The Gaming Den

Speaking of FFG, they've given up, or had taken away the Warhammer license, and as of February they are ceasing sales of a bunch of Warhammer related games.

Question to Perkins on Twitter: 'How much diplomacy would a player need to convince a young Dragon to do its budding?'




*sigh*

Someone else (Lets call him PersonX) replies with the usual "This isn't a computer game! Go play computer games if you want your dirty rules!"

Earlier on I had commented to Perkins that saying "The dragon refuses negotiations all negotiations fail" was doing the video game thing where the battle music plays and fight is the only mechanic given to you.

I then linked that comment to PersonX, and he liked it because he thought I was agreeing with him.

I figure the best way to explain the "why rules are good to have" is "When players fail they want failure to feel fair, and not like the DM railroaded them". Then the players can figure out "If we had X and Y then we would've succeeded but we only had Z available so we had to try something else"

The rules for combat and smashing through doors are adequate to tell you if the dragon murders you or if you're trapped in the room, but if you tell players "The DM decides success/failure" then that directs resentment towards the DM for failure instead of the rules.

Yeah,. At one point Perkins said "making things up is the essence of the game." I asked him why he has a job then.

I keep getting into these arguments that aren't served by the 140 character limit... I'm going to start responding with Brilliant Gameologist podcasts, Den links, and screenshots of full responses beyond 140 characters. Especially when I'm 4 @s deep.

I frequently tell the diplomancers in the party to piss off, the monster doesn't want to negotiate with you. Either bring out the enchantment magic, find some other way of persuasion (the dragon may like a bribe, or a sufficient show of force might make it reconsider), or get ready to throw hands. I had a player in Pathfinder that would make a character that did nothing but roll diplomacy checks in the 50s then get mad when I wouldn't let him bypass any and all challenges by wordlessly rolling a die. Yes, the rules technically say that, but I don't think I'll get much argument when I say that the rules in pathfinder are often stupid.

Just assume the dragon is "hostile" and apply something like a -4 penalty if the diplomancer doesn't bring gifts of gold, gems, food, etc.

Should put the DC high enough to be out of reach of all but the higher level PCs.

Still, I'd allow it.

Perkins is a killjoy.

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:I frequently tell the diplomancers in the party to piss off, the monster doesn't want to negotiate with you. Either bring out the enchantment magic, find some other way of persuasion (the dragon may like a bribe, or a sufficient show of force might make it reconsider), or get ready to throw hands. I had a player in Pathfinder that would make a character that did nothing but roll diplomacy checks in the 50s then get mad when I wouldn't let him bypass any and all challenges by wordlessly rolling a die. Yes, the rules technically say that, but I don't think I'll get much argument when I say that the rules in pathfinder are often stupid.

My main point is really that if you're going to say that monsters get a "I won't do that" condition that makes them immune to mundane diplomacy, then everyone should and it should be codified.

edit: my secondary point was that social interaction rules are admittedly hard but Perkins et al didn't even really try.

Also, I find it hilarious that apparently Perkins' initial response was actually wrong. "Dead-set against" is just Hostile, which has a DC.

Reminds me of a DM I had years ago that denied me the ability to craft a 1000 gp unlimited use Cure Minor Wounds item just because "a cleric might not agree to cast the spell for you".

So what do you know, I finally find a cleric after sessions of searching, offer to pay double just to cast a fuckin cantrip, and the DM says....

"No."

I once had a GM take away my character's greataxe because he disagreed with me using one as a monk. Like, literally take it away. He dictated that I hit a wall on a miss and the wall absorbed it.

Because he didn't like a monk using a great axe until his unarmed damage improved.

This is why I'm a fucking rules whore.

Jesus, Prak, I'd just punch the DM in the nose at that point.

Why do we put up with people like this? Are we suckers for a decent RPG session in times of desperation?

Pretty much. And for friends (at least in that case. It was in High School).

The whole "any game is better than no game" thing. I've since left games over DM's doing things like instituting shitty facing rules that make my rogue suck. Or carving out an entire portion of Werewolf's world because he was too lazy to write better scenarios(/enforce the actual rules)

Prak wrote:(I)f you're going to say that monsters get an "I won't do that" condition that makes them immune to mundane diplomacy, then everyone should and it should be codified.

In M&M3 it's a 5 point Immunity. While I'd argue that skills are weighted 2-3x more heavily than they should be in that system (a preferred resolution for such being perhaps a 5 rank total per skill system, in lieu of one where one PP gives even more ranks to distribute than currently), it does seem a fitting expenditure for a character to not deal with the consequence of unwanted seductions and the like.

I'd have to go and refresh my memory about how it worked specifically, but I remember After Sundown addressing this sort of hard limit thing.

Prak wrote:
My main point is really that if you're going to say that monsters get a "I won't do that" condition that makes them immune to mundane diplomacy, then everyone should and it should be codified.

I don't have my monsters roll diplomacy against the players in most circumstances, they can choose to hear the NPC/Monsters out or tell them to fuck right off, negotiations are over. That being said, I'd like to say it doesn't need to be codified because normal people know how social interactions work but I've known enough gamers to know that isn't the case at all. As written, diplomacy is the "I win pathfinder/3e" skill and it really needs to be updated.

Yeah... the problem starts at assuming that gamers are normal people. There's a reason we're all pretending to be elves and dwarves fighting dragons instead of killing brain cells on the sports field.

Apparently I'm an evil, stupid monster for wanting an extensible framework to adjudicate situations from and asking why I should buy a rules book that won't give me that, to hear a bunch of fucking eggs that came to the party late tell it.

had a player in Pathfinder that would make a character that did nothing but roll diplomacy checks in the 50s then get mad when I wouldn't let him bypass any and all challenges by wordlessly rolling a die. Yes, the rules technically say that, but I don't think I'll get much argument when I say that the rules in pathfinder are often stupid.

In what situation was the +50 to diplomacy useful in your game? Most problems I've seen arise from when the DM and PC look at the same page but leave with different conclusions.

*Ah I see Perkins' also had the job of going online to defend D&D4e design decisions like the computer game connectivity and skill challenges, he likely got burned from that and has swung deep the other way for "power of imagination is in your hands!"

As soon as I saw the "if we're supposed to make it all up, why do we pay you for a rule book" I knew it was somebody from here.

JonSetanta wrote:Why do we put up with people like this? Are we suckers for a decent RPG session in times of desperation?

It's called poor self-esteem.

The moment I finally learned that No Game Is Better Than Bad Game my gaming life improved like you have no idea.

http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html

Probably something that everyone's read, but this guy does a good job to explain it I think.

OgreBattle wrote:
In what situation was the +50 to diplomacy useful in your game? Most problems I've seen arise from when the DM and PC look at the same page but leave with different conclusions.

The PC was attempting to use it as an improved version of Dominate Monster. So any time he was dealing with anything he shared a language he'd roll a diplomacy check well in excess to turn hostile to friendly then get mad when I wouldn't let him demand everything.

Sounds like a character I made, sans +50 on the roll and demanding. You never really need to "demand" anything if you are smart about what you say. I believe it was in some adventure path that started with a bunch of kobolds. I didn't know what the campaign was going to be about but I decided that I was going to be a bad guy or at least not altruistic. A few captured kobolds here, a few promises of power ( with some buff spells) there, freedom and food and my party and I showed up to the boss with an overwhelming number of helpers. Though I couldn't talk to everyone ( specifically the altered kobolds and the boss) I didn't need to nor did I even try. Went over well with the relative noobies I played with who assumed they'd die playing through nothing but a room to room murder fest.

So, Scion 2e kickstarter is up and I don't even know what to say.

We are starting with Scion: Origin and Scion: Hero, corebooks which are used together to play Scions that begin as mortals in Scion: Origin, and fan the spark of divinity within in Scion: Hero. Ultimately we will continue the series with further corebooks that allow the player characters to increase in power until they take their seats at the right hand of their parents, the gods. Or perhaps, overthrow them.

Scion: Origin and Scion: Hero, are corebooks that together contain the rules for the Storypath System, the setting of the World, and how to make characters in the World of Scion.

You must have both Scion: Origin and Scion: Hero in order to play at the Hero level.

Apparently Scion is incompattible with the WoD mortal corebook, but also needs its own special mortal corebook to play? Wat?

Scion: Origin will include:

• The Storypath System: These rules provide a foundation for playing any character — mortal or god — in the Scion World. (See the section about the Storypath System below).

If that's a claim that Scion will support scions/gods crossover parties - then I don't believe them. But I suspect they just mean it's a mortal corebook.

• Character Options: Ranging from pre-Visitation Scions to Therianthropes to Beserkers; and many more.

Currently known options: mortals, furries, berserkers. Wat.

• Divine Pantheons: Ten global pantheons that act as parents and patrons for Scions: Algonquin, Aztec, Chinese, Egyptian, Greco-Roman, Hindu, Irish, Japanese, Norse, and Yoruba.

Still no Slavic pantheon

A preview of the greek gods is given, and already I see that some gods have more purviews than the others. I don't know how meaningful that is yes.

It's reasonably clear what they intend to do.

Scion did not have a game system. Like, at all. There was some notes, some references to some related White Wolf game designs, and a mostly completed combat system, but the RPG core engine did not exist. Making a "new edition" of Scion would have to first and foremost write a game system. They have decided to call that system "Storypath," because that sounds like you're doing character creation in MechWarrior. But whatever the reasoning, that's what they are going with.

Now their decision to divide the core rules between several books represents a fundamental lack of discipline. It either means that they intend to gibber away for two whole books worth of text of their sprawling rule system, or perhaps more likely that they actually don't have a coherent game system in mind and they intend to prattle on for like 600 pages across two books as a giant denial-in-depth project to defend themselves from exactly that accusation.

-Username17

I don't know what kind of game Rising Sun is, but the Adrian Smith art for it is nice
https://www.facebook.com/risingsunboard ... f=NEWSFEED

I find it useful to ask a Diplomancer player if an NPC rolling a 70 on their Diplomacy check should mean I get to dictate the party's actions. If he says no, I get to shut down whatever he's trying to pull. If he says yes, I declare that the BBEG Diplomances the party into his inner circle and performs his world-ending ritual, so now we can play Strip Jenga. This leads to either the other players pressing the cheeser into abiding by the Gentlemen's Agreement or everybody taking their clothes off, depending on how late in the evening it is.

Either way, everybody wins.