Dyndrilliac

Not so much dissatisfied. I just think variety is the spice of life.

I think the biggest impediment is that the group is overwhelmingly satisfied with the sort of simplistic one-dimensional stories that D&D-style systems tend to be used to tell where the heroes get a micro-quest, the heroes kill monsters while completing said micro-quest, and as they complete additional micro-quests they come closer to completing some sort of larger, more abstract macro-quest. Rinse and repeat ad infinitum.

Indeed.

I'll definitely take that under advisement. I might be able to pull off a similar feat. I do have some minor experience with the Dresden Files RPG, and most members of the group are familiar enough with the novels that I might be able to use that passion to make trying something very different more palatable.

I might give that a shot, thanks for the suggestion!

I've been considering getting my usual group to try one of the Fantasy AGE systems variants, but for the most part they seem to prefer sticking with their comfort zone, which is D20. Getting them to play games using systems like Shadowrun, World of Darkness, or one of the D6 Star Wars flavors is tough. In many cases I find that they are just scared they will slow the game down due to lack of familiarity.

Hm. Intriguing. I'm not super experienced with the variations on FATE. The only one I've played is the Dresden Files RPG.

That seems very confusing and unwieldy. How do you decide which systems or combinations of systems to use for a particular session, and how do you keep your players up to speed on how to resolve a particular situation?

Interesting. What system is your current game using? My local group just had our most recent session in our current game earlier tonight using the Pathfinder system. I am rotating DM duties with a close friend. Due to our extensive relationship, we consistently find that plots and story arcs we come up with separately are ripe for overlap and interaction almost completely by happenstance.

Not much. Just checking in, making some comments, posting an answer before bed. I figured I'd stop in to the chat room for a bit in case an extended discussion gets going.

Hello, @BESW.

I would further point out that my answer is the next most popular answer after Korvin's. Clearly, both approaches have significant support from the RPG.SE commmunity. I would even go so far as to concede that they are equally valid. But his answer crosses a line that I personally cannot support.

KorvinStarmast's answer goes to the extreme - either no dice, or the result of the dice being a mere suggestion that the player is free to ignore completely. I like role playing and preserving player agency as much as the next person, and you are free to run your games in whatever way you see fit. But intentionally rigging the game so that NPCs cannot influence PCs at all with social skills is IMHO the wrong way to go, and I will continue to adamantly stand by that position.

The fact that they omit any and all explanation regarding resolution of social interaction via dice roll tells me that information has already been covered in the PHB, which is what I based my answer to that question on. Further, my approach comes closer to the ideal scenario that the DMG suggests of mixing dice rolling and role playing together.

@LinoFrankCiaralli I reviewed DMG pages 244-246, and not anywhere does it tell you conclusively what happens when an NPC initiates a social contest against a PC and the PC loses that contest. At the beginning it broadly mentions that there are two approaches: role playing the scenarios (which is what you are advocating) and resolving conflicts via dice rolls. It then suggests a mix of those two approaches, and spends 2 pages going in depth into the role playing approach.

i don't disagree that the DM shouldn't dictate a PC's actions to the player. But not allowing an NPC to affect a PC with a social skill is simply asinine. There is absolutely no precedent in the rules for saying that PCs are immune to social skills used by NPCs, and even less precedent for carving out a single exception for Deception so the PCs can be lied to.

@LinoFrankCiaralli That's preposterous. I suppose you have a page number and rule you can cite to back up your assertion? Because I don't remember reading such a passage anywhere in the PHB or DMG, and numerous NPCs have Deception, Persuasion, and Intimidation bonuses for a reason. Certainly you're not suggesting that the only reason they have those abilities is to use them on other NPCs?

I down-voted this answer because it makes social skills useless in the hands of NPCs. Invalidating an entire set of available actions isn't necessary to preserving player agency.

@Miniman it was a quote from Adlai Stevenson, a famous American statesmen.So, at best, I feel I split the degree of pompousness equally :) Standing on the backs of giants, and all that.

Apologies, my connection timed out.

Well despite the general pompousness of your attitude, this has still been rather enlightening and I thank you for taking the additional time to better explain your position. I just hope if I am ever in the asker's position, someone will come along and give me a more useful answer than "You're the DM, you figure it out."

it may interest you to know the asker was the DM asking for advice regarding one of his PCs. He was asking for guidance, so your "Let the DM figure it out." was even more pointless.

Is that correct?

Ah, I see. So the answer is "Let the DM figure it out."

I do not feel I was insulting you, in fact your "that's fine and there are better things to do than to argue about it. G'night!" was fairly dismissive considering you not only chose to come here but also dogged me in comments on my answer when you as a mod should know better than most that we are to take extended discussions to chat.

I also wanted to know what your alternate theory was which you have yet to pose.

I think you are taking this all a bit too personally. I feel a lot of aggression over something as simple as a disagreement. I understand you eel like you are wasting your time, but if that's the case why come to talk at all?

I'm sure it could have been ripped by any number of reasons. But d you thing the artists made a detailed backstory for this character they were drawing where they envisioned it being ripped prior to the transformation? If the art is indicative of what they were wearing prior to changing form (and I do not believe it is), then it stands to reason they are depicitng these characters this way because it ties in how their curse works.

It shouldn't have suffered any serious damage from the transformation.

"but the art" is not my argument, it was the question asker's. I've already said I think it is meaningless. But if your position holds, then the werewolf was wearing that same toga in human form. So why is it ripped along the bottom? He is still in the same size category and still walks on two legs.

Because when he reverts, he will have his original gear, untouched because it melded into his body as per the description of Polymorph.

But that werebear will eventually revert to his human form and that gear fit fora large creature will be useless. So he chooses not to wear any.

The question's asker based his question on the inconsistency of the visual representation. I propose that the visual representation is meaningless. The wereboar and wererat are wearing clothes because they want to, and so could the werebear; he would simply need clothes made for a large creature.

@SevenSidedDie you are free to agree or disagree as you wish. Why then would a werewolves clothes be destroyed but not a wererat or wereboar? The art shows them wearing gear, based on your apparent belief their original gear - they are medium bipedal creatures. Why is the wolf'storn but the others intact?

Our laws of science tell us gravity is constant, yet there are many spells that change this. Given that lycanthropy curse is a magical efect, I fail to see how that argument holds.

It's magic? I agree if this were a setting where the laws of physics as we know them this would be impossible, but if that is the case we have much more complicated logical problems than a bear with armor inside it.

It remains unchanged, not transformed.

The equipment is not transformed; it s not destroyed thereby penalizing the old form nor changed to accommodate new size thus benefitting the new form.

The description of Polymorph.

@SevenSidedDie I disagree. To me that sentence tells you that the effect is identical to that of polymorph.

form*

The text "melds into the new orm" is pretty clear the armor and bear are one.

While I would agree that it is not a situation where the armor is like a metallic implant, I would disagree that it is not within the bears body.

@Miniman I did not ignore it, I am simply trying to keep up with conversng with mutliple people. I apologize for my slowness.

All that you have said is that you disagree because I am not persuasive. I have offered text from the book, inferences based on what text is and is not present, what more do you ask? More importantly, what is your alternate theory?

If there was no interest, I would not be here.

And what is your justification?

@SevenSidedDie Okay, let me approach this from a different direction. What is your answer to the asker's question? How do you believe the process works?

I am convinced I am correct, but that doesn't mean I'm not interested in hearing other's input. I do wish to understand why he disagrees.

Typical. No interest in discussion and no willingness to put forth his own answer. Oh well.