Resistance

Nobody believed me on the bear cavalry

[spoiler=Archi's Character] Scion Race: Dwarf Agility d10 Smarts d6 Spirit d8 (1) Strength d6 Vigor d6 Climbing d6 Running d10 Lockpicking d10 Fighting d12 Notice d6 Stealth d12 Charisma: - Pace: 7 Parry: 9 Toughness: 5 Hindarence: Cautious Curious Loyal Edges: Arcane Resistance Fleet Footed (5) Assassin (2) Thief (3) Acrobat (4) Gear: -Great Axe -AP 1, Parry -1, 2 Handed -Damage: d6+d10 Creating a character is very simple. Talk to me about concepts and I can help you. Archi is playing a rogue seemingly. EDIT: If it's just Alg, Archi and possibly Nex I probably won't run.

See, you're having a mature discussion about it now. This could have gone on in the thread. Personally, I think that the post was removed because criticism of Jagex may cause tip.it to lose its platinum status.

You made a yeoman sign away his lands under duress. The session after was a planned raid on the keep as a result. The point is that combat should be a big part of the game but d&d lends to it being the only part of the game. Personally, I would like charisma to be as detailed as combat but as it stands it's just a flat +2 to rolls. The system isn't geared for long-running campaigns, partially because people's power is directly correlated with their level - so the venerable king needs to be a level 15 brawler or battle Mage, and with E6 it just means that they can be geased or hold person'd 60% of the time - diplomacy goes out the window when you are mind-controlling demigods. The amount of utility at level 6 far outweighs that of any melee combatant.

If I were to follow those rules to the letter you could just make the king abdicate and deal with all enemies by telling them not to do things :P It's not about skills existing, it's about the fact that there's no point worrying about half of them when in a system based around combat you're pushed into attacking them. Alternatively, you can just geas them and there's no need to worry about RP or antagonists.

Detect Thoughts Discern Lies Divination Detect Magic Detect alignment Speak with dead They're all counter-intuitive against the player actually thinking.

Except it does in D&D, since the game is built around being murderhobos. Attaining wealth through cunning diplomacy and social situations just aren't part of the game. The game basically boils down to killing: Murder mysteries would be fun, although I don't think the D&D skills lend to it very well. EDIT: I have just created a magic-less locked-room mystery

Easiest way to make plot: Create the most obnoxious NPC possible. Have the NPC do something really annoying, like knock a player off a bridge or steal their most valuable magic item. trololol Party goes on mission to kill that player. This will not always work with the tavern, because taverners will have no qualms about executing these players immediately regardless of appropriateness. Mather, the issue is that short of high level artefacts, there is no real reason to go after people and mug them. I thought the nobility idea was a good idea, kill nobles to get more powers but I don't think the powers were good enough.

Sigh. Another empty forum. Just merge it into off-topic.

http://www.peginc.co...SWcore/TD06.pdf Condensed form. Also: Talk with others about whether or not you want to take leadership edges. Edit: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12603519/Scion.txt

Rulebook Attributes: Agility d4, Smarts d4, Spirit d4, Strength d4, Vigor d4 Skills: Charisma: –; Pace: –; Parry: –; Toughness: –;Hindrances: One Major, two Minor Edges: Start with: 5 points which can be used to raise your attributes. So getting to d6 or d8. You get 15 skill points, these work the same as attributes. Except you need more for each successive skill. We are going to start out with seasoned characters. Everybody gets four extra advances (see page 44) Starting gold: 500 GP Medieval gear If you're playing a spellcaster, write out how you want to fluff it. The elements are a good base, but anything works. Maybe vermin or light projections.

And that's not circular circular reasoning. Make a better plot by making a better plot. Although plot isn't too much of an issue, since it just creates itself after an arc is established.

Not really. Although it will give a bit more internal consistency to combat. I'm probably oversimplifying but I think we could really benefit from sticking in one city. Otherwise people don't get anything apart from their GP rewards when they move from city to city hunting for adventures.

Making a load of assumptions about a game you know nothing about is ridiculous. Apart from the "I do not want to change" from Retech. Mather's arguments are like: "I hate COD because I hate all RTS games", since as I have already explained the game is less restrictive, of about equal power level besides aces and wizards not being able to lock out any other class with hold person >50% of the time, it arguably has looser (or at least simpler) rules, and little/no optimisation just means a lack of opportunity for rules abuse. Also, tactical combat with this system is not only possible. It's something that works well in this system. It's not just a +2 flanking bonus, well it is but the +2 means a lot more on a d6

As far as I can see, SW is essentially optimisation free. Characters can customise and I'm sure that there is some combination of attributes that is optimal but not to a degree that I feel I would need to make adjustments. I have been wrong, I sort of thought this about E6 so I'm asking for solid reasons as to whether to move or not. I agree I can understand how it can very annoying. The last three sessions were bad as a result. If SW fixes this finally, then I think we can resume. I may be being a bit paranoid, but some of these things are ridiculous. Apart from the argument that being weak isn't fun (which I don't really agree with, I would say E6 D&D is far weaker in terms of characters - just certain mechanics are very open to abuse) there aren't arguments against. Edit: we switch to SW and see how it goes. Story will stay the same. Complaining about the system is not allowed while testing since it fosters a negative attitude More info tomorrow As Nex said

Preventing optimisation is impossible. Even if I make it clear that it's not allowed, people just do it subtly. E6 is a solution to a degree, but basically D&D isn't meant for it. It means a lot of things are shut off, and it doesn't really prevent the inherent problems in the systems. I meant freedom in terms of creating a character, since the whole system is classless. As I remember, dungeoneering did have a whole lot of nothing happening. You are right though, people care very little about things that don't affect them - especially the tavern. Loose rules mean total imbalance. Just go and look at the stats of players on the original dungeoneering, they're all different. I bet a few people missed some sessions, but otherwise it was just a force-of-personality test. You are right, but SW and D&D aren't comparable in that way. Compared to E6, I would say that the SW characters would be stronger. Your SW characters will be stronger than the characters you have now for sure, if you just look at the rules you will see that even at a lower level the chance of PCs taking down NPCs is a lot higher because of the added wild card. Scaling everything up is stupid. It's like when DMs say that the lock on the pub is masterwork because all the players have spent all their effort into disable device. Likewise, I could just give all monsters 20 SR to scale up encounters against spell casters. Even so, that sort of thing is not going to work in D&D anyway - in a narrative based game, the DM can just say that the attacks do little and make things up on the spot, although you may have had the illusion that whatever you put your skills had an impact, they actually would not have normally.

Hopefully get away from the fact that the game is just an overland dungeon crawl. But yes, I think you're right. Making a load of ridiculous nerfs doesn't address the issue. D&D lends to a lack of story, a lack of tactics and a lack of anything beyond killing dragons or raiding dungeons. Sunday night dungeon delve is also good, but continuing with the current campaign which was intended to be story-based is wrong. Hopefully more freedom means more RP? Furthermore, I like the idea of realism. I know from past discussions and votes that this is the preferred of others as well. Forced party-games are not as fun. People want to be able to split up from the party occasionally.

Hopefully get away from the fact that the game is just an overland dungeon crawl. Making a load of ridiculous nerfs doesn't address the issue. D&D lends to a lack of story, a lack of tactics and a lack of anything beyond killing dragons or raiding dungeons. Sunday night dungeon delve is also good, but continuing with the current campaign which was intended to have story is not so fun. Forced party-games are not as fun. People want to be able to split up from the party occasionally.

Grid-based combat takes a ridiculous amount of time anyway. Nothing can be done about people being rewarded more for optimising other than intentionally punishing them. "A dragon with SR 26 attacks you" We could switch to Savage Worlds (no need to board the rage train, it's a very simple system and probably wouldn't take too long to sort out. I know it's another change, but I don't want to end up with power creep) Char-gen takes like 10 minutes. More realistic health and combat, but not gritty. A few commoners with pitchforks could gank a guard, and would be outmatched but succeed. The optimisation window is very small. Practically Dungeoneering with crunch. No classes, stats are like point buy. Tavern is capable of intrigue, it's just powergaming ruined that. Hegemony was fun, until people started playing to win. E6 is a pretty depressing way to cap power IMO.

this

I'm having qualms about roll20 and whether it will really benefit the game in any meaningful way. Restricts players from leaving a hundred block space of each other. Unplanned combat feels mediocre. Promotes an endless dungeon crawl. This takes a million hours and is unbelievably ugly. (this took like 10 minutes-ish)

For non wizard/sorcerer I will update the banned spell list soon. - They are essentially vassals of Ansehelm, but are not under his direct control. He kills leaders occasionally as a show of his power and to prevent uprising. A majority are outlaws. So far: Fireball Endure Elements * Delayed Blast Fireball Meteor Swarm Create Water Create Food and Water Raise Dead Ressurection * Detect Magic Detect Charm Comprehend Languages Phantasmal Killer Commune * Greater Invisibility * * Exists as powerful artefact Standard spells that become full-round can be readied. Casting Time increase does not affect direct damage or healing spells. - I'm going to start giving reroll dice for RP.

Personally I would suggest a complete blanket ban on all guns. The constitution is outdated and irrelevant. How I would regulate it: Home defence and hunting are not legitimate reasons to own a gun, the rate of gun crime in the US is far higher than countries without gun crime. Guns are implements designed for murder, there is no reason a person should own a gun. People do not need to worry about these sorts of things without guns. If people want to hunt, then hunting ranges will make guns available for use. Embedded inside will be trackers and electronic disabling devices to make sure that they can only be fired when it is safe to do so. There is no legitimate reason why a person needs to own and keep a gun inside their house instead of just using the ones at the range. After guns are made illegal, there will be a three week grace period where people will be given the opportunity to dispose of their guns. They will be sold to a different nation, which will gladly take the US's second hand guns and then that money will be then used to fund American Charities. When people dispose of their registered firearms, they will be given a slip saying that they have done so - this will ensure that there are no registered firearms still in the system, alternatively it could be a computerised system based off of already existing data. Anybody who has not handed in a gun will be punished severely. The jails are overcrowded anyway so the options are: Execution (little extreme but the death penalty is acceptable in the US) Amputation of hands (sounds severe, however: less severe with death penalty, ensures that troublemakers cannot use firearms, makes it known the to public that the person is dangerous, acts as a good deterrent) Deportation. These are rather extreme punishments, I accept that but I feel that it is necessary for the government to help make guns illegal which will prevent A LOT more murders in the future. In a way it's sort of like utilitarianism. - EDIT: "The right to bear arms may not be denied by the legislature; it only has the power to 'regulate the exercise of this right'; that is, among other things, it may prohibit carrying concealed weapons, or prescribe the kind or character of arms that may or may not be kept, carried, or used, and various other things of a regulatory character." (1937) Since to a lot of Americans, breaking the constitution is quite a big thing, sort of like a muslim going against the Koran, or a Jehovah's witness going against the Watchtower (although my disdain for a piece of paper that is treated as holy and the word of God is an off-topic and completely separate matter) - it should be very clear that I am not actually saying that we should break the rules of the constitution. People would still have the opportunity to bear arms in certain situations. 1.) If they are in the military or police. They are citizens and are bearing arms. 2.) If they have their hunting licence and are using a state approved (safety shut-off switch) gun hired by an organisation. 3.) they will be allowed to hold decommissioned arms at museums and public gatherings. Bearing arms does not mean wandering around with them on the street, people will still have a right to bear arms in safer conditions.

Varrock Library has not had any activity in like two months. Time to shut it down.