and bards spread news far and wide, knitting the society together into a whole. That is correct and I said nothing about my campaign that would imply otherwise. The fact that they have not had an opportunity or a reason up to the beginning of the game to travel very far does not imply that they are uninformed. So as the ADMIN said, I am not mad at you, please accept that I don't play the same way you do and I have a different focus and different interests.
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on Mar 18, 2018 9:32:55 GMT -5
My wife can't sleep, mind racing so that is why we are up at almost 3am. The thing to remember is that everyone's campaign is different. Some people have no interest in "storytelling" they are all about "action" and "living in the moment". OK we are going to try to go back to bed now. Thank you for those words, Mr Admin. Sorry that you and your wife are/were having a rough night and I hope you were able to go back to sleep. Have an exalt.
|
|
|
Post by raikenclw on Mar 19, 2018 19:18:38 GMT -5
My wife can't sleep, mind racing so that is why we are up at almost 3am. The thing to remember is that everyone's campaign is different. Some people have no interest in "storytelling" they are all about "action" and "living in the moment". OK we are going to try to go back to bed now. Thank you for those words, Mr Admin. Sorry that you and your wife are/were having a rough night and I hope you were able to go back to sleep. Have an exalt. I agree. And I chose to quote the above, both for this reason and because I wanted to reply without said reply [almost certainly] getting all scrambled up in the above nested quotes. True Black Raven, as per usual, I was reading more into what you were typing than what you actually typed. Also, reading back over my previous posts and thinking more deeply about it, I suppose that what I was really objecting to were my memories of Unreasonably Cruel [e.g. Railroad] GMs I've had in the past, the sort that penalized players for not knowing/remembering stuff which their characters would without question know/remember. It used to make me feel so powerless when such a GM would say, "Roll Intelligence," only to have everyone flub the roll such that Disaster struck . . . and then it turns out that what we failed to know was something our characters should have known without even having to think about it. Furthermore, Unreasonably Cruel GMs were also always - in my experience - Let's Just Play GMs. Obviously (and unfortunately), this has psychologically scarred me.
|
|
|
Post by The Archivist on Mar 19, 2018 19:31:45 GMT -5
Thank you for those words, Mr Admin. Sorry that you and your wife are/were having a rough night and I hope you were able to go back to sleep. Have an exalt. I agree. As do I. True Black Raven, as per usual, I was reading more into what you were typing than what you actually typed. Also, reading back over my previous posts and thinking more deeply about it, I suppose that what I was really objecting to were my memories of Unreasonably Cruel [e.g. Railroad] GMs I've had in the past, the sort that penalized players for not knowing/remembering stuff which their characters would without question know/remember. It used to make me feel so powerless when such a GM would say, "Roll Intelligence," only to have everyone flub the roll such that Disaster struck . . . and then it turns out that what we failed to know was something our characters should have known without even having to think about it. Furthermore, Unreasonably Cruel GMs were also always - in my experience - Let's Just Play GMs. Obviously (and unfortunately), this has psychologically scarred me. I never even considered the possibility that a Railroad GM would also be a Let's Just Play GM. The GM behavior you are describing is unconscionable. I think the vast majority of the people on this forum do not play or DM like that at all. Sorry to hear that you had to put up with that at all. So where did you hide the bodies after you killed them?
|
|