Horrible roleplaying advice and mechanics

[NineInchNall]

The number of disads a character can have is limited. Starting characters can have two. Gaining disads is not something you can do under your own power unless you have some serious Daoist chops. (Or through some otherwise uninteresting loresheets, requiring the expenditure of Destiny.) But if you have a disad that you can finesse into being relevant once/session, then you don't even want additional ones.

And wtf is with complaining that characters have a way to gain XP every session? The game pretty much assumes that people will be getting that disad point every session.

[momothefiddler]

And yet if it was in the XP chart in the MC chapter, it wouldn't be a huge deal.

Showing up: 1xp
Accomplishing at least one minor goal: 1xp
Accomplishing a major (multi-session) goal: 3xp
Exceptional teamwork: 1xp
Being hindered by a disadvantage: 1xp

Granted, at this point I think it'd make more sense to say everyone needs to have some sort of exploitable weakness for character depth, and this is probably only valid for a supers game or similar, and all sorts of other arguments, but "it's unlimited points" really doesn't seem like a fair objection. So's showing up, in that you get a point per week. Wow!

[NineInchNall]

And yet if it was in the XP chart in the MC chapter, it wouldn't be a huge deal.

Showing up: 1xp
Accomplishing at least one minor goal: 1xp
Accomplishing a major (multi-session) goal: 3xp
Exceptional teamwork: 1xp
Being hindered by a disadvantage: 1xp

That's on page 341. But because the book was laid out by retarded monkeys tripping balls on peyote and LSD, finding that shit ain't easy.

[momothefiddler]

That's on page 341. But because the book was laid out by retarded monkeys tripping balls on peyote and LSD, finding that shit ain't easy.

I don't even have the book. I was just arguing against the claim that a point per session for a disadvantage is somehow fatal to the xp economy or something.

[Username17]

Is there some reason that the specific (the disads that say they give you XP "whenever") doesn't override the general (the blanket rule that disads trigger once per session)?

I am genuinely curious. I've never been able to read Weapons of the Gods.

-Username17

[NineInchNall]

That'd be because almost every single disad is described with "whenever" or "every time". Given the context, one is entitled to read that as meaning "any situation in which this happens counts toward getting the Destiny from a disadvantage, which you can get once per session." As in, if you have the Rival disadvantage and the GM springs your rival on you, the DM can't short you your session's point of Destiny.

WotG in general restates things unnecessarily often. In this case, they're restating - every damn time - that a disadvantage gives you Destiny for being an inconvenience. The book also describes how to use a thing before that thing is introduced formally, usually in the form of examples. Those examples often don't mesh with the actual rule once it's introduced. So sanity requires reading the book in reverse fucking order.

I say this not as a general method for exegesis, but as the only way to read WotG and retain your sanity. It's horribly written. I mean, I complain about how 3.X authors often restated things in descriptions*, confusing things by doing so, but the WotG writers took it to a new level. It's basically not written like a rule book at all, but instead in the style of an 18th century philosophical treatise, where things in chapter one only make sense in light of things in chapter seven. It's so poorly written that the errata document includes a full five pages explaining how one of the game's basic systems works, because the actual book does such a shitty job that no one could figure it out.


*Example: The Warlock write-up says that invocations are spell-like abilities and therefore standard actions. So some people decided that that line isn't just restating the rules on SLAs, and is instead saying that invocations are special snowflakes that are standard actions regardless of the spell they're duplicating. The argument only happened because the writers suck and didn't just say, "invocations are SLAs and follow all the rules for SLAs - except these have somatic components nyah!"

[spongeknight]

Is there some reason that the specific (the disads that say they give you XP "whenever") doesn't override the general (the blanket rule that disads trigger once per session)?

I am genuinely curious. I've never been able to read Weapons of the Gods.

-Username17

There actually is no ruling, as far as I can find, that determines whether specific beats general or the other way around. And in fact the note on page 341 seems like an error anyway, because it claims to be reiterating a rule that actually isn't there; the very first time the words "every session" appear as opposed to "every time" is on that very page. So either they messed up the wording on every single disadvantage in the disadvantage section or they messed up the wording there.

Regardless, you're still getting an extra point every goddamn session you purposefully bring a character who fucks the party, so only getting the 'minor' boost of gaining almost half again as much XP as a character without party-fucking flaws is still horrible roleplaying mechanics.

[zugschef]

If you want horrible advice, just read 3rd edition "Das schwarze Auge" (The Dark Eye). It's full of horrible advice to MCs. It frequently encourages railroading, or rather it just flat out assumes that there is no other way to MCing than railroading, and to fuck your PCs over and to throw a tantrum when they disagree.

I don't have the boxes with me, so I unfortunately can't provide a word for word citation, but in the "Mantel, Schwert und Zauberstab"-box they printed an example of a real gaming session. In this example the MC flat out declares that the PCs throw away all of their armor, heavy equipment, etc. because they are in the swamps and it's about 40°C with 100% humidity. A PC complains that he won't throw away his equipment but instead wants to tame an alligator (he's got an extremely high skill level) or some other animal big and strong enough to carry his gear. The MC basically just says "Go fuck yourself!" and declares that they've just thrown away all of their eq. Next thing he does is let the bbeg (an oversized lizard-man with a shitload of attacks and poison) walk around the corner. The MC's last comment is something along "Now let's do the end-fight quickly, I want to watch the late time movie on tv. And you guys write something right beneath your combat stats, because then you'll always see it: Every group has the MC it deserves!"

And yes, that shit is really supposed to teach players how to behave. Srzly, WTF?!

[silva]

Shadowrun 5E advice is one of the most clear railroady advices Ive ever seen in a rpg book. THe GM is said to totally prep plots and scenes in advance, and drive the players through these.

Its the antithesis of Apocalypse World.

Primarily, the gamemaster is responsible for bringing the initial story seed, or spark, on which the session will be built...

...Think of the game as being like a boat, with
the gamemaster controlling the rudder and the players
rowing the oars. The gamemaster sets the direction, the
players drive the game forward...

...Once you’ve talked to your players, spend some quality
time talking to yourself... What motivates you to tell these stories? What kind of stories do you want to tell?...

...An astute gamemaster
can have the best of both worlds: Allowing the
players to make their choice, while still having the story
go in roughly the same way as they had planned...

...a scene is written around
contributing one or more points to the overall plot of
the run. Building the overall plot of the adventure is
done by stringing together multiple scenes that make
up the whole..

...What needs to happen in a scene can be incredibly
varied and depends a lot on the story the gamemaster
is trying to tell...

...Having written (or at
least read and reviewed) the plot of a run, the gamemaster
should be familiar with the overall storyline and
where the points of greatest drama and excitement will
occur...

...if the players are really engaged in sneaking their characters
into a building, disabling sensors, and focused on
avoiding fights, then the gamemaster can take the scene
that they planned where a security team stumbles upon
the players and remove, or delay, it... Controlling pace is all about watching the players’
engagement in the story and adjusting the timing of
events to maximize it

[Mistborn]

Its the antithesis of Apocalypse World.

You know this is probably the nicest thing anyone on this board has said about Shadowrun 5E

[silva]

Well if that means you like railroads, go for it.

[Mistborn]

[Prak]

On the earlier topic of blind supers-

[silva]

[moronic irrelevant bullshit]

Yeah, whatever.

[ishy]

Gary's advice in OD&D deserves to be in this thread.

While there is no rule to apply to groups of chaotic players operating in concert, referees are urged to formulate some rules against continuing co-operation as fits their particular situation,

[Wiseman]

On the earlier topic of blind supers-

Wait. How is he texting then?

[Prak]

Voice to text, probably.

[hyzmarca]

Voice to text, probably.

Or one of these.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refreshabl ... le_display

[Aryxbez]

Considering every RPG has been broken in some way, it's good to let the DM know that crazy combos and unexpected loopholes are to be expected, and that it's the DM's job to stop them from ruining his game. Sure, in a perfect world, the RPG rules would cover everything and stop that sort of thing, but this isn't a perfect world, and the DM advice should reflect that and have the DM be ready to step in to prevent rules exploits.

The quote in question is on page 242 of Fantasycraft, explicitly regarding that its monster system isn't balanced, and done so on purpose. Problem with that, since it 's a 3rd edition-ish game, that's making the GM's job bit harder, in addition to the other volume of rules they expect you to master. A monster system that "works" when the GM is using their judgment (remember, the value of such judgment will vary given human nature), catering it to the group, or forcing weaknesses like building a superhero...it's kinda failed as a system. At that point, if it's just DM fiat that "works" (supposedly), then the system is useless, and makes GMing that much harder. It's not that the GM is a giant jerk-face, it's that we're human beings, and its not ridiculous to expect to pay money (49.95 apparently) to have major systems that'll get used to generate fair and more balanced results, that don't rely on myself to do so (or having the pedigree: "Good DM").

No, not saying RPG's should be 100% perfect, holes will happen where they do (especially as supplements get released), but if major component of your game isn't working right, there's a problem, and It's damn well I have the right to complain. In the Video Game industry, it wouldn't be crazy to balk when your gameplay isn't working right (movement, hit detection, lag, etc).

[nockermensch]

Its the antithesis of Apocalypse World.

You know this is probably the nicest thing anyone on this board has said about Shadowrun 5E

silva, fuck you for making me agree with Mistborn.

Here, "the antithesis of silva World" means that the GM is encouraged to treat the game objects like they really exist. If the scenario is created before-hand and says that there's four guards in the foyer with skills X and equipment Y, then players can actually be rewarded by planning if they somehow manage to overwhelm or trick the guards. But if everything exists in a quantum state until the players actually observe it, then the only smart decision as a player is to become a mind reader or not interact with the world, at all. Don't you see how this punishes roleplaying and exploration?

Nobody bit the suggestion I gave a couple of threads ago, to optimise a silva World character to win the way the game is actually played. I'm not even sure if it's possible, but it would be interesting to see a character design that somehow managed to avoid rolling dice (since each check introduces quantum bears in the game), unless you can be sure you'll roll 10+.

[Cyberzombie]

The quote in question is on page 242 of Fantasycraft, explicitly regarding that its monster system isn't balanced, and done so on purpose. Problem with that, since it 's a 3rd edition-ish game, that's making the GM's job bit harder, in addition to the other volume of rules they expect you to master. A monster system that "works" when the GM is using their judgment (remember, the value of such judgment will vary given human nature), catering it to the group, or forcing weaknesses like building a superhero...it's kinda failed as a system. At that point, if it's just DM fiat that "works" (supposedly), then the system is useless, and makes GMing that much harder. It's not that the GM is a giant jerk-face, it's that we're human beings, and its not ridiculous to expect to pay money (49.95 apparently) to have major systems that'll get used to generate fair and more balanced results, that don't rely on myself to do so (or having the pedigree: "Good DM").

No, not saying RPG's should be 100% perfect, holes will happen where they do (especially as supplements get released), but if major component of your game isn't working right, there's a problem, and It's damn well I have the right to complain. In the Video Game industry, it wouldn't be crazy to balk when your gameplay isn't working right (movement, hit detection, lag, etc).

Monster design is very difficult to get right, assuming you don't want cookie cutter monsters. I mean, when it comes down to it, almost every system tends to admit their monster system is unbalanced. 3E's system is more or less doing a bunch of steps that look like a system, then assigning an arbitrary CR to a monster, and there's no actual formula for figuring that out, only the guideline linking CR to equivalent level of a PC (and given you have PC monks and PC druids, that guideline itself is very vague).

4E is probably the closest to a balanced monster creation system and even that makes no attempt to balance monster's special abilities, only the monster numbers. And 4E monsters are incredibly cookie cutter and boring.

I've yet to really see a single game system that has the ability to create interesting monsters that are also balanced. It's pretty much going to rely on designer judgment to a large degree to ensure the monster isn't ridiculously powerful.

[ishy]

The quote in question is on page 242 of Fantasycraft, explicitly regarding that its monster system isn't balanced, and done so on purpose.

Monster design is very difficult to get right, assuming you don't want cookie cutter monsters.

There is a huge difference between not achieving balance and going out of your way to make it imbalanced though.

Nobody bit the suggestion I gave a couple of threads ago, to optimise a silva World character to win the way the game is actually played.

[silva]

snip

I thought I put it in a really clear way there, but Ill repeat it only because youre brazilian:

1. Shadowrun 5E advises for railroading gameplay;

2. Apocalypse World advises for sandbox / player-driven gameplay;

3. Thus, Shadowrun 5E is the antithesis of Apocalypse World, regarding gameplay style.

Im not talking about resolution systems, nor types of dice, nor any other aspect here - Im referring just to the gameplay type advised in the text in regard to railroading vs sandbox styles.

Entendeu agora, o manezão ?

[Kaelik]

[quote="silva]2. Apocalypse World advises for sandbox / player-driven gameplay;[/quote]

This is completely false. A Sandbox is a place where you have a bunch of sand that already exists, and you can do whatever you want to the sand, and the sand will respond like sand.

Trying to co-opt sandbox to mean "anything that is not a railroad" damages the term and discourse. *World is about as far from a sandbox as you can get.

[nockermensch]

Nobody bit the suggestion I gave a couple of threads ago, to optimise a silva World character to win the way the game is actually played.

I said that. The way to succeed in silva World is by not playing it. The idea is seeing if that's possible while sitting at the game table. Something like Rincewind, I suppose. Make a character that tries to avoid all conflicts. Since silva World seems to work on a "an story is being told" paradigm, the story must still reach a conclusion.

Maybe this is possible by optimising until the character has only one really good roll, where you all but avoid rolling anything but a 10+, or maybe you have really bad rolls, but you phrase what you're rolling in a way to make the inevitable failure irrelevant or even beneficial. I dunno.

2. Apocalypse World advises for sandbox / player-driven gameplay;

See, no. This is what the writers may think they're doing. What they're actually doing is to totally discourage sandbox / player-driven gameplay, because attempting to do anything at all open the door to arbitrary complications to spring into the game's reality. Actually, it voids any sense of sandbox / discovery for people who read the game, because for them it's pretty clear that there's nothing to actually discover: enemies, structures and complications are being created at the spot when they decide to look at the world.

This criticism can be somewhat puzzling, because no DM has infinite time at his hands so improv creation of game objects will happen at any game. The problem with silva World is taking this human deficiency and putting it at a pedestal.

Entendeu agora, o manezão ?

Foda-se, silva. Vai chupar um barril de piroca.

EDIT: holy crap! You just made me agree with Kaelik too. I need some fresh air.