What needs to be removed to make high level dungeons work?

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Swordslinger
Knight-Baron
Posts: 953
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 12:30 pm

Post by Swordslinger »

TheFlatline wrote: So wait, you blame the players for not being able to see into the future and figure out that the MC's adventure is going to suck or that he's going to throw a temper tantrum because you outsmart him? Jesus what an asshole.
If people are turning down quests, it's either because the DM is giving them quests that go vastly against their character goals, or they just plain want to be disruptive for the sake of trolling their DM. In either case, it's a problem with people, not rules.
I reiterate: Show me one published adventure that doesn't break when free will is given to the players.
Most of them really. Free will by itself does very little. It's more about what power you have.

You can pick any basic dungeon crawl module, Temple of Elemental evil or Keep on the Shadowfell for instance, and there's not much free will can interfere with, short of the PCs outright not deciding to do the quest. But that's a trivial point anyway, since the game can't force you to play it.

It'd be like saying Legend of Zelda sucks because you can just let Link sit there without touching the controller. If you didn't want to play, you shouldn't have shown up.
User avatar
wotmaniac
Knight-Baron
Posts: 888
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:40 am
Location: my house

Post by wotmaniac »

FrankTrollman wrote:Killing people and taking their stuff is completely integral to D&D. Any setting that has that by definition does not and cannot have "ownership" in the modern sense of the term.
but "ownership" as a basic concept has always existed. My dog understands "ownership" ..... hell, he understands the basic concept of "private real estate" (albeit in the most rudimentary sense).
Level of civility does not really effect the concept. The only real difference between now and some arbitrary historic/historically-inspired time is sophistication of enforcement mechanisms and the value place on individual autonomy.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:D&D isn't like the real world. Even the greatest genius in the world is only so by a couple of IQ points. The difference in strength between the world's strongest weightlifter and the world's 10000th strongest weightlifter is in the low double-digits.

The 18th-level lich king's second in command is a 7th-level wannabe because said wannabe may literally be the second-strongest person in the area he governments. The population dynamics of D&D usually isn't that sharp (13th or 14th level is more likely) but it's certainly possible.
but yet, the DMG specifically debunks that assumption. huh.

There's no 'integrating the battlefield'. That's seriously how D&D (or other high-powered superheroic fiction) works-- even 4th Edition when personal power is at its lowest.
you evidently don't understand the concept of an "integrated battlefield" .....
It doesn't matter that Alexander the Great is fielding a 20,000-strong army fully equipped with the latest advantages in Iron Age technology; the Lich-King could seriously take a fucking nap in the middle of the entire army at the exact place where Alexander's fights best. They wouldn't even scratch him.
But that's not how D&D works (hmm -- I wonder where I've heard that ...). I think that sabs covered this adequately -- let me know if you need to have all the dots connected for you.
You're mixing up Padding with the Law of Conversation of Detail.
Oh, do tell.
Last edited by wotmaniac on Tue Apr 12, 2011 10:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Swordslinger
Knight-Baron
Posts: 953
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 12:30 pm

Post by Swordslinger »

FatR wrote: No that's like recreating any medium-to-high-power-level final confrontation that doesn't sucks ass. Just a few examples from fantasy works with above-mundane power level I've watched/read to the end recently and that featured a Big Bad's fortress: in Blue Dragon PCs blow the castle the fuck away, alongside with the Big Bad; in Wakfu PC skips right to fighting the Big Bad and the core supporting cast fights the superpowered named henchmen; in Shin Angyo Onshi, PC has only one (and extremelely plot-important) encounter before confronting the Big Bad, he is briefly stalled by a plot-unimportant uberhenchman, but is bailed by a friendly NPC so he can proceed, the supporting cast fights the Big Bad's elite crew for 90% of the time. Throngs of mooks solely or mostly fight each other in the background.

So your ideas are quite literally disconnected from realitly.
I've never heard of any of those and neither has anyone I know in real life. So that only proves my point. Those stories didn't get popularity because they're not as good.

Everyone has heard of Lord of the Rings and Conan the Barbarian. Hell just about any popular action movie I can think of involves someone fighting through minions.

Just because I want something cinematic and not some anime wankfest where the indestructible giant robot destroys everything doesn't make me disconnected.
Last edited by Swordslinger on Tue Apr 12, 2011 10:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Novembermike
Master
Posts: 260
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 4:28 am

Post by Novembermike »

TheFlatline wrote: This is a trick question. There's no way a barbarian, ranger, rogue, and bard would survive long enough to reach high level.

And if they were assembled to become a high level party, the first thing they'd do is go find a really good wizard or cleric to join them.
This is hardly true. They aren't going to be ripping apart high powered individual enemies but they can certainly take care of large numbers of weaker foes.

Congratulations. You are the first carbon-based life form to ever argue that Wheel of Time needed to move *slower* than it's already glacial pace by spending a third of the book letting characters ride from city A to city B.

Besides, 90% of the traveling done occurs between places that have already been visited. And the lack of focus on locations has nothing to do with the enlarged scope and the 50 characters you're following. It's all the fault of fast travel. A-yup.

Just like hyperdrive ruined Star Wars. The Phantom Menace would have been the best movie ever if we got a 2001-style 3 hour movie where Anakin and Jar-Jar got an order of magnitude more screen time.
Who said it needed to move slower? Having the characters move physically slower doesn't change the pacing of the story. The problem was that everything became "and now we'll travel to cairhien to the Sea Folk trade delegation". His characters wandered around without a real focus. It's no coincidence that the character who was forced to abide by a setting had the best perspectives.

I'd also say that Lucas was a bit too liberal with travel times in the new movies. The OT used travel times effectively in a few cases like Vader having time to set everything up while look flew over to the cloud city or the time-table for the attack on the second death star being timed out days in advance. The PT liked to put characters on a dozen different planets but have no consequences for that, which certainly didn't help (but there were much more serious issues with the PT).
hyzmarca
Prince
Posts: 3909
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 10:07 pm

Post by hyzmarca »

FrankTrollman wrote:
FatR wrote:I'm rather tired of you, Frank, pretending that your personal setting is DnD.
Dude, I'm not even talking about my personal setting. I'm talking about a game where you kill people and take their stuff. That fact alone means that Lockeian Private Property does not exist.

Killing people and taking their stuff is completely integral to D&D. Any setting that has that by definition does not and cannot have "ownership" in the modern sense of the term.

-Username17
But in the modern world it is perfectly feasible to kill people and take their stuff. It happens all the time. And probably means that property ownership as an intrinsic natural right is bullshit, is doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of social institutions are predicated on the assumption that it is not.

The fact is that D&D does have law enforcement and property ownership, it's that that law enforcement is crappy and haphazard outside of major towns.
Last edited by hyzmarca on Tue Apr 12, 2011 10:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Wrathzog
Knight-Baron
Posts: 605
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 5:57 am

Post by Wrathzog »

TheFlatline wrote:My underlying point is that using published modules as a ruler for what is and isn't broken, especially when it comes to knot-cutting, is an inherently wrong and inaccurate tool.

Saying "name a module that can't be broken by using teleport" produces roughly the same list of "problem" modules as saying "name a module that can't be broken by giving the players free will".
Oh. In which case we've been arguing over two completely different things this entire time.

Also, naming modules that can't be broken by using teleport will give you a definite number because it's a fixable problem. Naming modules that can't be broken because your players are Fuckheads is going to give you a zero because it is not a fixable problem.
These are in no way "roughly the same."
The fact is that D&D does have law enforcement and property ownership, it's that that law enforcement is crappy and haphazard outside of major towns.
And also [crappy and haphazard] inside of major towns if you happen to be a high level adventurer. But seriously, you guys need to make your own thread for this.
Last edited by Wrathzog on Tue Apr 12, 2011 10:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ikeren
Knight-Baron
Posts: 849
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2011 8:07 pm

Post by Ikeren »

I sincerely love this forum and all of it's participants.
echoVanguard
Knight-Baron
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 6:35 pm

Post by echoVanguard »

This entire thread has pretty much devolved into arguments over semantics and philosophy, often with people either changing the thrust of their argument the instant someone else disproved it, or people ignoring posts that threaten their stances.

In the interest of actually attempting to have something meaningful come out of the original question, let me ask this:

Is your intention actually to provide a meaningful dungeon crawling experience within the existing framework of 3.X, or is it simply a question of producing a truncated version of the system in which dungeon crawls are unavoidable?

echo
Lago PARANOIA
Invincible Overlord
Posts: 10555
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

Post by Lago PARANOIA »

I love Swordslinger's whiny myopia. 'Oh, it doesn't matter that those things have circulation in the millions, I don't like anime so it doesn't count' and then tops it off with a statement that shows that he didn't even google the series in question. All of those are heroic fantasy series and don't have a single giant robot in it.

What a maroon. :facepalm:
wotmaniac wrote:
But that's not how D&D works (hmm -- I wonder where I've heard that ...). I think that sabs covered this adequately -- let me know if you need to have all the dots connected for you.
I wouldn't be surprised if authors had this opinion because fluff writers tend to be morons, but it really doesn't work like that in the rules. Even in 4E D&D, a game that wanks to Conan-level bullshit, a thousand elite guards fail to be even a minor threat to paragon-level PCs. A battlerager fighter or a battle cleric or whatever will chew through all of them without even meaningfully dipping into their resources. This isn't hyperbole or anything. The STR/WIS cleric just spams Recovery Strike to make up for the few attacks that get through and if he takes down 8 elite soldiers a minute he'll annihilate the army in about 16-17 hours. There are some weird results in it due to how minions work (that favor characters with surgeless healing, damage reduction, and/or temporary hit points) such that the swarm druid is actually the best army killer, but 'army-killer' builds are so persistent at level 16 that it's a safe assumption that 4E actually expects you to be at that power level.


Anyway, the difference between padding and the Law of Conservation of Detail is application. When you meet random Joe Blow guard in the castle, from an in-universe perspective he's not just a bag of hit points and attack. He's a 38-year old guard who hasn't advanced past sergeant because he keeps persistently screwing things up. He often cuts out out guard duty early so he can spend time with his kids; one of whom is a rare genius and is trying to get a scholarship to the Wizard's Guild and the other is a half-orc from a woman he loved. Joe Blow's favorite weapon is a spear, since he used to be an amateur pole-vaulter when he was a teenager. Etc. etc..

The vast majority of players of players won't know this. Probably the DM and the module writers don't even know this. There's really no point to include it in the game, because it's mostly superfluous information. It's barely relevant even if this biography applies to the BBEG and you're trying to determine his identity for a ritual you want to thwart. But if a player for reason actually cares about Faceless Goon #25, if you dig deep enough you'll get a biography like that. It's okay to provide all of the details in that case because someone actually cares about it. But just because most stories actually can't withstand providing that level of detail, it's just assumed that Joe Blow has a life outside of this combat encounter even if no one cares. Joe Blow doesn't cease to exist from an in-universe perspective just because the DM and PC never meets him, but you don't actually have time to talk about him unless for some reason it's important.


PADDING is just the inclusion of material that has no purpose other than to lengthen the adventure. If the DM stopped the adventure to give Joe Blow's biography when no one asked for it that's padding. If the DM has bandits suddenly attack in the middle of the night because he feels that players shouldn't have just 1 encounter in a day (and not for any story reason), that's also padding. Yes, it makes sense from an in-universe perspective to have bandits unconnected with the main arc wandering the forest and deciding to attack, but if you took them out the main story wouldn't have changed much. Putting them in when nobody would've cared about them otherwise is padding. So would having the PCs meet the bandits on the way to the hidden temple. Or having the PCs get ambushed by a bandit group while carrying away their lucre. Etc.

Padding is considered the hallmark of a weak writer, because it shows that rather than trying to create an entertaining story they're just stalling for time to fill some sort of quota. Now while it's possible for padding to be entertaining in of itself (and it also helps to flesh out a world), the fact is that forcing the players to fight random bandits in the forest or faceless goons guarding the throne room because you have some sort of non-story quota to fulfill is boring, overused, and just a way for a hack or overworked DM to look like they're telling a story when they're not.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.

In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
Ikeren
Knight-Baron
Posts: 849
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2011 8:07 pm

Post by Ikeren »

Is your intention actually to provide a meaningful dungeon crawling experience within the existing framework of 3.X,
Yeah, just that. I got most of the answers I needed by midway down page one. But it didn't prevent me from finding this discussion really interesting.
Lago PARANOIA
Invincible Overlord
Posts: 10555
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

Post by Lago PARANOIA »

The biggest disconnect is that people can't differentiate goals from obstacles. Dungeon crawling is generally written up as an obstacle, because again it's easier to come up ways to inconvenience Conan than Superman. Because Conan is fucking thwarted by a collapsed bridge or a smallpox epidemic, it's easy to railroad him and other low-level douchebags through things that they don't want to do.

The fact is that the typical elements used to create most dungeon crawls (Fetch Quests, Search Quests, Random Drops, Obstacle Courses) are really easy to come up with and comprise most of the plots of video games. This creates the illusion of 'adventure', but really it's just a series of inconveniences. Sometimes the inconveniences are interesting, but if they're not then you're just grating on the players' nerves.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.

In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
User avatar
wotmaniac
Knight-Baron
Posts: 888
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:40 am
Location: my house

Post by wotmaniac »

Lago:
2 things --
1) you appear to have missed the point about the armies. if you have 1k soldiers, or 10k soldiers, or whatever #, everything I've ever come across in D&D says that you are also gonna have a # of strong casters and such -- these, in conjunction with everything else going on on an integrated battlefield, are gonna cause problems for all but the most powerful of PCs. Hell, once you get in the 10-20k+ range, you should be expecting some really exotic assets (e.g., dragons and demons and crazy magical siege weapons and shit). In a world like D&D, if that isn't happening, then it just doesn't make sense -- otherwise you're just saying that the only dangerous people are PCs and those who can't be bothered with a battlefield; and that just doesn't pass the straight-face test. (and don't get me started on what a typical Blood War battlefield might look like -- but that just may be outside the scope of this particular context) That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about when I talk about an "integrated battlefield" (in RL, the term actually refers to having NBC warfare in use; but shit, what do you think wizards are?).

2) if I ever get as cynical and jaded towards this game as you, I will seriously quit playing and go find another hobby. at the point that you seem to be, I don't even know why you play anymore, as you seem to have "grown out it".
*WARNING*: I say "fuck" a lot.
"The most patriotic thing you can do as an American is to become filthy, filthy rich."
- Mark Cuban

"Game design has no obligation to cater to people who don’t buy into the premise of the game"

TGD -- skirting the edges of dickfinity since 2003.

Public Service Announcement
Lago PARANOIA
Invincible Overlord
Posts: 10555
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

Post by Lago PARANOIA »

I hate
because
I care.
:awesome:

Okay, wotmaniac, but that still doesn't mean that the army is not bringing the ass-kicking to the table. The army can't do stuff like summon dragons and demons and create crazy magical siege weapons on their own unless they're a badass like a high-level wizard themselves. Which of course creates a circular loop of 'why are they giving these useless mooks power?' The cleric could do something stupid like empower his army... or he could just release a couple of turbo-nukes onto the troubles and put all of the magical doodads on his army of infinitely loyal undead. The wizard could summon up a pit fiend to help the centurons fight the barbarians... or he could just have the pit fiend kill both of them and declare himself ruler. It's not like they could do shit even if they teamed up against the wizard.

The fact that people don't do this begs an explanation. The flippant and probably true answer is 'D&D game writers are too incompetent and/or lazy to match their imagined setting with the mechanics'.

But anyway, if low-level mooks were allowed to do things like craft crazy magical siege weapons and forge armories of +3 flaming battleaxes and let 500 2nd-level Warriors combine their forces to summon a demon without sucking the cocks of high-level characters then the army in of itself would suddenly become a threat again. But D&D doesn't work like that and probably would never work like that, because when you get to the point where the faceless civilian masses are actually a threat the game transforms from 'Bands of Murdering Hobos' to 'Shadowrun in Steampunk'.

It's like Marvel and DC comics. If the civilian police force was actually allowed to be able to stand up against Magneto and the Joker and Cyborg Superman and Sinestro and etc.. the superhero genre would suddenly cease to exist except for characters like The Punisher and The Question. The fact that your characters can single-handedly save the kingdom when all of the King's Horses and Men can't accomplish this task necessarily means that some BBEG can single-handedly ruin and overthrow the kingdom, unless you want to play SWAT in Kindergarten.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.

In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
echoVanguard
Knight-Baron
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 6:35 pm

Post by echoVanguard »

Lago PARANOIA wrote:The fact that your characters can single-handedly save the kingdom when all of the King's Horses and Men can't accomplish this task necessarily means that some BBEG can single-handedly ruin and overthrow the kingdom, unless you want to play SWAT in Kindergarten.
Pardon my presumption, but it seems to me like you're trying to play both sides of the table here. You say that the narrative trope demands certain behaviors (which is true) but then turn around and say that it doesn't make logical sense. In my opinion, application of a narrative trope is a deliberate decision in favor of drama or theme at the expense of logic. Thus, the answer to your question of "Why don't all the uberwizards take over" becomes "because this is heroic fantasy".

Incidentally, the uberwizards DO take over in Dark Sun, so that may be more to your liking.

echo
User avatar
wotmaniac
Knight-Baron
Posts: 888
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:40 am
Location: my house

Post by wotmaniac »

it's called Mutually Assured Destruction.
you go get your dragons and demons because you need to counter-act the other guys dragons and demons. and while the two of you are battling it out in the skies, ......

.... or some shit like that. to me this just seem like yet another instance of "YMMV".
I'm too tired to even care anymore.
*WARNING*: I say "fuck" a lot.
"The most patriotic thing you can do as an American is to become filthy, filthy rich."
- Mark Cuban

"Game design has no obligation to cater to people who don’t buy into the premise of the game"

TGD -- skirting the edges of dickfinity since 2003.

Public Service Announcement
Lago PARANOIA
Invincible Overlord
Posts: 10555
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

Post by Lago PARANOIA »

echoVanguard wrote:Thus, the answer to your question of "Why don't all the uberwizards take over" becomes "because this is heroic fantasy".
And that is lazy and incompetent storytelling. If a storyteller ever tells you 'I know this doesn't make internal sense, but I want this to happen anyway so it does' then they are selling you a bill of goods.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.

In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
echoVanguard
Knight-Baron
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 6:35 pm

Post by echoVanguard »

Lago PARANOIA wrote:That is lazy and incompetent storytelling. If a storyteller ever tells you 'I know this doesn't make internal sense, but I want this to happen anyway so it does' then they are selling you a bill of goods.
This sentence led me to picture Lago as the guy who stands up at the back of movie theaters playing slasher films yelling "DON'T GO IN THERE, YOU IDIOT". :awesome:

echo
Last edited by echoVanguard on Wed Apr 13, 2011 4:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Maxus
Overlord
Posts: 7645
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Maxus »

echoVanguard wrote:
Lago PARANOIA wrote:That is lazy and incompetent storytelling. If a storyteller ever tells you 'I know this doesn't make internal sense, but I want this to happen anyway so it does' then they are selling you a bill of goods.
This sentence led me to picture Lago as the guy who stands up at the back of movie theaters playing slasher films yelling "DON'T GO IN THERE, YOU IDIOT". :awesome:

echo
You have NO IDEA.
He jumps like a damned dragoon, and charges into battle fighting rather insane monsters with little more than his bare hands and rather nasty spell effects conjured up solely through knowledge and the local plantlife. He unerringly knows where his goal lies, he breathes underwater and is untroubled by space travel, seems to have no limits to his actual endurance and favors killing his enemies by driving both boots square into their skull. His agility is unmatched, and his strength legendary, able to fling about a turtle shell big enough to contain a man with enough force to barrel down a near endless path of unfortunates.

--The horror of Mario

Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath. He is a terrible person and a hack at writing and art. His cultural contributions are less than Justin Bieber's, and he's a shitmuffin. Go go gadget Googlebomb!
Lago PARANOIA
Invincible Overlord
Posts: 10555
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

Post by Lago PARANOIA »

Is that like supposed to be a jab? I'm a jerk for demanding that stories make internal sense and don't rely on plot holes and bad writing? I'm suddenly being unreasonable for insisting that if a story has cognitive dissonance in it then they either need to add a third factor that removes the dissonance or rewrite a conclusion or premise?

Look, if you don't want D&D to be a blasted hellscape ruled by uberwizards you need to do one of several things:

[*] Give the muggles some sort of power where they can fight back.
[*] Give the uberwizards some sort of necessary drawback so they can't use their castle-nuking power to rule a kingdom.
[*] Give the uberwizards something better to do than oppress muggles.

There are a ton of stories that use one of the above methods to prevent things from turning into a Dark Sun-styled shithole. The fact that D&D doesn't is damning, considering that it would be really easy to do.
Last edited by Lago PARANOIA on Wed Apr 13, 2011 4:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.

In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

wotmaniac wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote:Killing people and taking their stuff is completely integral to D&D. Any setting that has that by definition does not and cannot have "ownership" in the modern sense of the term.
but "ownership" as a basic concept has always existed. My dog understands "ownership" ..... hell, he understands the basic concept of "private real estate" (albeit in the most rudimentary sense).
No. Your dog understands familiarity and personal territory. But that's not ownership. Your dog wouldn't expect anyone to intervene if another dog peed on their piss stain.
hyzmarca wrote:But in the modern world it is perfectly feasible to kill people and take their stuff. It happens all the time. And probably means that property ownership as an intrinsic natural right is bullshit, is doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of social institutions are predicated on the assumption that it is not.
But that's exactly the problem. In the modern world, you have to hide murder and theft forever, because society at large will avenge them in the name of defending private property and the "rights" to life and ownership. In D&D, you announce to people at large that killing people ad taking their stuff is your career. And no one considers your earnings "stolen" and tries to return them to the heirs of your victims.

-Username17
User avatar
Maxus
Overlord
Posts: 7645
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Maxus »

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Is that like supposed to be a jab? I'm a jerk for demanding that stories make internal sense and don't rely on plot holes and bad writing? I'm suddenly being unreasonable for insisting that if a story has cognitive dissonance in it then they either need to add a third factor that removes the dissonance or rewrite a conclusion or premise?
Hardly. I'm actually disposed to like you--you've brought up some really interesting and entertaining points sometimes.

But the mental image I have of you? I can totally see this go going "OH YOU DUMBASS" at the theater screen when someone, oh, runs into a room and locks the door and thinks they're safe, right between they get their head bitten in.
He jumps like a damned dragoon, and charges into battle fighting rather insane monsters with little more than his bare hands and rather nasty spell effects conjured up solely through knowledge and the local plantlife. He unerringly knows where his goal lies, he breathes underwater and is untroubled by space travel, seems to have no limits to his actual endurance and favors killing his enemies by driving both boots square into their skull. His agility is unmatched, and his strength legendary, able to fling about a turtle shell big enough to contain a man with enough force to barrel down a near endless path of unfortunates.

--The horror of Mario

Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath. He is a terrible person and a hack at writing and art. His cultural contributions are less than Justin Bieber's, and he's a shitmuffin. Go go gadget Googlebomb!
User avatar
PoliteNewb
Duke
Posts: 1053
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:23 am
Location: Alaska
Contact:

Post by PoliteNewb »

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Is that like supposed to be a jab? I'm a jerk for demanding that stories make internal sense and don't rely on plot holes and bad writing? I'm suddenly being unreasonable for insisting that if a story has cognitive dissonance in it then they either need to add a third factor that removes the dissonance or rewrite a conclusion or premise?

Look, if you don't want D&D to be a blasted hellscape ruled by uberwizards you need to do one of several things:

[*] Give the muggles some sort of power where they can fight back.
[*] Give the uberwizards some sort of necessary drawback so they can't use their castle-nuking power to rule a kingdom.
[*] Give the uberwizards something better to do than oppress muggles.
You left out option 4, "Wizards are not so uber", but I realize that's unpalatable to some people. Still an option, though.
I am judging the philosophies and decisions you have presented in this thread. The ones I have seen look bad, and also appear to be the fruit of a poisonous tree that has produced only madness and will continue to produce only madness.

--AngelFromAnotherPin

believe in one hand and shit in the other and see which ones fills up quicker. it will be the one you are full of, shit.

--Shadzar
Swordslinger
Knight-Baron
Posts: 953
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 12:30 pm

Post by Swordslinger »

Lago PARANOIA wrote: And that is lazy and incompetent storytelling. If a storyteller ever tells you 'I know this doesn't make internal sense, but I want this to happen anyway so it does' then they are selling you a bill of goods.
Isn't that the entirety of 3E high level? Can any DM explain why the high level evil wizard doesn't just toss out a bunch of gates and gate in all the good guys, soul trap them and assassinate them? I figure you'd get more than 1000 XP per archwizard you gate in and soul trap so it'd be worth it.
Starmaker
Duke
Posts: 2402
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Redmonton
Contact:

Post by Starmaker »

Maxus wrote:I can totally see this go going "OH YOU DUMBASS" at the theater screen when someone, oh, runs into a room and locks the door and thinks they're safe, right between they get their head bitten in.
So characters in fantasy should be as dumb as characters in slasher movies?
sabs
Duke
Posts: 2347
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 8:01 pm
Location: Delaware

Post by sabs »

the answer to what needs to be removed when doing HIgh Level play, is actually very straight forward.

Take out Low level thinking in your plots.
Post Reply