@Aaron it kind of depends on where you want to bend the rules. 4e has a ton of flex on the narrative side, but not much on the mechanical side

(that isn't to say that you can't bend it on the mechanical side, you just have to be careful because it does break easily)

I remember creating a campaign that had no fewer than two Puzzle Bosses, almost no random combat, tons of stealth/rping... an assassination take-down that I allowed to happen cause it was just plain cool, custom artifacts, and an on-the-fly mythology created in accordance with what the players reacted to and what they wanted to learn more about. It all worked very well, and 4e helped prop up the feeling of being a person with cool powers.

The setup was that the players were playing themselves, but could summon alternate manifestations that could fight for them. So they were hopeless without the summons (basically being regular characters without access to powers at all) but could be badass with them. Helped create the feel I wanted.

Cool.

I think my main issue is I started RPing in just text rp. No true rules.

So sometimes I think of a really cool idea but can't find any mechanics to support it.

@waxeagle Do you think if I made a class Gareth would look at it and give constructive criticism? I can handle somewhat harsh as long as it is useful.

@Aaron I can appreciate that. And that's part of the reason I love playing in different systems. Like, when I want a mechanics-heavy crunchy game that lets me show off tactical prowess, I play a D&D version. When I want something more free form, I play, like, Fiasco. Narrative focus? Fate. Etc, etc.

@sillyputty Yea. I like building bad ass characters. I see the rules as a challenge to make them work how I want to get the desired result.

It might not be the most powerful character but it will be awesome to play.

@Aaron Cool! I can totally respect that, and have had a lot of fun doing the same. Scratches the same itch as when I'm trying to build a particular style deck in Magic the Gathering, for instance.

@BESW That. Is awesome

@sillyputty I have started text rping again. Found a decent group. I want to run my own RP room but It seems I am in a lull timeframe when few people are online when I am I think.

Aw that's too bad.

Plus the name was already taken DX

That is what I get for naming it Purgatory though.

@sillyputty How did you get into RPGs?

Always enjoyed them. As a kid I found out about them through fluke chance and immediately knew "yep, this is for me." Finally got to play one when my older brother's friend ran a like...3 session long scenario and they let me tag along. It confirmed my suspicions. Never looked back.

How'd you find those text rpgs?

Got a wild desire to RP so I googled Role Playing and narrowed my search a bit more eventually finding Roleplaychat which was the first site I used. I left after awhile though because most people just wanted adult RPs. Now I use RPhaven. While there are still adult RPs they are not the dominant RP. It also has much better moderation capabilities for room owners.

Could someone please define "chaotic neutral" please?

@SolidusVerum Oh lord.

@Aaron yeah... I'm having issues being a dm.

@SolidusVerum Captain jack sparrow.

What is the situation?

@Aaron Nice. I used to be in a rpchatroom way back in the day. It wasn't very codified, but there were interesting people and characters. I can easily see the appeal.

I have at least two PCs who are chaotic neutral in my campaign who want to go around doing things like: "I punch people walking around the street at night to see if they turn into Lycanthropes"

As the DM, my response was random acts of violence are evil.

Oh.

@SolidusVerum Chaotic Neutral is not an excuse to act in a way that is detrimental to the fun of the other people playing. Chaotic Neutral is not a "get out of jail free card" for being a jerk while playing a game with your friends.

That's the problem, they players are arguing that chaotic neutral means they can do good things AND evil things.

It is an alignment that is supposed to represent someone who believes freedom is more important than security. That personal freedoms are the most sacred right of all people. Now, a Chaotic Good person will steal from the rich and give to the poor, but a Chaotic Neutral person just recognizes the rights of all people to do what they want.

Which is PARTIALLY true. But not the the extent they can go around beating up people.

Alignment meaning is arbitrary anyway. Changing person to person.

A Chaotic Evil person indiscriminately hurt people. A Chaotic Neutral person realizes that other people, too, have a right to the freedoms they hold themselves. And while they may not help free the slaves (although they might, if their convictions are high enough) I don't see the justification in actively harming others.

@Aaron I just greatly dislike the abuse of an alignment system in order to ruin other peoples' fun. If everyone wants to play a game where you punch random villagers cause "lol haha wacky" then fine.

I agree.

That's where we have the disconnect. They think it's okay to harm people "as long as I'm good sometimes"

But trying to find underhanded justifications for behaviors that hurt the play experience is not cool.

Neutral isn't just a sliding scale like Paragon and Renegade points.

You don't wipe out a bad deed with one good deed.

@SolidusVerum Perhaps they are seeing alignment as a balance with evil and good acts piling on the scales. That might also be part of the disconnect.

Judging individual actions based on circumstances and deciding that, hey, helping those people isn't worth it. Or conning this guy out of his money cause we need it really badly, sure.

@Aaron We're using 5e and in the PHB it says something like: CN characters follow their whims...

I think I may be getting a little too invested, cause I'm starting to say things in absolutes that I don't necessarily agree with. Varying playstyles are, of course, valid. So I should probably start to sit this one out.

@SolidusVerum Punching random people is a bit more than a whim.

The players response is that since he's good in real life he wants to do some good stuff, and bad stuff because he can't do it in real life.

@SolidusVerum How did the rest of the party react?

^this

@SolidusVerum have you tried arresting them?

The player playing the paladin was annoyed. The player CN monk and CN bard were the ones pushing for it. The druid was confused and didn't see a point to it and the rogue wasn't involved.

@DavidReeve The game ended before it could be resolved.

So two players were for, two neutral, and one against?

@Aaron yeah.

Ok. What kind of game are you running? Are the players supposed to be the good guys?

alignment in d&d is arbitrary and they don't really need to justify their actions

@DavidReeve We already went over that.

but their actions should have consequences

brb

They're arguing that since they occasionally do good deeds. (which I don't really view as good at all) then they balance out the bad deeds.

I am okay with running an evil campaign, but I made it clear that this campaign would not accept evil.

Sounds like you have a difference of expectations. Two players that want to play a particular style that is conflicting with the goals of the campaign and are chafing at least you and one other player.

I don't think re-defining or...straight up first time defining Chaotic Neutral is going to solve this problem.

Maybe try to figure out why they want to play characters who go around committing random acts of violence. Have they given you any indication about that?

if you warned them that they'd be persecuted then persecute them

and if the players say "oh but we're good guys" then remind them that the town guards will arrest good guys or bad guys who beat people up in the street

being a good person is not about doing good deeds, but about acting with others in mind

It is about intention not the act itself.

An evil dude can perform a really good deed. BUT if he only did it to further his evil plot then it wasn't actually a good deed.

In a way, I am much more able to understand the second than the first.

@DavidReeve (bard) "I want to be able to do evil things but I don't want to have to worry that my character is just going to drop dead because of it."

@Aaron That's how I view it. I judge the intention, and then the bard just said "well if that's the case then I'm going to stop telling you my intentions!"

The second wants to play a game in a specific way, it just so happens that that game conflicts with the game most of everyone else wants to play. The monk, to me, just seems like he wants to screw around with the game for the sake of screwing around with it.

Is that a fair assessment, or am I off somewhere?

@sillyputty all of that is spot on. I'm just trying to sort through.

I told everyone where I stood on this game and it seems that now two of them are mad because I'm basing alignment and consequences on intentions not actions.

...

Alignment is all about intentions!

Then the monk just needs to be talked to out of character. "Hey, it really seems to me like you're trying to put a damper on my game. That may not be your intention, but it feels that way because of X,Y and Z. We're all trying to come together to play a game everyone can enjoy. You can play a CN character, but it doesn't mean you can use that alignment as an excuse to make the play experience worse for everyone else."

@Aaron I agree, but it is debatable.

@sillyputty It is?

@Aaron Well my players certainly seem to think so.

Yea, because often times, all we can judge a person, and by extension a character, on, are their actions.

Alignment is all about intentions behind the actions. Whether or not they broke a law is based on their actions.

I get the idea behind "A bad man doing a good deed to further his evil agenda is not doing a good deed."

And I agree with that

@sillyputty True but we are talking about their actual alignment not what others think it is.

Hm. You have a point. Allow me to reconsider

And this is where I'm stuck. These two players are getting upset, that I discourage and will rain down hell for evil actions in a campaign marked "good"

I don't care if their motives are self-serving, if they do altruistic acts I will change their alignment to good. However the opposite is true if they act like jerks I'm going to let karma be what karma likes to be. I just don't know how to deal with it.

@SolidusVerum Well, yes. The problem the three of you are working on looks like "What does CN mean?" They argue that they are being unfairly punished. You argue that they are acting evil. But solving that problem (which you can't, because you have different definitions going in) is not what is going to help you.

We can't really help you make the decision on what to tell them. Personally I would sit down the the entire group. Point out the difference between actions and intention behind them. And then tell the monk and bard that even if their intentions are good. (Which they are not but we will ignore that for now.) They are still committing a crime and WILL have to face the result.

In my opinion, what is going to help you is find a solution to the problem of "you guys want to play characters that are hindering the fun of the game for at least 2 other people." Regardless of how all of you feel about the CN alignment, there should at least be middle ground in that conversation. A compromise reached wherein everyone can have fun.

BUT

That said, what we all said up above is how we all feel about the CN alignment, if something like that is what you want to tell them.

@Aaron @sillyputty I appreciate the advice guys. I'm not entirely sure what I'll do, but it helped to discuss this with non-biased individuals. Thank you, I gotta go.

No problem. Good luck!

@sillyputty Anyway. I just decided to start RPing one day. Googled it and found a site. Then moved to another one in search of more serious RPs. I think the only reason I truly play tabletop is because the RP and story are more serious and there is more of a commitment so you don't have to worry about everyone suddenly poofing as often.

@Aaron If chat-forum style RP's were more consistent/less..... mature focused, would you prefer them to tabletop experiences?

Yes. I much prefer being able to let my imagination go without rules limiting it.

What about tabletop games that don't really have rules, per se, more like structure. I.e., Fiasco?

The only 'limit' I have when text RPing is the power limit of the room. For example I played in one room where the limit was god level. Fights would destroy entire planets. Then in another room basic magic powers were it.

@sillyputty I haven't played it.

I can appreciate the idea of just enjoying the free-form, but something about physically being there with other people really appeals to me in a way that I just don't get in online forums.

@Aaron Oh that's really a cool way of going about it!

@sillyputty I don't like talking out what I am doing.

I find I can write/type it out much better than I can vocally explain it.

That makes a lot of sense.

I find I can communicate what I want much more effectively if I type it out. (Gives me time to think and all.) But I find that my characters are much more realistic if I'm forced to speak/think on my feet.

Then again, I am also big into theater, and so really enjoy hamming it up in front of my friends. xD

I don't really shoot for realistic characters. I don't want to RP something that could happen in real life.

@sillyputty Well are you talking about realistic as in personality or situations?

Personality.

Fumbling, saying the wrong thing, having to create a plan quickly, etc.

Harder if I'm playing a character that is supposed to be charismatic and intelligent.

But still doable. And I just find it more entertaining. Of course, that's not to say that they way you play is lesser. I'm glad you have something you enjoy that works for you! =D

Yea. Acheron is difficult to play because I want to play him realistically but his storyline makes him REALLY OLD. Thus he should know better than to get in certain situations that I put him in.

Mmmm. Plot vs character concept. It's okay, sometimes experienced people can be foolish too.

I shudder as I read the giant dice pool game design question

@JoshuaAslanSmith Which one is that?

@sillyputty True. I am thinking of redoing his backstory a bit to make him younger.

Oh god

The horror

So many dice

I suppose aside from making it a 50-50 shot on any given die, how is this markedly different from most White Wolf systems?

At some point all of this stuff just seems derivative with no real...point to the deviation? If that makes sense.

yeah, I'm not sure of the point, but worse, they have no requirements at all

Oh totally. It's an unanswerable question at the moment. But aside from that, it's tinkering for tinkering's sake with no clear direction.

Ah, it is that time. I must bid you all adieu.

I believe there is this belief that creeps in to players without true understanding of RPG systems that if 1 dice roll is fun, X more is X more fun geometrically speaking

I always read these with the thought of 1. are you aware of a significant number of existing systems (and do you show it) and 2. what are you trying to accomplish that these don't. And if I can't figure that out...I'm guessing there isn't much effort in the question

whereas no, actually it tends to decrease the inverse to that

yeah, buckets of dice, while fun once, if not quickly processable aren't much fun

a single die roll is fun because of the context that sets it up and informs the outcome

its why shadow run is the worst system

a system based on d6 di pools with exploding d6 crits

It has value as a learning exercise; the first few times you try something new, part of the experience is often "Oh, I need more definition."

@sillyputty A player of mine always played CN on my "no evil characters" campaigns. "Ok, let's rape the prisoner. But not because I want her harm, just because I'm having fun doing it." What? No.

haven't looked closely yet, but almost certainly worth your time: kickstarter.com/projects/lamemage/microscope-explorer?ref=card

@SolidusVerum D&D alignments are flawed nigh unto the point of uselessness (they're internally inconsistent, any alignment can justify any behaviour, and they imply narrow, flat characterisation), but --as has been discussed above-- the important thing here is that they aren't an excuse for behaviour which other people in the group aren't comfortable with.

Using in-game rules and motives to justify making real live folks unhappy is a jerk move; it doesn't matter at all whether the person is right about what the rules say.

@Zachiel Conditions?

At the very least, explain that there's a shortlist of them and they always mean the same thing when they appear. Ditto with keywords.

@BESW yeah, right. Not a list maybe since I'm writing them out on each power card that inflicts them

Thanks and bye

I actually prefer die pool systems (at least WW-style ones) because it offers a better distribution than single-die systems IMO

I also like having a more tangible way to measure power levels as opposed to the more mathematical bonus/penalty adjustments.

@JoshuaAslanSmith Having rolled a 50-die pool once, I can tell you it was delightful.