The Gaming Den

That I will not dispute. But simply not having rules for the likelyhood of getting pregnant when having sex is not the same thing as having children being forbidden. D&D in general does not handle the whole "economy and the player characters" at all well - or at least neither fourth OR...

Its not exactly the same thing to say "We don't have rules for." and "we're forbidding there from being." either. There aren't rules for how often you need to urinate, I don't think D&D characters have bladders of endless capacity . More relevantly: This sucks. And blows. MAR...

Other setting thoughts that I'm not sure on. Religion is probably not a serious issue - though if anyone is thinking it is worth dealing with I don't mind treating it as one (but I don't think it adds anything to make it a big issue). Culture is probably (other than the barbarians) fairly similar fr...

There are (more or less) only three basic stages of ammo, assuming running out will be true long enough to matter.

1) Plenty.

2) "Some". - Time to start conserving ammo.

3) "Looting the dead". Just what it says - this is the point when you are down to individual rounds.

People who 'cheat' (because we have objective rules of engagement that are universally know and enforceable somehow) can gain something from it without gaining a mechanical advantage. Like what? What is the point for the character of cheating to win a fight if it doesn't alter your odds of winning ...

Your vow of chastity means that you can no longer have sex with stuff and, thus, your ability to affect events in the story (by having sex with stuff) is diminished. In return you get to affect the story by being more effective in combat (or what have you). You get to affect the story -by- being so...

It should be a sacrifice if taking a vow to swear never to use poison actually gives you something. In GURPS for instance, you get character points for taking a vow like that, because it counts as a disadvantage. In that case, not being able to use poison should hurt your effectiveness in some situ...

And if your decisions are based on knowledge your character doesn't have (but acts as if he does because you do) and otherwise influenced by something other than what would the character do we have a problem. Also, much more relevantly: Basically, you want to create a system where anyone who has any...

More complex base rules, simpler to use in play = simpler where we need simplicity. Less compelx base rules, more complicated to use in play = reverse. RC, if NPCs in general were reused more (instead of being basically "props" for want of a better term), would it be worth spending more ti...

So we are assuming that our hypothetical code of honor is also good, and that the entire population generally believes in the same code of honor? We are assuming that these are possibilities not to be treated as nonexistant. Well if we're talking about being what a good christian does in theory, he...

You want a general reason, or a reason that means that using poison for instance is ALWAYS A BAD THING AND YOU WILL BURN IN HELL! for doing? As for the dishonorable activity you just mentioned, though: A character who "desecrates" corpses is not likely to be trusted. A character who behave...

Because railing about those things is a fool's errand. Not everyone who plays a role playing game emphasizes the role playing part of it, and yet those reasons are equally valid to those of the amateur thespians. Not when designing a game that is supposed to be about those things. A game that is su...

You can have that attitude without such things. However, you don't get to whine when players elect to do the mechanically prudent thing. You do get to "whine" that the players are overemphasising "the best mechanical option" and underemphasing the other aspects of a role playing...

After allaying a revolt at Genoa, and striving with the greatest assiduity to check a pestilence in Dauphiné, Bayard was sent into Italy with Admiral Bonnivet, who, being defeated at Robecco and wounded in a combat during his retreat, implored Bayard to assume command and save the army. He repulsed...

Those who think a vow of "I shall not use ____" when ____ is actually useful enough that it is a real limitation/inconvenience to not use it is unacceptable unless they get something else that makes it so that they're no worse off for having the vow are very much in favor of the sacrifice ...

The rules should be tailored to represent how effective poison or whatever is in the setting. The rules should not be set up so that the resulting characters lose nothing for something where the characters are supposed to be making a sacrifice. It is a meaningless vow to swear never to use poison wh...

As for why I expect people to be treating dirty fighting as better: Basically, you want to create a system where anyone who has any notions that a fight has rules is going to lose. That is Conan inspired. I think the guy who throws dirt in the other's face before backpedaling a ways and pelting his ...

The problem is, there are plenty of consequences for the character that have no mechanical impact whatsoever. Being scolded by a superior is not a mechanical penalty, or feeling that you have dishonoured your ancestors or yourself... Signing away your soul to the Devil is a penalty, whether it mecha...

But the issue is, while there are reasons to honorable IRL, those reasons don't really apply well in a game - you aren't making the world a better place by not having your fictional character poison another fictional character, and you aren't a better person for doing so. The character is making th...

In the nonflashy game, we need to answer those questions. I have my preferences. What do those others who want to address it think? That's the purpose of this thread. A DISCUSSION. Not a "Make Elennsar answer questions", or Maxus answer questions, or whatever. What kind of game is desired?...

If you don't tell the rest of us what is honorable or dishonorable, then the rest of us don't know what they are. If I'm the only one familiar with those concepts, I am going to be a very sad puppy. Your initial post leads one to believe that a distinction between dirty/non dirty tactics will exist...

My Point about Force Lightning was that it was a False Choice. Being able to Heal is far superior vs. using Force Lightning: Meaning that Evil is gimped in that game. The designers might as well flatly state out: You can't be evil, and just not print the Dark Side Powers. There are people who use D...

Of course, if you are assigning stats/choosing powers that are inferior to other powers, you are gimping yourself. I disagree - if the expected success rate for the characters is 80%, and it is possible if you make a pact with the devil to have a 85% success rate, then you're making a rather nasty ...

In my opinion, that's the definition of gimping yourself. Now, best possible build is nebulous in a well designed game. But anything as obvious as, this maneuver does 1d6 damage and this maneuver does 1d6 damage and poison, means that you're gimping yourself by taking the first. Then the definition...

1) We presumably want people to be able to cut off people's heads, arms, hands, or other things, or at least aim for those with the intent of the disabling consequences - so "called shots" as a default would make sense. Sometimes you want to go start for the vital areas, sometimes not. 2) ...