TRPG General Chat

LitheOhm

00:54

there's a feat that lets you appraise an item to determine it's magical properties. I'm a fan

@KRyan "doesn't count as wealth if it's not useful" would you elaborate on that for me, please :)?

BESW

@LitheOhm I think @KRyan means that in a system like D&D magic items --both permanent and consumable-- are essential to power balance as characters level up. The wealth by level tables are literally about wealth, but mechanically they're about how much power the characters should be accumulating and at what rate.

IE, a level 10 PC with items valued at the right amount for his level worth of wealth has to be able to USE those items or he has no more ability to fight off a level 10 threat than a level 10 PC without any items at all.

Just like in the real world, wealth represents power and influence; it has no intrinsic power beyond what you can do with it.

Novian

01:18

Why are soulborns so terrible?

i cannot fathom why.

what in all of the gods that ever existed or no was Whoever made MoI thinking.....

Novian

01:30

Worse than monk

@KRyan in 3.5? which ones?

BESW

@Novian There's a feat called Magic Sensitive in the Complete Mage. Prereq is being able to cast level 3 spells. So long as you have a level 3 divination spell you could still cast that day, you get the "sense magical auras" part of detect magic at will.

@Novian Warlocks get detect magic as a supernatural at-will power at level 2.

I'm sure there's a couple others too. It's been a while since I needed to be encyclopedic about 3.5.

@LitheOhm I actually introduced one of my groups to a friendly local NPC who was happy to use that feat on their behalf.

@KRyan Even in 3.5 I gave my players great big enormous flashing neon hints about what items did unless there was a very good reason to make them work for it.

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

03:01

@BESW yeah. Make it a "free action attack a tthe start of their turns"

BESW

@BrianBallsun-Stanton Ooooh.

Suddenly I want to run that fight all over again.

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

But yeah, in our... lets see here... 8 encounter now? yeah, 8 encounter final battle...

we've been hit with a dominate aura

"At the start of your turn, make an at-will against at least one allied target within 5 squares"

which... can be fun if you've got close bursts

but it puts control back in PC hands

and is just better

and isn't uberstun

BESW

I actually nerfed it from the original fight Wizards had planned--they wanted a full solo battle in a dominate aura, and I scaled it down to having the dominate aura for just the middle third of the fight.

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

@BESW whut.

what's the name of the mob?

BESW

Mindressa. The dominate was actually a hazard, not part of her build. Tomb of Horrors superadventure.

(I'm all for the ToH being harder and more intense than typical 4e philosophy, but there's a difference between trolling the party and just being mean.)

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

03:07

@BESW yes. For "how to do both" look at uh... fourthcore

BESW

@BrianBallsun-Stanton ? Not familiar with that.

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

thttp://slamdancr.com/wp/2011/01/what-is-fourthcore/

BESW

@BrianBallsun-Stanton I'm concerned your dominate variant might be underpowered in terms of what the monster is expected to be able to dish out/handle. Do you think the variant should come with a commensurate boost somewhere else?

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

umm.

no?

dominate sucks.

BESW

@BrianBallsun-Stanton Ahah. Neither I nor my party prefer that style as a general rule, though we're enjoying delving into 4e ToH every few levels. We've learned to love to hate the architect Moghadam.

(There is nothing quite like watching an entire party conga-line through an age-a-third-of-your-life arch, and then spend the next two levels fearing all doorways.)

@BrianBallsun-Stanton What about when PCs impose the dominate condition on NPCs? Same variant, or original flavor?

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

03:16

@BESW dominate is just broken

I'd... yeah, probably same variant, But then you're dealing with the double-attack problem.

still, better than "run around with your pants down" that I prefer to issue with my dominate.

It's amazing how many OAs you can provoke on a correctly timed run.

BESW

heheh.

Semi-luckily for this party, we were in a small room filled with difficult terrain.

I've been using Wizards adventure modules for most of this campaign, but re-building them where there's egregious weirdness. Getting a little more confident about doing my own stuff (I built all my own encounters in 3.5, but felt uncertain about 4e), if only because I'm pretty sure I have better QC than Wizards. Haven't felt comfortable messing with the base ruleset though.

I saw apparently innocuous house rules destroy 3.5's already tenuous balance. Don't want to be That GM.

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

@BESW yes.

better call is to just use dominate... sparingly

and stun... not at all

BESW

@BrianBallsun-Stanton The instant I first used stun, half the party took Superior Will.

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

@BESW yep

BESW

It's kinda rough though, because we're in late paragon and things like dominate and stun are proliferating.

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

03:24

yep

also, helpful tip: don't bother with epic

Just...

end of paragon, and then wind the campaign down to a "success" Epic doesn't play well at all

BESW

(Oh, this dominate hazard Wizards cooked up? second failed save made you permanently CE, reversable by a +5 save if someone else did a skill challenge, but otherwise only by a ritual.)

@BrianBallsun-Stanton Really? That's sad. I kind of planned the story with those levels in mind, and the group's looking forward to their epic destinies.

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

@BESW whut. No. Just... no.

@BESW I honestly haven't had much fun in epic

everything's too fiddly, and there tends to be... not much threat?

BESW

@BrianBallsun-Stanton Yeah, that got chucked out the window with a choked laugh.

@BrianBallsun-Stanton I've got a group, happily, that will buy into threats beyond their own survival.

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

... right

it's not particularly fun though. I'd accelerate it,

BESW

As for fiddly bits, I'm doing my best to make my monsters as KISS as possible without castrating them (recharge dice: gone).

Yeah, half the party's leaving island soon so I have to step everything up anyway. Looking at artificial progression of nearly one level per session, and cutting out all the fat from the plot.

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

03:31

@BESW works

BESW

(It's for the best--I love this campaign and my group, but I was starting to burn out a little. At a year and a half it'll be the longest single campaign I've ever run. I'm used to half-year stories.)

KRyan

05:06

@LitheOhm Just confirming that @BESW has the right of it. Particularly for weaker classes, magic items are necessary because they're the only way for them to get magic. And magic is necessary for success in 3.5.

@Novian they're a Paladin analogue. Those are almost universally terrible; the Crusader's the only one that's good, and it is a considerable departure from the usual formula (of stripping everything good from a caster, giving it better BAB and HD, and pretending it balances out)

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

@KRyan Are you still interested in the 4e game?

KRyan

@LitheOhm there's an item in Magic Item Compendium called Artificer's Monocle; it costs 1500 gp. With it, detect magic can be used to identify magic items by spending a minute examining them.

@BrianBallsun-Stanton well, the next month is going to be incredibly busy for me, so if you want to start it in the next month I probably cannot commit to anything; but otherwise, generally speaking, yes, I'm interested

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

@KRyan cool. Likely start after holidays

KRyan

that sounds nifty

Novian

06:15

@KRyan having permanent identify is cheaper if you haggle and the wizard isnt a huge !@#$.

KRyan

@Novian yeah, but then getting dispelled sucks

Novian

yeah lucky for me the caster never gets a chance.

KRyan

also, since identify is not a normally-legal target for permanency, that would depend entirely on the XP cost that your DM decides to give it

Novian

already done with that part, its nifty.

also lets me screen the loot

KRyan

I meant in general

obviously if you've already got it you've already got it

anyway, I've gotta go to bed

night all

Novian

06:19

It did help that our nightmare promised not to blow up the town like he did to the last one.

damn flaming horse.

BESW

@Novian I've found that really, the only thing more dangerous to my players than themselves is themselves with ready access to fire.

Novian

well tell that to a nightmare who kicks a player covered in booze.

BESW

@Novian I've never felt the need to try to kill my parties. They do it find themselves.

Novian

it hurts.

@BESW it was a player who did it.

BESW

@Novian I only lost one player to booze specifically, and there was no fire. Just an unwise mixture of Elvish Moon Wine and Dwarven Dark Assassin Ale--and the unfortunately low railing of a ship.

@Novian Your campaigns sound a lot like mine.

Novian

06:23

Heh somehow my character managed to drink half a keg before succumbing to unconciousness. although we prolly did that wrong

then someone else broke a keg over my head and the nightmare thought it would just be absolutely funny to kick me.

BESW

@Novian As I recall, 3.5 booze rules are pretty lenient, and easy to mis-read to be even softer than intended.

Novian

I just had to keep succeding fort saves

I eventually failed and succumbed to some dex penalties.

BESW

@Novian I think the first drink each hour is free, and the save goes up with each subsequent drink (and failure can impose Con penalties making the saves harder to hit).

Novian

but I am the booze loving kindhearted but stern captain of a group of treasure hunters what am I if not a good drinker.

BESW

But the saves start so low that mid-level PCs can drink for quite some time before feeling it. The boozer in my campaign was a sorcerer, so he couldn't hold it.

Do you actually have a nightmare as a PC, or is it a cohort or the like?

Novian

06:32

was a PC till the player got bored. now hes a....well he wont tell us but I belive him to be a Master of Masks or whatever its called. HE IS IMMUNE TO DETECT MAGIC.

thus divinations

thus some form of nondetection is currently around him preventing me from seeing the one magic item he has. though pointless I didnt see it coming.

1D20

Dice Service

16

Novian

he also doesnt play nice with the group and is secretive.

BESW

@Novian I'm assuming that's not standard for this group of players?

Novian

No it happens. but there arent any rules against characters with machinations against the others.

so I cant see his strategy. as a player and in character that perplexes me.

he also refused a drink...My character is suspicious.

BESW

I generally am fine with that in my group's characters, so long as the players are being nice to each other about it. And at the very least I as GM need to know what's going on.

@Novian [RD] Is he a spy?! [/RD]

Novian

06:38

didnt expect it to send it that way.... I just wanted a link

BESW

Then it's a good thing I didn't do a youtube link to the quote.

(Also I have no idea what the atmosphere about that kind of thing is here and didn't want to start something.)

Novian

superradnow.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/spy.jpeg might start happening

if it gets that ugly I wont stand a chance. Im a totemist. what can I do? Not much.

BESW

@Novian Aw.

Novian

unless theres some secret to totemist I dont know about.

BESW

That's Incarnum, right? I never got into that at all.

Novian

06:43

yup

its confusing at first but when you figure it out its neat.

giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=215723 so you can unserstand incarnum

BESW

I've looked at the book.

Novian

this makes it easier though.

BESW

None of my players ever wanted to use its material, so I never felt like I had to wrap my head around it. And the presentation was very flat. Even that link displays what I saw as the primary weakness of incarnum: it may be a cool mechanic, but you have to dig for the feel of it.

Novian

eh I find it usefull. saves money on items. and its cool.

but thats just me.

BESW

There's some fridge logic I never settled too, but yeah. Just never had much of a reason to get into it, and my new group has fled 3.5 entirely.

Novian

06:51

my group doesnt care for the blandness of 4.0

BESW

I don't know what 'bland' means in that context. The setting bores you? The way you don't have to learn an entirely new subsystem for every few classes?

Novian

every power seems to do the same thing, and it lost quite a bit of feel by redefining some terms to make them less fantasy more game. however you have your own opinion. I personally want to get pathfinder.

BESW

My old group moved from 3.5 to Pathfinder because they like the fiddly bits.

My new group likes not having to be trained in three different skills to "notice things."

Novian

right now we cannot do pathfinder because we lack access to the books

hmm spot listen and search do need to be consolidated.

at least spot and search.

BESW

If you started 4e early I might agree with some of your points, but even then the classes played very differently. It's moving away from simulationism, but that goes back to fiddly bits above.

Novian

06:54

they rely on the same sense.

diplomacy intimidate and bluff also need consolidation.

I was never actually trained in many skills. never needed to be. if one of us had it we shared our knowlege. if we didnt we got screwed. it was a system and it worked.

I think ive only ever died 3 times in 5 campains.

I bid you goodnight I must go.

BESW

07:32

I was very resistant to 4e, for most of the reasons you pointed out. Really it was moving to a new place and watching the frustration of my new group as they wrestled with 3.5 that made me try 4e with them. 3.5 was great for the group I started GMing in, not so much for this one.

KRyan

14:50

@Novian Totemists are very potent "blenders" - stack a whole bunch of natural attacks and go to town. a dip in Barbarian for Pounce is well advised (but the Totem Rager PrC probably isn't worth it)

@BESW this confuses me; 3.5 has way more material, and therefore way more "fiddly bits," than does Pathfinder

mostly, I can't see any reason to play just Pathfinder, rather than mixing 3.5 and Pathfinder together. And then there's the fact that Paizo is a pretty awful development company, and a lot of their material is... inadvised... so I just don't see any point in Pathfinder anyway. It didn't fix anything, it just changed a bunch of random things here and there.

also, @Ernir: hi! You don't have 20 Rep yet to talk on the chat, but you should soon. Anyway, I'm DragoonWraith, nice to see you here

Novian

17:20

@KRyan problem with the natural attacks is the -5 penalty i take for using more than one natural attack. at my current level it makes it dificult to hit.

and the fact that double Chakra isnt available until 9th meldshaper level.

which would allow me to bind Girralion arms totem avatar and something neat like blink shirt.

I know you cannot shape without 8 hours rest like most casters....but can you rebind in the middle of the day?

The Oracle

19:06

0

Q: Has [system-recommendation] grown too big for its britches?

We occasionally get adventure/encounter/setting/campaign recommendation questions that are asking for a subjective evaluation, not just objectively-identifiable features. They're infrequent enough that we can sorta overlook them regarding our *-recommendation policy, but present a bit of a taggin...

BESW

20:47

@KRyan I don't know any details about how my old group is using Pathfinder, but I suspect they aren't comfortable mixing and matching systems like that. It may be an authorial fallacy, but a lot of people prefer to use a product as released than take development and balance into their own hands. As for why Pathfinder over 3.5, it may simply be the allure of a living system rather than a system that will never have official additions again.

BESW

20:58

@KRyan So I'm guessing they felt 3.5 was dead but wanted something as much like 3.5 as possible, which seems to be the explicit goal of Pathfinder. And I can totally understand if it never even occurred to that group that one could mix two systems. They'd prefer to work inside a system to optimize their experience, not customize the rules.

somori

@BESW One of the stated goals of Pathfinder is to make a backward-compatible continuation of 3.5.

Not sure how well they achieved that at all.

BESW

@somori Ditto. And for all I know my old group is combining them now, but last they mentioned it, I didn't get that impression.

somori

That's the thing that surprises me. For a publishing group that says "we love 3.5 so much we can't let it die" not to advertise that fact is a bit strange.

BESW

@somori At a guess? Moneys. It doesn't look financially sound to advertise that someone else's product can replace yours.

(And among my limited knowledge of Pathfinder is that it claims to have fixed some of 3.5s more glaring issues.)

somori

@BESW Well, it's also a bit cynical to promise that all your 3.5 stuff is still valid and usable then to deliver something which doesn't actually work all that well with old content without house rules.

BESW

21:08

@somori Something I intuited early on in my RPG experience, but only recently came to consciously think about, is that RPGs are freaking nebulous wibbly-wobbly things that require implicit --and often explicit-- house rules to make even the most complete systems practicable.

That's not good for business to admit, though, which is why franchises like D&D do their best to cover it up.

Franchises and systems not attached to commercial juggernauts are more relaxed about coming out with it.

somori

There's certainly interpretation involved. But there are levels :P Papering over cracks is different (some parts of D&D) to rebuilding the foundations (merging 3.5 and PF).

BESW

Sounds like Paizo is caught in the middle.

Their original design goal may have turned out to be unachievable and/or their philosophies changed to make it so.

Kind of like 3.5 itself: there have been several discussions here about how later books are 'more balanced' than earlier ones because of design philosophy changes in the company.

But all of this is rampant speculation from someone whose exposure to Pathfinder is largely limited to flipping through the PF content in Kobold Quarterly for usable fluff.

Undreren

22:08

Hey all

BESW

@Undreren Salutations.

Undreren

@BESW omg, human contact! ;D

BESW

@Undreren Or a reasonable facsimile thereof.

What's up?

Undreren

Not much

Just bored

And I'm thinking about an adventure I wanna run in DW

BESW

Dungeon World? Doctor Who?

Undreren

22:12

Dungeon World :)

Didn't know there was a doctor who rpg :)

BESW

Ah.

@Undreren There is! I haven't played it, but apparently it's got a LOT of talking-your-way-into-and-out-of-things mechanics.

Personally, I just take classic Who stories and adapt them to my campaigns. Got a "Tomb of the Cybermen" plot with warforged I'm holding onto as a one-off campaign.

Undreren

:)

Introduction plots should be simple in Dungeon World

Leaving a lot of blanks to fill in

Such that you can adapt the story on the run, based on your players

Seems awfully hard though

BESW

I don't know much about it, unfortunately.

That may not stop me from having opinions though.

Undreren

I'm just afraid that the improv is gonna hard

BESW

What's the game's basic conceit? Sounds like the whole thing is one big dungeon?

Undreren

22:19

No, lol, it's not

brb, I'll give you an outline in 2 min

KRyan

@somori Poorly, I'd argue. It's all quite similar, but not so similar that you can just use stuff. For a player, who only has to adapt a few classes, it's not so bad, but for a DM it's a lot trickier.

@BESW yup, they claimed that. One of the many reasons I consider Paizo to be a bunch of lying, narrow-minded, and money-grubbing morons.

because they fixed nothing

they made a few things a tiny bit better, made a few things a tiny bit worse

but overall, very little change

Undreren

@KRyan The fighter got better? :D

Maybe not in comparison, but still ;)

KRyan

@Undreren not meaningfully; it got a bunch of static, numerical bonuses. The Fighter's problem was never in the numbers. A 3.5 Fighter can achieve stratospheric attack and damage numbers if he wants to. The problem with the Fighter is options -- he hasn't got many. Pathfinder did nothing for that

and giving everyone more feats devalues the Fighter's "class features," and then they went and nerfed and/or split up the Fighter's best feats (but did not do the same to other classes' feats)

Undreren

@BESW On Dungeon World: DW is a game that tries to facilitate storytelling, but with an old school fantasy touch. In that respect, it's easier to describe DW by what it's not. It's not doing much for simulation. Your character has very few "stats", actually, all characters only have 6, namely Str, Dex, Con, Wis, Int and Cha, as we know them from D&D.

@BESW The game doesn't even try to describe your character in terms of skill or prowess, it is not in any sense simolationist like the mainstream games out there.

BESW

@Undreren Everyone's style is very different but I might be able to ramble a few pointers if you like. I consider directed improv to be one of my strengths.

Undreren

22:31

@BESW I have GM'ed before, mind you. A lot, actually. But this approach is really, really different

KRyan

@Undreren: that doesn't sound like being simulationist or not, that sounds more like being narrativist.

Undreren

@KRyan precisely

KRyan

simulationist is usually contrasted with gamist, and is usually a question of priority between the questions "What makes the most sense?" and "What makes for the best game?"

a narrativist game can be simulationist or not while still being narrativist

Undreren

Well, I would say that the spectrum is three dimensional

KRyan

I'd say it's got far more dimensions than that

Pureferret

22:33

Here's an idea for a magical item: It's powers can only activate if the current owner stole it.

Undreren

Gamist, Simulationistic and Narrativistic

KRyan

no

Gamist/Simulationist are one axis

Narrativist would be contrasted with Mechanical

or something like that

and you'd have more axes besides

Undreren

I do not believe Simolationist and Gamist are opposed

KRyan

but gamist/simulationist are largely independent of narrativist/mechanical

Undreren

@KRyan Oh the arguments we could have :)

BESW

22:35

@Undreren Well, my general approach to plotting is to create a loose 'sandbox.' I have some NPCs with goals and plans, and a few different locations. More than I think I'll need, but none with a lot of complicated stuff sorted out yet. Then I plop the PCs into it and whatever they bite, I develop. What they don't find or latch onto, I drop.

KRyan

@Undreren there are certainly cases where there is no conflict, but I would label a system "gamist" or "simulationist" based on how it handles those cases where there is conflict

and the conflict comes when you have to choose between what makes the most sense, and what makes for the better game

for an example, D&D is relatively simulationist in how it handles Flight, with 3D movement, speed bonuses for diving/speed penalties for rising, minimum turning radii, minimum forward movement, etc.

Legend is extremely gamist about that, making [Flying] merely a status effect

@Undreren perhaps "can be independent" is better than "are largely independent"

Undreren

@BESW This is also what I want to do, but it's a one-shot adventure, and players will make their characters in the beginning of the session. Having only 2 to 2½ hours of actual play leaves little room for story depth

KRyan

they influence one another and there may be tendencies one way or another, but you could go the other way on those tendencies if you wanted to

BESW

@Undreren Ah, a short game. Gotcha.

Undreren

@KRyan I guess it's a matter of definitions then

KRyan

22:39

@Undreren yes, but uhm well. I think my definitions are the more commonly accepted ones? We'd probably have to ask @BrianBallsun-Stanton if there are particular technical definitions of these terms

Undreren

Because your idea of "gamist" overlaps with my idea of "narrativist"

KRyan

@Undreren then I think you're using the word "narrativist" and/or "gamist" incorrectly

but I could be wrong; I'm not the one who does academic papers on these things

BESW

@Undreren Simulationist, Gamist, and Narrativist are probably being used by @KRyan with the specific definitions of GNS Theory. Which has since been subsumed by the more complete and nuanced Big Model, but so far as I can tell many people still use GNS because it's a lot simpler.

GNS Theory

The GNS Theory, as originally developed by Ron Edwards, is a relatively amorphous body of work attempting to create a theory of how role-playing games work. Primarily, GNS Theory holds that participants in role-playing games reinforce each other's behaviour towards ends which can be divided into three categories: Gamist, Narrativist and Simulationist. Strictly, GNS theory is concerned with players' social interactions, but it has been extrapolated to direct game design, both in and outside the world of RPGs. A game can be classified according to how strongly it encourages or facilit...

KRyan

@BESW actually, I don't really know much of the academic theories

so I could be messing things up

BESW

@KRyan Your definitions certainly don't exactly match my understanding of GNS, but note "relatively amorphous body of work" in the wiki description. [grin]

KRyan

22:41

right

I'd usually put G and N as opposing ends of a single spectrum, which this does not seem to do

sorry, G and S

not G and N

N I think of as separate from (but related to) the others

BESW

Yeah, they're more like elements combined to get the general attitude of a system, gamer, or group.

KRyan

well of course any game is going to have elements of all three (and more besides), but I'd generally feel that G and S have an ability to conflict with one another, and I don't see N as having the same kind of conflict

Simulation, I suppose, may be more correctly said to oppose Abstraction

BESW

In GNS, Gamism is about setting and achieving goals in the face of adversity; that is, you have an objective and a clear way to tell if you've done it.

As an example, My Life With Master is aggressively Gamist.

Undreren

I do believe GNS favors my definitions

But it is an overly simplified model

KRyan

shrug

fair enough

BESW

22:48

Its simplicity is probably what helped the terminology to become so widespread that their origins got lost.

Undreren

Gamism versus simolationism is often strongly opposed since "What makes the better game" if often conflicting with "what makes the most realistic game"

So I would agree with @KRyan that it would actually be appropriate to align them on a single axis

BESW

@Undreren Which is a false dichotomy. In many groups, realistic and better may be synonymous.

Undreren

@BESW Yes, I suppose you are correct

BESW

GNS is a (very simple) way of evaluating what a particular group/game/gamer feels makes a gaming experience "better."

Undreren

I guess I'm more Narratavist than Gamist, but I don't think I'm very Simolationist at all

BESW

22:50

GNS tries valiantly (though I think it ultimately fails) to be neutral about "good" and "bad" games and simply observe what makes people happy in a game.

@Undreren I've gotten less simulationist as time goes by. I've always been very Narrativist; from the very beginning I've said that I approach RPGs as communal storytelling.

KRyan

yeah, I generally feel that Simulation is widely overvalued in the RPG-playing community

BESW

I can take or leave Gamism, depending on the needs of my group. I had a group that would happily spend a month's worth of sessions chatting to the gnome tinker mayor, and then I immediately transferred to a group that would slaughter each other if not given clear directions.

KRyan

@BESW mmmm.... from a game-design perspective, I'm not sure I agree. I meant things like speed/ease of play, fairness of challenges, that sort of thing

Simulation takes time and effort, and may not leave players any opportunity to affect what happens. the Gamist perspective would label these things as negatives.

@BESW I don't really see either of those things as being particularly Gamist

or anti-Gamist

but then it does seem my definition is wrong somewhere

I have not yet read the GNS article

BESW

@KRyan I'm sure I don't have it exactly right myself.

@KRyan As I understand it, if Gamism is about goals and clearly attainable objectives then my first group's goals were defined so broadly they could never be said to have been achieved. My second group needed clear A-B-C mission statements; they'd implode without a sense of movement and checklist achievements.

Undreren

@BESW I'm pretty sure most people disagrees about the details anyway. My view: Narrativism is when the system is in the background, only interfering when we need to resolve conflicts and can't/won't decide it without a system.

BESW

22:59

Put another way: one of my players came in two days again and said that he'd been looking at the CharOp forums. His monk was not fully optimized in the direction he'd been trying to build it: he'd missed one feat that the CharOp forums recommended. His exact phrase was "I failed to build Meepo properly." That's gamist: he views character creation as a minigame, and he failed to get the high score.

KRyan

@Undreren I dunno; Legend is very definitely not narrativistic, but it still takes a philosophy of staying out of the way until a conflict needs to be resolved

Transcript for