« first day (879 days earlier)      last day (4076 days later) » 
04:00 - 23:0023:00 - 00:00

F. Randall Farmer
F. Randall Farmer
4:00 AM
I know no one is here. I'm just venting to public space where it isn't in a comment.
Why on earth do so many people paint "rails" vs. "sandbox" and binary dichotomy?
Grr.
I've never experienced this and I've been DMing off an on since 1977ish.
 
Magician
Magician
Is this re:kidnapping question?
 
F. Randall Farmer
F. Randall Farmer
That's what triggered the comments. Yes.
Most encounters I run have complex knock-on effects, even if I run them out of a prepublished module.
From a recent posted summary:
Latimer dashes out the kitchen door in the back of the Famished Froghemoth with the party trying to keep up. The elementalist, who snuck out when the Slayer's exited the inn earlier, saw which direction they went.

Unfortunately, that was exactly the direction that Latimer was running. Despite best efforts, the party was unable to slow Latimer down. He was going to lead them to the lair, pick up his loot, and blow town
as quickly as possible...



As they turned down a the street that lead to the ferry docs, they found that a cart had blocked their exit - it was a trap.
In some ways (and a narrow win/lose) view that encounter was a win, in others a lose. In the end the players made the choice. Rails? Sandbox? Bah. The distinction is meaningless to me.
 
Magician
Magician
offtopic, that's some impressive terrain
 
F. Randall Farmer
F. Randall Farmer
Thank you. My players love it - and I share it online because it kills me only 6 people would see it otherwise. :-)
[BTW, not addressing any comment at you Magician - just working off steam]
... and maybe a future blog post...
 
Magician
Magician
Oh, I got that. Though Brian's answer did basically paraphrase one of my own blog posts, so I'm curious as to your disagreements :)
 
F. Randall Farmer
F. Randall Farmer
4:11 AM
I don't agree that results are always win/lose, pass/fail, and that somehow "capture" is always a loss.
 
Magician
Magician
I think what Brian said was, if the only outcome of an encounter is "you get captured", there's no point in playing it out. If meaningful decisions are likely to be made as part of getting captured, which is what happens in your games, then it's all gooed
 
F. Randall Farmer
F. Randall Farmer
I disagree completely.
It's not the result that matters, it's the means.
Just like every single encounter.
 
Magician
Magician
And 4e is geared for consequence-less combat encounters, so that you can fit 5 or so in a dungeon.
 
F. Randall Farmer
F. Randall Farmer
What is the result of the capture? Does the party have all it's weapons and resources or is it naked in a cell.
Um. No.
That's how some people say it is geared - but that's not what I've read everywhere official (not that I care about official.)
So many binary assertions about something so social just gets me going.
[Not you personally.]
There is no real rails v. sandbox. I've listened to a lot of podcasts and read lots of posts and no one agrees with anyone what they mean - so I don't see how they can be polar opposites or binary choices.
My players have never given a rats hind-quarters about any of that crud.
 
Magician
Magician
Rails vs Sandbox is a different topic, and I just had a strange kind of an idea, which may be the cause of these disagreements. Cross-breeding these concepts with G/N/S playstyle. But as for combat in 4e...
 
F. Randall Farmer
F. Randall Farmer
4:16 AM
I guess I'm just the luckiest DM in the world. (Not sarcastic). My players all behave, respect each other, don't power-game, are happy to play in canned adventures...
G/N/S? Again with the terms I don't know. :-P
 
Magician
Magician
I've spent some time figuring out how to make combat have consequences. Wrote blog posts, experimented, refined those ideas in actual play. It's entirely possible you've learned similar lessons over your longer career, and now don't even realise you're applying them to your games. And kudos to you in that case.
Gamist/Narrativist/Simulationist
 
F. Randall Farmer
F. Randall Farmer
I ran the last module of Dragonlance for some friends 20+ years ago. When they raided a castle, I captured them and through them in the Deathknight's dungeon. No problem at all.
Possibly. I read all the Slyflourish stuff and think "Has no one written this down in the last 40 years?" :-)
Kudos to you all for putting that in text.
But practice is different than pronostication.
prognostication.
 
Magician
Magician
It is. It is also a very personal thing. Which is why I think arguments of "good GM can fix that" are useless: we only have the rules text in common, we can't rely on mythical GM judgement. Teaching GMs to be good at their job is a different topic to rules discussions.
 
F. Randall Farmer
F. Randall Farmer
Ah! Yeah G/N/S - again with categories that may be useful descriptively, but not practically. Hearkens back to the oldest article I know like that by my good friend Richard Bartle: mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm
Agreed. We need to teach best practices. I'm not a fan of the "Don't do that" answers.
There are much better ways to communicate alternatives.
I think there's a reason that mine was the first answer to get the gold badge. :-)
I've GTG - wife and I are sitting down for our Sunday Night shows. Thanks for being a voice in the darkness. It was really engaging and interesting.
 
Magician
Magician
My pleasure :)
 
Lord_Gareth
Lord_Gareth
5:09 AM
I appear to have randomly gained 8 rep on an answer
@BrianBallsun-Stanton may I call upon your illustrious store of knowledge and wisdom to check an answer o' mine for coherency?
This answer -> rpg.stackexchange.com/a/22420/6172 <- For all future reference
 
 
1 hour later…
F. Randall Farmer
F. Randall Farmer
6:40 AM
@magician Thanks again. Where's your blog?
[Still shaking my head about Andrea's choice on Walking Dead...]
 
F. Randall Farmer
F. Randall Farmer
6:56 AM
@magician Found it. Interesting how your posts match up against my little rant here. :-)
 
Brian Ballsun-Stanton
Brian Ballsun-Stanton
7:13 AM
@Lord_Gareth Seems reasonable to me
 
 
2 hours later…
BESW
BESW
8:53 AM
@Magician "mythical GM judgement." I like that; it encapsulates a lot of uninformed assumptions and privileged attitudes.
@F.RandallFarmer This. There's an idea behind the words that's useful to discuss, but the terms are so poorly defined --and loaded for bear, emotionally-- that I think they're harmful to any attempt to discuss the ideas they try to describe.
@deworde Hi!
@deworde Are you familiar with the FATE system? Your "kidnapped" answer uses some of its explicit philosophies.
 
deworde
deworde
9:19 AM
@BESW Not even a little bit.
 
BESW
BESW
@deworde Interesting. "Making failure interesting" is one of the core tenets of FATE GMing; if failure can't be made interesting, the GM is advised not to make it a possibility.
Classic example is the bottomless pit. If falling into the pit just kills you, it's boring. The GM is advised to instead use the mechanics so that the failing to cross pit leaves you on the near side, or that the check to cross is for finding out how well you crossed (hanging from the edge by your fingers?).
 
deworde
deworde
@BESW To be honest, I haven't played RPG's in about 12 years because I'd have to DM (lots of boardgamer friends, but no-one who's played much D&D etc), and getting people interested would take a lot of work, not to mention running the thing. But having run various boardgame nights (DungeonQuest, Mansions of Madness, Dixit, Last Night on Earth, etc), you quickly pick up that the moment losing isn't fun, 90% of the players aren't having fun.
 
BESW
BESW
@deworde That's a good insight to pick up; it seems obvious to some, but I've known some people for whom it's not quite so clear.
And then when you throw in that different people have different ideas about what constitutes winning and losing... Call of Cthulhu and Paranoia making "losing in interesting ways" the win condition.
 
deworde
deworde
@BESW I've always felt that the key problem with RPGs like D&D is the fact that the DM seems to be so much more work, so when getting started with it, someone needs to take that arrow. It's what makes games like Fiasco so much easier to pick up.
 
BESW
BESW
@deworde As someone who's happily been a DM for nearly ten years, I don't consider it an arrow to the knee, but I agree that the effort differential creates unpleasant imbalances in the game's social dynamics.
 
deworde
deworde
9:33 AM
@BESW But did you DM first before ever really playing? Because that's the bit that I think's a killer.
 
BESW
BESW
Yes, my first experience with tabletop RPGs was as a GM.
I fully admit that I'm probably a fringe case, and I had a brilliant group that made my experience even more atypical.
Social constructs like "Rule 0" (the GM is always right) get created to --in part-- offer social power as an enticement, acknowledging that the mantle of GM is often not taken up eagerly.
The D&D 3.5 Dungeon Master's Guide simultaneously says that the DM's role is to serve the players, and that the DM is in charge of the group socially. Call of Cthulhu says that because being GM isn't usually popular, many groups rotate the mantle regularly so nobody gets stuck with it.
I suspect the heart of the "kidnapped" issue is that story requires failure in order to make success cathartic, but systems like D&D don't support story mechanically; they're combat systems rather than story systems, and it takes the intervention of a story-conscious GM or group to make the systems bend into a story-like shape.
 
deworde
deworde
9:49 AM
@BESW Yes, serve and be in charge would be the extra work in this case. Kidnapped's an interesting question. On the face of it, it's just asking for raw mechanics that could incapacitate the players, but that's so obvious (Good old hit with rock(s), nothing beats hit with rock(s)...), that the more interesting part becomes "Why don't you feel you can just capture them without push-back"? I attempted to answer both.
 
BESW
BESW
It's definitely a social engineering issue disguised as a mechanical one.
Which is actually rather common; for many it's easier to try to address social problems with rules solutions because rules are more tangible and structured.
 
deworde
deworde
@BESW I think that's what I mean by railroading. You have a social issue (players no want be smashy with rock), and you attempt to solve it by forcing them to accept the rules (player be smashy with rock because player rolled a 2). Done well, moves the game forward. Done badly, generally creates resentment.
 
BESW
BESW
That's an interesting way of defining railroading. I'm going to have to think on it. Hrm.
In very general terms, I've used "railroad" to mean GM-contrived limitation of player choice.
Your definition reduces it to a more specific case where the GM is reducing or redirecting player choice in directions players don't want to go, which is more negative... and probably also more useful as a term.
 
deworde
deworde
10:09 AM
@BESW You can generally tell when it's being done badly (to use an example from that question), if the DM is inventing new reasons why you can't escape rather than admitting that "if you do charm that Sea Drake and ride it home rather than to the nearby island, we're going to have to stick on a DVD while I do some fast editing to my story"
 
BESW
BESW
Aye.
 
Magician
Magician
Hi, @BESW
 
deworde
deworde
I mean, that's why I love this story: tabletitans.com/tales/post/sage-advice
 
BESW
BESW
One thing I like about FATE is that it provides a mechanical way for the GM to ask players to allow him to complicate the story in a way related to their characters. They can accept and get game currency that gives them some narrative control later, or they can spend game currency to decline the complication.
@Magician Hafa adai!
@deworde Yes, in my experience the best way to complicate a plot is to let the players just be players.
 
Magician
Magician
With regards to railroading, and this is the idea I've mentioned before, I've considered marrying the concept to GNS, to see if that makes it any clearer. So you'd define "railroading" along those directions, not in general sense
So railroading as such is, hm, lets say denial of player creativity, in preference of GM creativity
The most obvious case is narrative railroading: GM comes up with a story, and forces players to play it out, without ever getting a choice in how it'd turn out.
 
BESW
BESW
10:14 AM
@unlucu Hi!
@Magician Interesting. In that context, I've seen examples of simulationist railroading on this site.
 
Magician
Magician
Gamist railroading would be not so much rules lawyering, as, lets see here, insisting on playing a certain way. If the GM favors knock-down-doors style of game, he'd be resistant to letting players scout, for instance. And he'd be able to apply rules to make it a poor choice.
And simulationist railroading would be insisting on a particular model of the world, with disregard for players' opinions. I guess. Or have you seen something different?
 
BESW
BESW
I've seen where the GM feels it'd be more "realistic" or "true to the setting" to use a particular mechanical choice.
Often the GM in that situation creates imbalanced homebrews that "make sense" but disrupt the system. When done on the fly, it makes for very unhappy players.
I'm trying to think of an example, but I'm also watching a really silly PKD film.
 
Magician
Magician
PKD?
 
BESW
BESW
Phillip K. Dick.
Oh, here's one that someone mentioned in chat a few months ago.
 
Magician
Magician
Ok, so lets see if this new(?) way of classifying railroads is of any use. A game with all three tracks fully railroaded is a case of tyrannical GM, who dictates how everything should happen. Players are at best sock puppets for him. Likely not a lot of fun, but definitely happens.
 
BESW
BESW
10:26 AM
3.5 wizard pulls out a wand of magic missile and tries to blast a bad guy with it. The GM requires that the wizard roll a Use Magic Device check. Wizard fails because he thought they'd be using the core rules in which he wouldn't need that skill, and so the GM rolls on the scroll failure table.
 
deworde
deworde
@Magician It's basically someone telling you their story, right?
 
Magician
Magician
Sounds about right
 
BESW
BESW
The GM knows both scroll failure and UMD aren't in keeping with the rules of the game, but he feels it's "more realistic" or "makes more sense," and so insists on it.
@deworde I've known that GM. He was a lot happier as a player.
 
Magician
Magician
@deworde telling their own story their way, yeah
 
BESW
BESW
He had great stories, but they were his stories.
 
deworde
deworde
10:28 AM
@BESW Which is fine, but it does ask why you're bothering to roll the dice.
 
BESW
BESW
@deworde Yeeah.
 
deworde
deworde
@Magician I mean, what happened if the players fail, where he needed them to succeed?
 
BESW
BESW
He had players who went along with it because the stories were so good, but if I'd stayed in that game I would've applied some heavy social engineering on him.
 
Magician
Magician
A game with N and S tracks railroaded, but G left free is... Very rules-oriented, I'd say. Players get to run around within the confines of the plot and "GM, may I".
 
BESW
BESW
@deworde If they need to succeed, they can't fail.
 
Magician
Magician
10:29 AM
@deworde fudged dice, or total breakdown of the game.
 
BESW
BESW
If they manage to fail, an NPC appears to ensure they don't.
 
Magician
Magician
A game with G and S tracks railroaded, but N left free... Is what some people would call a sandbox. Here's the world, go do stuff. Doesn't actually mean there is no plot, just that GM lets players influence it.
 
BESW
BESW
@Magician I've enjoyed running that kind of game.
The party knows what to expect mechanically, and the world is consistent, so they're free to make story choices and feel like they can predict how it'll work out.
 
Magician
Magician
And the game with G and N tracks railroaded, but S left free... Is tricky. At a guess, it'd occur when the setting is "realistic", and GM is willing to confer with players as to how things should work.
 
BESW
BESW
I am amused. You just defined sandboxing as a subset of railroading.
 
Magician
Magician
10:33 AM
Ayup :D
 
BESW
BESW
And it feels right, too. Sandboxing isn't about the GM abdicating responsibility, just reallocating priorities.
 
Magician
Magician
Well, ok, no. It probably only means that N component shouldn't be railroaded for it to be a sandbox. G and S could be at different positions: it'd still be a sandbox if GM consults players on likely outcomes of events (S) and interpretation of rules (G).
Sandboxes do need consistent application of "world rules" and system rules, to enable prediction of outcomes. But that could be achieved without railroading corresponding components.
 
BESW
BESW
True.
I think in most systems it's the responsibility of the GM to ensure that happens, though, whether through personal or group choices.
 
deworde
deworde
@Magician The thing is, if you railroad Narrative (which is the traditional meaning), surely both get pulled along for the ride. Yes, the players can make decisions within the fights, but whatever the outcome of the fight, you're going to end up going through the red door.
 
Magician
Magician
@BESW It generally is, yes.
 
BESW
BESW
10:41 AM
@deworde I dunno. It's very possible to railroad narrative without modifying the system (Simulation railroading).
 
Magician
Magician
@deworde they could get dragged along, and often do, if only to avoid the players derailing the narrative. But I don't think it's a necessary condition.
So, thinking about an example... Lets say the party is about to fight a dragon. But instead of just going into its cave, they declare they've hired the nearby village to build ballistae for them, and to then place them on a nearby hill, where they'll lure the dragon and shoot it dead. The GM can deny that request for following reasons:
 
deworde
deworde
@BESW I was thinking of your N&S but with G left free.
 
Magician
Magician
1. "Villagers can't make decent ballistae" - Srailroading, can be potentially be resolved by hiring proper craftsmen.
2. "Villagers would run away from a dragon" - Srailroading again.
3. "They won't hit the dragon, because their attack bonus is shit" - Grailroading.
4. "The dragon won't be so stupid as to go there" - S- or Nrailroading, depending on underlying reasons.
Probably a few more. What can we see from this example? Hrm, not sure :P
 
BESW
BESW
I'm afraid GNS is too limited to be of great help here.
 
Magician
Magician
Quite possible
Hm. I think diagnosing why GM says "no" is the actual utility of this classification, because then you can try and appeal, be it to common sense, rules or physics.
 
BESW
BESW
10:53 AM
Or a GM can become more self-aware.
 
Magician
Magician
I think, with the stated definition of railroading (denial of player creativity), it is always a bad thing. Sort of. There is bad creativity, and crazy-loony players. So it seems natural for GM to be able to limit player creativity. But why do we not limit GMs' creativity the same way?
 
BESW
BESW
(I believe a lot of GMs railroad because they don't notice, or know there are other legit styles.)
 
Magician
Magician
Sure, we can refuse to play with a certain GM if we don't like their creative output, but same should go for players, too.
 
BESW
BESW
@Magician GM creativity is, in theory, limited by player desire.
 
Magician
Magician
@BESW To participate in their game?
 
BESW
BESW
10:57 AM
Okay, so I'm going back to my new favorite discussion of GM/PC interaction, 6th Ed CoC.
 
deworde
deworde
@Magician The critical issue is that any player creativity that "derails" the GM's story, (as in that tabletitans link), is going to mean the GM has do more work to keep the game going. As the GM has already put in a lot of work to get the game to the point where it's playable, this is going to create tension.
 
BESW
BESW
"The keeper has the responsibility for preparing a scenario without bias. [...] Players should [cooperate, because...] most of the entertainment of roleplaying is in the perceivable ingenuity of players' roleplaying. [...] There also needs to be cooperation between players and the keeper. Though the keeper masterminds the world and sets up and runs the details, the game remains a game for him or her as well, and every keeper likes to have fun."
@deworde My two common styles of GMing basically makes that point moot: a) get player buy-in so they trust that I'm taking them somewhere they want to go, or b) --my favorite-- don't have a story, have a place and people and an eager desire to see the PCs mess things up.
 
deworde
deworde
@Magician The real question is, at what point does it cross the line for the GM between "okay, I can cope with that within my current plan" to "okay, that's going to require a rethink", and then from there to "why am I bothering, this is just too much work now".
 
BESW
BESW
@deworde That whole line of thinking is not an inescapable part of GMing. It's common but not inherent.
 
Magician
Magician
@deworde Only in a N-railroaded game, I think. Which, granted, I tend to be guilty of, too. Even then I try to think of likely decision points for players, and plan for either outcome. They do still derail it, of course...
@deworde Heh. It has happened a couple of times in my GMing career that PCs did something so unthinkable that I had to put the session on pause to collect my thoughts
 
BESW
BESW
11:04 AM
Jan 14 at 13:12, by BESW
@Rob yeah, that's my favorite tactic. Create an elaborate chessboard of plots and agendas, with backup plans and contingencies, and then watch the party stumble through like a lopsided bowling ball knocking over all the pieces.
@Magician There was a particular group where at least every other week I'd have to call for mid-session snack breaks in which I went "Okay, so how do the NPCs respond to this and do I have the prep for where they're headed yet?"
 
Magician
Magician
@BESW Impressive. Once I've played with a group for a bit, I usually can guess which way they'll jump. Up to having an NPC successfully run a thanatos gambit on them.
 
BESW
BESW
It was a brilliant group. If anything they immersed themselves further into the narrative of the world than I did.
 
deworde
deworde
@BESW That's definitely the better way to go, but that requires a level of continuous creativity in response to the players, as well as a deal of extra setup of an entire world. Which is where step 3 raises its ugly head. Not in your case, but you seem to be a very natural GM.
 
Magician
Magician
Of course, that very same group, when presented with a carefully sculpted limited time-travel scenario, in which they have access to several key historic points and can influence them to see the fallout in others, dress up as illithids and troll local nobles.
 
BESW
BESW
@Magician That sounds more like the group I had for most of my 4e campaign.
@deworde I always approach RPGs with the attitude that they are ultimately a structured form of communal storytelling, and that colors everything I do.
 
Magician
Magician
11:10 AM
Yeah. When the expected outcome of a given historic turning point is "which king gets cursed and/or dead", "illithids troll both kings before disappearing" is not something I considered plotting forward.
Did largely solve the illithid infestation problem, though, gotta give them that.
 
BESW
BESW
@deworde Granted, I do tend toward a lot of high-level prep before I start a campaign, building major players, wide swathes of the world, and general agendas.
Then wherever the players go, I build in the details to accomodate the story at the time.
It is pretty labor-intensive, but I've rarely felt like it was an onerous duty.
...though the lowered prep work is one reason I'm moving to FATE now.
 
Magician
Magician
@deworde There's a "lazy dming" school of thought, exemplified by Sly Flourish's book of the same name, which is pretty much antithetical to the way I've been running games. But it would solve this problem.
 
BESW
BESW
I once met a GM who knew his system so well that he did basically no prep work at all. He held everything in his head and adjudicated on the fly. It led to some hand-waving every now and then, but so long as the group trusted him to be able to do the numbers and rules on the fly, it meant that he could roll with anything the party threw at him.
And really, trusting that the stuff in his head was accurate and balanced was conceptually no different from trusting that the GM isn't 'cheating' behind his screen.
...I have never used a screen. Tried, hated it.
 
Magician
Magician
Trust is an important topic
 
BESW
BESW
Trust is essential to the party tolerating any kind of GM fiat or adjudication.
 
Magician
Magician
11:17 AM
And related to railroading. Players have to trust GM in order to play. If you can't trust GM, it's pointless. And railroading signifies GM not trusting players. Not trusting them not to break his world/story/toy by playing with it.
6
 
BESW
BESW
Without trust, the social dynamic cannot survive deviation from rules, narrative railroading, or anything like that. Social contracts cannot save a group that doesn't trust people to follow the contract.
 
Magician
Magician
@BESW Social contracts are a part of it, but not... Hm. Social contract establishes the parameters of the game. How it will work. If the GM still railroads after that, he doesn't expect the players to actually abide by the contract.
 
BESW
BESW
Right.
I've rarely felt the need for an explicit social contract, but I have on occasion laid out "These are the conditions and assumptions in which I run games."
Which basically boil down to my "communal storytelling" attitude, and a blanket ban on intoxicants.
 
Magician
Magician
@BESW it is useful to discuss it, in order to be able to change the typical presumptions a group might have.
 
BESW
BESW
I do admit that the power assumed in the role of GM is one reason I started running games. Not because I wanted power, but because it lent me authority to create a social space we were all comfortable in.
Things like the ban on intoxicants were easier to enforce as a GM than as just one of the guys, and without strictures like that I would've been hard pressed to bring my friends together regularly.
 
deworde
deworde
11:25 AM
@Magician See, I think it's more like "If the GM feels the need to railroad, then the players probably have broken his view of what they can do" I mean, loads of narrative-strong GM's never need to railroad, because the players never choose to, for example, refuse to follow the mysterious messenger.
 
Magician
Magician
@BESW I can't say I've had that problem. My players rarely if ever wanted to drink during the game.
 
BESW
BESW
@Magician Lucky.
I once had to pull out the "Yes, I'm sure you're drinking in moderation and can handle it, but if you drink that gives him permission to drink and nobody wants that."
 
Magician
Magician
@deworde To some extent, following mysterious strangers is a part of a social contract for those games
 
BESW
BESW
@Magician [snerk]
It can be kinda rough when players are wrong-genre savvy in a game.
 
Magician
Magician
@BESW And I'm Russian, and first played with Russians, too :D
 
BESW
BESW
11:28 AM
@Magician I started running games in a USA college, so...
I hosted D&D so I could hang out with my friends in an environment I felt comfortable in, rather than going to the parties their friends hosted.
 
deworde
deworde
@Magician Exactly. In that case, the GM hasn't broken the contract, the players have, and railroading becomes a response to it.
 
BESW
BESW
@deworde I think the "social contract" is thrown around a lot, and it's a very useful construct, but unless it's been made explicit it's hard to say if it's been broken.
More often, there's a misunderstanding about what it was in the first place.
And if a GM responds to genre confusion with railroading, we're once again looking at rules solutions to social problems... which can sometimes treat the symptoms but won't provide a cure.
@deworde Ultimately, your "kidnapped" answer caught my attention because of the meta solution that involves talking to the players. That's where the power of a responsible GM comes from: the players' trust that he'll keep them in the loop.
Once that trust is firmly grounded and reinforced, the GM has some small leeway to do things without the players being in the loop, and they trust he has a good reason.
 
William 'MindWorX' Mariager
William 'MindWorX' Mariager
12:13 PM
1
Q: Can a Rogue (D&D 3.5) use sneak attack on both the first and second attack?

Warren van RooyenI know this seems like a question you can simply Google but the answers vary and my clan is under the impression that I can only use it on my first attack (once per turn) and not on my second attack. From Googling, I've understood that as long as the monster / enemy is flat-footed, flanked or ca...

dungeons-and-dragons
This guy needs to figure out if he means turn or round. He says they think he can use it once per turn, then gives an example of using it once per turn.
 
BESW
BESW
@William'MindWorX'Mariager Miiight want to re-read your own sentence there.
Either way he means it, the answer is the same in 3.5.
 
William 'MindWorX' Mariager
William 'MindWorX' Mariager
Well, that's the issue. He uses turn for everything. I think the first time he means round. As in sneak attack once per round.
Actually. His question confuses me. :P
I mean, it seems like he's supporting his clans own decision.
 
BESW
BESW
I've dropped in a comment asking for him to clear up his terms, but the question he's asking is clear.
Poorly worded and with foggy context, but the specific question is clear.
Is "clan" a term I'm just not familiar with?
 
William 'MindWorX' Mariager
William 'MindWorX' Mariager
I assume he means the people he plays with.
 
Simon Gill
Simon Gill
12:54 PM
@BESW Holdover from online FPS gaming I think - goes all the way back to Quake (and possibly Doom).
 
BESW
BESW
@SimonGill That would explain my being in the dark.
 
Ben Hardy
Ben Hardy
It's also used in RTS but yeah, think Guild XD
 
 
1 hour later…
Lord_Gareth
Lord_Gareth
2:12 PM
I feel all warm and fuzzy inside @BESW
I have heroically leapt to the aid of a newbie
 
 
2 hours later…
Lord_Gareth
Lord_Gareth
3:55 PM
@SimonGill What's with this Eldest guy?
 
Simon Gill
Simon Gill
Probably a troll.
 
Lord_Gareth
Lord_Gareth
Oi. You'd think he'd have better things to do.
Evidently not.
 
Simon Gill
Simon Gill
Meh, seems to be gone for the moment.
 
Lord_Gareth
Lord_Gareth
How are ya today, @Rob?
 
Rob
Rob
@Lord_Gareth Ey up; doing okay; roll on 1700 however!
Annoying bug that I'm bashing my head at
How is?
 
Lord_Gareth
Lord_Gareth
4:05 PM
Helping a newbie with his rogue, heroically answering Monk questions
 
Rob
Rob
Monks, poor things, so much potential, so little chi
 
Lord_Gareth
Lord_Gareth
The concept certainly had lots of potential. Thankfully, Swordsage fulfilled that potential with all the might and glory of a phoenix rising from ashes.
 
Rob
Rob
Ie, making it not a monk? ;)
 
Lord_Gareth
Lord_Gareth
Well, less that and more the positive action of turning Swordsage into a martial arts master
Which Monk was not
 
Rob
Rob
Rule 786 of coding; if in doubt, add a walrus.
2
@Lord_Gareth SwordSage sounds like the 3.5 catchall for melee types
 
Lord_Gareth
Lord_Gareth
4:11 PM
Not quite, although Tome of Battle really is a great solution.
Swordsage is the essential replacement for Monk, Ninja, and combat-oriented Rogues
Warblade replaces Fighter, Barbarian, and Swashbuckler
And Crusader replaces Paladins and Knights
 
Rob
Rob
Up tier's them a bit eh?
I have heard that 3.5 melee characters players construct shrines of +5 weapons to the TOB
 
Lord_Gareth
Lord_Gareth
Heh. It does up tier the classes a little bit, but not for the reasons you might be imagining. In point of fact if you want to crank out the kind of numbers needed to, say, topple the Empire State Building with a single axe swing you want to AVOID ToB
ToB removes action conflicts from melee, provides them with meaningful out-of-combat options via skills and utility maneuvers and adds variety to how you conduct combat
 
Rob
Rob
Whereas casters can always go "Look at my next reality bending whizz-bang"
 
Lord_Gareth
Lord_Gareth
Yeah, but, well, okay
Think of it like this
Casters can move and cast, right? That means on the most basic level that they're able to make tactical decisions every round
Melee in 3.X can't move and attack
Tome of Battle lets them both move and be effective, which enables more tactical combat, and gives them access to utility maneuvers that let them do things like affect the battlefield and control enemy movement
Which goes HUGE strides to making you feel like a martial character rather than a meat stick
Anyway @Rob, ToB's popularity is about making melee interesting, not making melee powerful
Melee was already "powerful" in terms of numbers
What it lacked was the ability to feel like you could be a warrior in a fantasy setting
 
Jeor Mattan
Jeor Mattan
@Lord_Gareth er, what? there is quite a few of move-and-fullattack options around
(sorry for interruption)
 
Lord_Gareth
Lord_Gareth
4:20 PM
@JeorMattan - Anklets of Translocation and Pounce are the only non-ToB ones
ToB adds Sudden Leap and Shadow Blink to that
 
Jeor Mattan
Jeor Mattan
chronocharm of horizon walker. pounce/shadow pounce.
do we really need to continue?
 
Lord_Gareth
Lord_Gareth
ToB characters are effective not by moving and full attacking, though, but by moving and then making a Strike
 
Jeor Mattan
Jeor Mattan
agreed here, it's the strike that matters.
 
Rob
Rob
Ie the full attack?
 
Lord_Gareth
Lord_Gareth
@Rob - No, a Strike is a specific kind of maneuver native to ToB
Strikes modify a normal melee attack, generally
An example of a Strike would be Steel Wind, which lets you make an attack against two adjacent opponents. Another would be Mountain Hammer, which adds some bonus damage to your attack and makes you bypass damage reduction
Strikes require only a Standard Action, which means you can use your Move Action and still do one
Anyway @Rob, Swordsages fill the Monk's flavor slot very well; they're skilled martial artists that de-emphasize armor and use martial arts that blend in with supernatural abilities. Swordsages are mobile, swift, stealthy, disciplined, enlightened, wise, and cunning.
And if you use the Unarmed Swordsage variant you can even do all that with your fists
And by choosing to emphasize or de-emphasize certain schools, you alter the flavor of your Swordsage. Want a mundane master? Pick up Tiger Claw, Stone Dragon, and Setting Sun. FULL MAGIC NAO? Desert Wind and Shadow Hand. Enlightened master who breaks blocks with his face? Diamond Mind, Stone Dragon, Setting Sun. Mobile assassin? Desert Wind, Shadow Hand, Diamond Mind.
 
Jeor Mattan
Jeor Mattan
4:27 PM
@Lord_Gareth Speaking of which, are there any reasonable sources on it? Adaptation section in ToB is too vague to my tastes.
 
C. Ross
C. Ross
Moderator Note: If you see objectionable content, flag like crazy.
 
Lord_Gareth
Lord_Gareth
@JeorMattan Can you quote me what the Adaptation section says? I might be able to help you out personally.
@C.Ross Been noticing, thanks for the swift interference
 
wax eagle
wax eagle
@C.Ross will do
 
Rob
Rob
@C.Ross 10-4 Mod-miester
 
wax eagle
wax eagle
didn't even see it
 
Rob
Rob
4:29 PM
I object to GURPS, but I won't flag that ;)
 
Lord_Gareth
Lord_Gareth
Anyway @Rob, is what I'm saying making sense? I've only had the one cup of coffee so far.
 
Jeor Mattan
Jeor Mattan
"The name “swordsage” naturally implies a character who carries
a sword or weapon of some kind. However, a swordsage
works very well as a supernatural martial artist of almost
any school or origin. To create a monklike character with
a tremendous array of fantastic moves and strikes, give the
swordsage the monk’s unarmed strike progression and
remove his light armor proficiency."
 
Lord_Gareth
Lord_Gareth
Ah, yes
 
Jeor Mattan
Jeor Mattan
IAS + monk unarmed damage for light armor proficiency? Dunno, dunno.
 
Lord_Gareth
Lord_Gareth
@JeorMattan - This is generally interpreted to mean that the Swordsage gains the Unarmed Strike ability of the Monk class (see SRD) and the improved Unarmed Strike damage dice progression, but loses proficiency with Light Armor. Beware! The Swordsage's AC Bonus class feature actually relies on him wearing Light Armor (it doesn't work unarmored; shoddy editing for you) so you'll have to technically houserule that as well to work with no armor on
 
Rob
Rob
4:32 PM
@Lord_Gareth Yep; I'm with you - thanks for the breakdown :)
 
Lord_Gareth
Lord_Gareth
d20srd.org/srd/classes/monk.htm <-The Monk's Unarmed Strike feature is quite a bit more than just IUS as a bonus feat
 
Jeor Mattan
Jeor Mattan
@Lord_Gareth thx, that is what I thought myself.
 
Lord_Gareth
Lord_Gareth
That interpretation of the variant is the one I've most commonly seen and is generally used to replace Monk for people that want to use their fists, @JeorMattan. It's reasonably balanced, since you need to use a Necklace of Natural Attacks to enchant the Unarmed Strikes if you want magic enhancements on them (hint: yes you do)
Incidentally @Rob, Crusader deserves some consideration for being one of the only two classes in 3.5 to have a meaningful set of tanking mechanics, and especial consideration for being the better of those two at actually attempting to draw aggro.
 
Jeor Mattan
Jeor Mattan
@Lord_Gareth Gauntlets are better for enchanting.
 
Lord_Gareth
Lord_Gareth
@JeorMattan I suppose. Some DMs would argue about that, which is why I tend to prefer the Necklace route, but it's a fair point.
 
Jeor Mattan
Jeor Mattan
4:39 PM
As for Crusader, his maneuver mechanic is a little weird. Is there any way to make it more manageable (=less random)?
 
Rob
Rob
Our PF barbarian is tanking pretty well; he has sod all ac, but bootloads of hits
His normal agro method is to run up and hug the monster
 
wax eagle
wax eagle
@Rob does he then love them and hug them and call them george?
 
Rob
Rob
@waxeagle I salute your BB reference there sir! :)
 
Lord_Gareth
Lord_Gareth
Honest to god, the randomness isn't as big a deal as it looks like it's going to be. I was concerned about it too, but when I played my first few Crusaders it turned out to be a non-concern. If it still sticks in your craw after a little while, the Extra Granted Maneuver feat can help out to an extent
@Rob What level is your group/that barbarian?
 
wax eagle
wax eagle
4:56 PM
grr does g-drive not sync to cloud by default? I put a bunch of pdfs into my drive at home so I could read them at work...and they aren't there :(
 
SomeGuy
SomeGuy
I believe you have to tell it to sync to cloud the first time :(
 
wax eagle
wax eagle
@SomeGuy gr.
 
Lord_Gareth
Lord_Gareth
Gotta log
 
SomeGuy
SomeGuy
Also, I would say that unless you're going for some pretty brutal optimization, the ToB classes are generally stronger than other melee classes, as well as being about 3 million times more fun.
 
 
1 hour later…
wax eagle
wax eagle
6:22 PM
took a crack at saving the crappy two hander question.
 
Lord_Gareth
Lord_Gareth
7:14 PM
@C.Ross, can I ask you something?
Or anyone else, for that matter
If someone asks a question along the lines of, "How do I do X?" is "Don't," an appropriate answer, assuming there's more elaboration than just "Don't do it!"?
 
wax eagle
wax eagle
@Lord_Gareth it really depends.
 
C. Ross
C. Ross
@Lord_Gareth In general yes, but it depends.
 
Lord_Gareth
Lord_Gareth
I just gave a "Don't"-class answer and was concerned that it might not be okay
 
C. Ross
C. Ross
It's likely a valid answer on a "touchy feely" question like gm-technique
 
wax eagle
wax eagle
If you provide enough context and a good alternative, then yes it can be a good answer. However, there is a good chance that for whatever reason the asker has decided to do X and won't accept your answer of "don't"
 
C. Ross
C. Ross
7:23 PM
@Lord_Gareth link?
 
Lord_Gareth
Lord_Gareth
1
Q: Wild magic/sanity house-rules for magic

BRZAI am considering starting a Pathfinder game, however before I do this I would like to brew-up some house-rules on the use of magic for a "low-magic" setting (think Conan or A Song of Ice and Fire). My ultimate goal is to a: add more balance between caster/non-caster classes, b: add a mechanical c...

pathfinder magic homebrew
That Q
 
C. Ross
C. Ross
@Lord_Gareth no objection from me
 
wax eagle
wax eagle
@Lord_Gareth I think answers like "you've got the wrong system" are good ones for people planning games trying to homebrew the hell out of them
 
C. Ross
C. Ross
agreed
As a general rule, the more touchy-feely the question, the more likely it is to be ok.
 
Lord_Gareth
Lord_Gareth
Low-Magic 3.PF is a persistent delusion that has frustrated me for some time. 3.X is soooo poor for low magic that it's not even funny.
 
wax eagle
wax eagle
7:27 PM
@Lord_Gareth does PF have a DS equivalent?
 
Lord_Gareth
Lord_Gareth
DS?
 
C. Ross
C. Ross
A crunchy 4e question about how this ability works isn't the appropriate place for a "don't do that" answer
 
wax eagle
wax eagle
@Lord_Gareth Dark Sun
 
Lord_Gareth
Lord_Gareth
1. No 2. Athas isn't low-magic
 
wax eagle
wax eagle
@Lord_Gareth true it's just tightly controlled/forbidden magic
 
Lord_Gareth
Lord_Gareth
7:30 PM
Nah, Athas just scrubbed the word 'magic' and replaced it with 'psychics' @waxeagle
Athas is a gritty and deadly setting, but it's also a setting very much plagued with the supernatural, from the monsters to the psions
 
wax eagle
wax eagle
@Lord_Gareth gotcha :)
 
Lord_Gareth
Lord_Gareth
Plus there's the bit where the planet is sapient, hates you, and tries to kill you.
 
wax eagle
wax eagle
@Lord_Gareth lol I really need to read more about athas :)
 
Lord_Gareth
Lord_Gareth
And I must go pick up my paycheck
See ya'll
 
wax eagle
wax eagle
people still get paid with checks? :P
 
Simon Gill
Simon Gill
7:45 PM
@waxeagle Apparently.
There are certainly people getting paid with cash - but I suspect that has less holdover and more under-the-table reasons associated with it.
 
MadMAxJr
MadMAxJr
Jeez is there any way to disable the feed items in the upper left?
 
wax eagle
wax eagle
@MadMAxJr only for the whole room
 
MadMAxJr
MadMAxJr
So no user variables. Drat.
 
wax eagle
wax eagle
@MadMAxJr nope, might be a userscript out there
can't find one on stackapps
 
Simon Gill
Simon Gill
@MadMAxJr Is it really that annoying? There's usually something interesting on there.
 
MadMAxJr
MadMAxJr
8:25 PM
It's a mild annoyance when it stacks up quickly.
It's not the end of the world.
 
Simon Gill
Simon Gill
8:40 PM
@MadMAxJr Nah, that comes later. ;)
 
BESW
BESW
9:27 PM
@Lord_Gareth Orly?
 
Simon Gill
Simon Gill
9:37 PM
1 more upvote to 6k. What can I do to get that?
 
wax eagle
wax eagle
@SimonGill say somethign in here about it?
 
BESW
BESW
@SimonGill Accept an answer?
 
wax eagle
wax eagle
@SimonGill there yah go
 
Simon Gill
Simon Gill
haha, thanks for that Wax :)
@BESW I don't have any questions with unaccepted answers.
 
BESW
BESW
Heh.
 
wax eagle
wax eagle
9:41 PM
nothing cool happens at 6k anyways :(
no level up until 10k
 
Simon Gill
Simon Gill
Maybe not - but it's still a threshold that would bug me for a while.
 
MadMAxJr
MadMAxJr
I only have a few without an accepted answer, in dim hopes that I get more answers.
 
Simon Gill
Simon Gill
@MadMAxJr 1 as far as I can see.
The one about Eidolons and reach weapons.
 
MadMAxJr
MadMAxJr
Yeah. I was hoping someone more rules-lawyery than I could find ground that the poor wording in that was a mistake.
But I can live with the player having easy access to 15 foot reach attacks.
I've just had to make the terrain a little more challenging as a result.
 
Simon Gill
Simon Gill
9:58 PM
And now, some players know that they can access that kind of crazy power.
 
MadMAxJr
MadMAxJr
Ediolon with a dwarven longhammer. 15 foot reach, 2d6+1.5x STR bonus
However, this does not seem to get around the 5 foot void of using a reach weapon.
 
Zachiel
Zachiel
10:13 PM
I saw @Brian telling that 2h weapons in D&D 4e are only good for the low levels. Is it because of really good shield enchantments?
oh, hello everyone
 
Simon Gill
Simon Gill
@Zachiel Probably because weapons aren't the important part of damage at paragon and epic tiers.
 
Zachiel
Zachiel
right, no more 150% str to damage
and no more lots of ways to increase str
but 7[W] powers should rely on big damage weapons, am I wrong?
 
Simon Gill
Simon Gill
@Zachiel Depends very much on the class. I can't imagine 7W powers being very common.
 
BESW
BESW
I've seen a bugbear slayer who enjoyed massive damage by exploiting two-dice-damage weapons with brutal, and the slayer's ability to stack [W].
With a level 1 MBA of 2d6 brutal 2, and Power Strike adds another 2d6...
Your minimum damage isn't very minimal.
 
Simon Gill
Simon Gill
10:29 PM
How does that work at level 11, 21 and 30?
 
BESW
BESW
Very well.
The bugbear actually got rolled around level 12 or 13, and was with us until about level 22.
 
Simon Gill
Simon Gill
Sounds pretty handy with a big stick.
Do you have any more accurate ideas on why 2-handers are mostly a heroic thing?
 
BESW
BESW
Jagged Executioner's Axe, to be specific.
Not sure. Perhaps because at a certain point in standard progression, it's really cheap to pick up an off-hand you'll never use but which has a lovely passive enchantment.
There are several classes that encourage empty off-hands, too.
 
Simon Gill
Simon Gill
@BESW Empty off-hands or non-attacking off-hands?
 
Zachiel
Zachiel
I guess we're talking about no-shield no-free-hand classes like barbarians
 
BESW
BESW
10:42 PM
@SimonGill Empty, in several cases.
 
Simon Gill
Simon Gill
That's surprising, how does that come about?
 
BESW
BESW
SWORDMAGE WARDING
While you are conscious and wielding either a light blade or a heavy blade, you maintain a field of magical force around you.
This field provides a +1 bonus to AC, or a +3 bonus if you are wielding a blade in one hand and have your other hand free (not carrying a shield, an off-hand weapon, a two-handed weapon, or anything else).
 
Simon Gill
Simon Gill
Ahhhhh, so class features replacing off-hand items. That should have been obvious...
 
BESW
BESW
UNARMED COMBATANT
[...] You must have a hand free to use your monk unarmed strike, even if you’re kicking, kneeing, elbowing, or head-butting a target
Fighter grab builds all require a free hand.
The Assassin (Executioner) has some "you must have one hand free" powers.
You get the idea.
 
Simon Gill
Simon Gill
I do now. Must be slowing down today.
 
BESW
BESW
10:47 PM
The only builds that benefit from two-handers seem to be the ones that can stack [W] or need certain features only 2HW can provide --like reach.
There are also some feats that support 2HW, but to the best of my knowledge they're generally not enough to justify the choice by themselves.
(Although there's an amusing cross-case with sentinels, because they get to use staves and their healing power counts as a cleric power, so suddenly feats line up and beg to be taken.)
 
Lord_Gareth
Lord_Gareth
Heya @BESW
 
BESW
BESW
@Lord_Gareth Yawp.
 
Lord_Gareth
Lord_Gareth
>


You mention this like it is a redeeming circumstance: "A Coup de Grace while they're unconscious is swift, merciful, and preserves their dignity as sapient beings by not forcing them to suffer undue pain and humiliation." 1) That's not what was asked. 2) How can you be so sure? I couldn't find it in the rules. Maybe the sleeping pirates suffer unspeakable nightmares, and in the half-second between the drawing of blood and the sapping of life the victim experiences a lifetime of agony. I think you might want to drop this pole too. ;-)
Am I right in presuming that the above is severely missing the point?
 
BESW
BESW
Urf. let me track down context.
 
Lord_Gareth
Lord_Gareth
No need
I'll link
25
A: Is Coup de Grace on sleeping and bound opponents an evil act?

Lord_GarethNo, it was not an evil act Was it a Good act? Probably not. But there's that N in the middle for the act to fall under. On the one hand, the pirates were helpless, and thus not an immediate threat. However, on the other hand, they were enemy combatants brought down by a legitimate weapon of war....

 
BESW
BESW
10:59 PM
Yeah, that comment seems to be reading a bit into the question and answer. But it's an alignment question; being read into is part of the package.
 
04:00 - 23:0023:00 - 00:00

« first day (879 days earlier)      last day (4076 days later) »