- Feb 26, 2018
- Reaction score
That's ridiculous. Wizard shouldn't be capitalized without good reason. They just lost a viewer.Yeah, it was all about this Wizard named Lando Calrissian, and he has to fly this ship called the Babylon 5 to Narnia to destroy a ring before the evil hobbits of Hogwarts take over all the lands of Pern with their space dragons.
Only when you take stressing out as just "passing out". Stressing out only means you leave the scene (and also you can gain trauma from it, which is a lower die that doesn't go away as quickly). This could be for any reason. It could be because you stomp out of the room. It could be because you just sulk and stop talking. It could be because they made you paralyzed with fear. Or you are stumped as to how to even respond. It just depends on what makes sense based on the scene.
Being able to apply emotions to people is pretty much basics for anyone who would be considered a manipulator in fiction. And the idea that others can use those emotions you have to accomplish other things if it makes sense is also pretty obvious.
IMHO, the difference with GURPS is that it's a pretty complete toolkit for building your setting -- and pretty much any setting is possible. You just pick and choose what you need for your game. Whereas D&D is a complete toolkit for playing D&D, but a very incomplete toolkit for a lot of other things.
That's ridiculous. Wizard shouldn't be capitalized without good reason. They just lost a viewer.
During this phase, players meet to discuss their plans for upcoming turns. Alliances are made and strategies are set. These “diplomatic negotiations” take place before each turn. Negotiations last 30 minutes before the first turn and 15 minutes before each turn thereafter. Negotiations may end sooner if all players agree.
Conversations, deals, schemes, and agreements among players will greatly affect the course of the game. During diplomatic negotiations, players may say anything they wish. Some players usually go to another room or organize private groups of two or three. They may try to keep their conversations secret. They may try to overhear the conversations of others. These conversations usually consist of bargaining or joint military planning, but they may include exchanges of information, denouncements, threats, spreading of rumors, and so on. Public announcements may be made and documents may be written, made public, or kept secret, as the players see fit. These discussions and written agreements, however, do not bind a player to anything he or she may say. Deciding whom to trust as situations arise is an important part of the game .
And, in your experience, is that how most arguments go....there is a clear winner and one person is paralyzed, passes out, or flees?
I think it represents a very specific wordview that is....well, let's just say, not a universal expression of how humans work. It's funny, I do occasionally encounter this in online arguments. At some point, someone I'm debating (I assume usually out of frustration or just projection) begins to assume that they are causing me emotions. I often find it amusing, if annoying. And I've had the opposite happen in real life, people get angry at me because I'm not reacting emotionally. People are funny, in what they chose to believe about how other people work or should work.
There's no thing as clear winners or losers when the loser can simply ignore the winner demands and pick a Condition (or any negative consequence) instead. It's just like David Johansen idea above: you can try to intimidate me, but if I, the player, don't want to give in, you won't. (ninja'd by Emperor)And, in your experience, is that how most arguments go....there is a clear winner and one person is paralyzed, passes out, or flees?
But that's true for any mechanics.The issue with social conflict mechanics is that they almost always model the thing designer had in mind when creating them very well, and anything that didn't occur to them far less well.
You're surly as hell lately. Somebody lick your balls the wrong direction?!
It took you all this time to notice that? This guy is the most inadequate moderator I've seen in a long time.
In fact, putting him as "moderator" must already be some joke.
OK, I probably just misunderstood.(pouts) I didn't consider that surly...(pouts)
What is with you guys and licking balls anyway?
Seriously, I responded with a joke because I don't really understand what you mean by "ribbing", insofar as we're talking about a thing not a person.
I mean, people always have the option of just giving up before they stress out, or finding a compromise... which is what happens in most cases in real life. Unless all of your arguments go on forever with no end. Most people wouldn't argue all the way to trauma, they would recognize they are losing ground and try to find a way out that doesn't involve "losing".
Honestly, if you aren't having any emotional reaction, and everything in this thread that you have posted is 100% you on an even keel, I think you are just an asshole.
Maybe I'm being generous in assuming that you are getting heated, but I prefer that to assuming you just go around mocking people because you think that is the right thing to do.
Again: I find that people who think they have 100% control of everything they do... aren't connected with reality.
Sorry man, its a great example. Its one of the first examples of what OGL could produce and was a flagship for the versatility of D&D.I don't think it's being missed, but I think folks are arguing at cross-purposes.
Some (including myself) say you can conceivably do GoT using D&D but it's a bad fit and requires a lot of effort to make it work. Others are claiming to have happily run GoT style games using D&D. As far as I'm concerned, if you are house-ruling class abilities or making your own classes -- that constitutes more effort that I'm willing to get into. If I'm GMing a game, I have enough to worry about building a world and creating adventures, I don't want to be writing the rules as well.
If someone else wants to create their own setting, play-test it thoroughly and publish it... then I'm more than happy to use their effort (or pay for it). But as far as I'm concerned, that's an entirely different contention.
Star Wars d20 is a bad example -- it's not D&D, it's an entirely separate game in it's own right. Just because it is based on similar core mechanics, doesn't make it D&D.
As of 3.0 it is the definition as defined by the publisher of Dungeons and Dragons and proven by the volumes of work that came from it. All of these products that use D&D at their core are built off of D&D an as such are a derivative of D&D.I'll disagree, but I think a discussion about what is, and what isn't D&D is a road to nowhere. But I'll say this.... if your definition of D&D is going to be that broad, then sure... you can absolutely do GoT with D&D. If you basically consider Star Wars d20 to be D&D than you can do pretty much ANYTHING with D&D.
They rebranded the core mechanics of D&D the "D20 System" and applied that brand to Star Wars D20 as their publisher. At the very least it is a child system of D&D and contains enough of it's DNA to at least be in the D&D family. That also means it is derivative of D&D by both it's nature and terms in the OGL.I'm not going to re-read the whole thread again but it did seem to get a bit heated at times. Tone can be very hard to wring out of forum posts.
Anyhow, overly broad definitions are generally useless so I can see how one might want to keep their definition of Dungeons & Dragons quite precise. Even so, Dragon Magazine churned out a lot of options and house rules over the years and D&D certainly had modules that crossed over into science fiction and modern settings. As the trademark holder WotC legally gets to define what D&D is, whether it's a novel or a Lego set or a comic or a rope laying game. But WotC didn't apply the D&D brand to other settings like Star Wars and d20 Modern so that seems to map to their feeling that D&D is about Dragons and Elves and slaving the princesses. The broader mainstream definition would encompass all of our silly games and draw in things like Diplomacy or Warhammer and isn't much use as such.
Even so, to borrow from computer programming terminology Star Wars Saga and Game of Thrones inherit properties from the Dungeons & Dragons class.
They rebranded the core mechanics of D&D the "D20 System" and applied that brand to Star Wars D20 as their publisher. At the very least it is a child system of D&D and contains enough of it's DNA to at least be in the D&D family. That also means it is derivative of D&D by both it's nature and terms in the OGL.
I think he said myth when he meant LEGEND.
They're one of the best underground NY rappers of 2016.
As of 3.0 it is the definition as defined by the publisher of Dungeons and Dragons and proven by the volumes of work that came from it. All of these products that use D&D at their core are built off of D&D an as such are a derivative of D&D.
You can disagree, but the reality of it is that if you use d20 OGL, you are making a version of Dungeons and Dragons. So in the context of this argument. We would be using it in the same way that WotC intended... to port another Ip to use Dungeons and Dragons.
I'm not talking edition wars. I'm clarifying that when we are talking D&D porting, it works. I mentioned 3.0 only because it is when the OGL became a thing and opened it up for derivatives. Honestly I don't care what edition you choose to use, it's irrelevant beyond this mention of 3.0.Yep... just after I post that an argument is pointless, you want to go ahead and try and make an argument. It's on the tip of my tongue (or the tip of my fingers, so to speak) to try and present my point of view on this... but you're not going to agree with me, no matter what I say. The reason I know is that it's an argument that's being going on for as long as D&D has existed. The moment 2e came out, 1e grognards complained "it's not D&D to me" even though it literally said it on the cover. And the argument has been going on ever since.
I'm not talking edition wars. I'm clarifying that when we are talking D&D porting, it works. I mentioned 3.0 only because it is when the OGL became a thing and opened it up for derivatives. Honestly I don't care what edition you choose to use, it's irrelevant beyond this mention of 3.0.
Last I saw were were discussing this in good faith... was I wrong?
On the subject of the actual thread: Because D&D is easy.
Even though there are lighter games, there are very few games that are as easy to engage on all levels as D&D.
A GM doesn't need to learn nearly as much to run D&D. Here are a bunch of premade monsters, here are a bunch of premade modules for that matter. Players have easier choices. I just pick big archetypes rather than trying to deal with something like point buy. Like how much do I have to put in the melee skill in a point based game to really be "good" at it? Idk, like, depends on the game, and its hard to judge. If I pick Fighter and I have a good Strength, I know I'm good for my level.
Also levels. Levels are so easy in comparison to freeform character gen/progression.
D&D is the easiest Tabletop RPG in the world to engage with in my opinion. And that is why it's popular.
I really, really like D20, but I don’t like it that much.
I cant see that. There is too much variation in play style already. we are already pretty tribal among ourselves about what we like and dislike. I just cant see us all sitting at the same table playing the same game. Could you see D&D with Monster Hearts or mythras, or Fate, or Star Wars elements be an appeal for everyone?This is a complete tangent, but the combination of the conversation in this thread regarding what constitutes D&D (insofar as the D20 etc offshoots) along with watching the most recent SU&SD boardgame review of "Go", a game that, like chess, has been refined over the years from hundreds of variations on a theme to a single streamlined play experience has led me to wonder - if RPGs as a hobby survives (I suppose I optimistically like to believe it will, even in the face of advancing technology), then is it possible D&D will eventually be refined to the point of a single system that is streamlined but constructed well enough (with emergent properties) that there could eventually be one refined system that representts RPGs in totum?
I cant see that. There is too much variation in play style already. we are already pretty tribal among ourselves about what we like and dislike. I just cant see us all sitting at the same table playing the same game. Could you see D&D with Monster Hearts or mythras, or Fate, or Star Wars elements be an appeal for everyone?
Not sure. Before I visited forums I always thought I wanted a system like Fate. Then I heard about it, sought it out, and realized... I really didn't like what i saw. I couldn't see myself playing a game of it, and if I was at a game where it did one thing and then switched systems to do other things with other people independently I wouldn't like that either. Shadowrun 2-3 did that a lot and it was actually one of the things that detracted from the game imo.Yeah, but that's us weirdos who hang out on RPG forums and argue about words like "simulationism". I think for the hobby to survive it pretty much has to outlive all of us.