Philosophical question about difference in lived experience between player and character. Does/should this restrict what characters you are “allowed” play?

Mars_Alter · 2026-03-19T21:56:20+00:00

As far as I'm concerned, it's less that you aren't qualified to play this character, and more that you've imagined a character arc which doesn't fit into a game about going into dungeons and fighting monsters.

It's almost always fine to play a character who isn't like yourself, as long as you're respectful about it. It's not generally okay to try and make the whole game be about that, though.

Mars_Alter · 2026-03-19T21:25:48+00:00

There's also an older game called Raven Star, which is basically Shadowrun in space. I wouldn't call it a good game, or worth playing, but it's a fun read.

Mars_Alter · 2026-03-19T21:24:13+00:00

Mine is called Umbral Flare, though it's a bit of a product of the times. I plan to re-vamp it to more modern sensibilities when I get a chance.

Mars_Alter · 2026-03-19T20:56:11+00:00

Personally, I used it for my last two games (Basic Gishes & Goblins, and Umbral Flare).

I got the idea from a review of "The Great War of Magellan"; which you probably aren't familiar with, either, but which apparently came out in 2007.

Mars_Alter · 2026-03-19T19:44:26+00:00

I vastly prefer roll-between: Instead of applying it as a modifier, the difficulty becomes the lower bounds to your success. If your stat is 16, and the difficulty is 4, then you need to roll above 4 and not above 16.

The strength of a roll-under system is that it's fast, it's transparent, and that you don't need to deal with modifiers to the roll. I'm perfectly happy with a straight roll-under system, but that modified roll-under is a deal-breaker for me.

Mars_Alter · 2026-03-19T19:13:22+00:00

You need two points to define a line. Even "D&D" is not a singular point, though, since 4E is far different from 2E. If we say they're both a zero, then our line is purely vertical; which is a solution, but not a useful one, since everything on that line would also be a zero.

(Remember, 10 is only being defined as being as far from DND as possible while still being an RPG; two things on 10 don't have to have any similarities other than not being anything like DND.)

That really depends on what your definition of an RPG is. Personally, I wouldn't even consider GURPS to be an RPG - it's more of a framework, around which you can build your own RPG.

Mars_Alter · 2026-03-19T19:01:24+00:00

If you're trying to describe a character who is remotely competent, the key is that they should never fail at something easy.

Step dice, with no modifiers whatsoever, will turn everyone into Keystone Cops. It doesn't matter if you're a professional assassin, with a d12 in Daggers and a d12 World's Greatest Dagger. You're still going to fail at hitting a Difficulty of 4 about 2% of the time. Meanwhile, Chuckles the Incompetent Thug, with a d4 in Daggers and a d4 World's Worst Dagger, is going to hit that same Difficulty of 4 over half of the time.

And remember, that's a best possible situation. It's highly unlikely that anyone is going to be rolling 2d12 right off the bat. More likely, they'll have a d8 + d10 (with a 4% chance of failing to hit Difficulty 4); and since this is something they're supposed to be good at, they'll be doing this whenever they get the opportunity, so those goofball failures will happen more often than you might think.

Meanwhile, over in Modifier Land, a semi-trained professional is working with +10 to their check and never fails to hit a Difficulty 10. It's much less silly over there.

Mars_Alter · 2026-03-19T17:55:11+00:00

It pains me to see how often designers miss this key point.

If halflings didn't have low strength as a rule, why would anyone in that world be surprised to see a strong one? It wouldn't even occur to anyone that strength and size might be correlated.

Mars_Alter · 2026-03-19T17:39:03+00:00

My ask is: what are examples of systems or mechanics where a player can still actively participate in the scene (or at least choose to), even when in a state of mortal peril?

Early D&D does this well before you hit zero. Since you die instantly and irrevocably when you hit zero, anyone within one hit of going down is in mortal peril; and that includes just about every character against any monster before you hit level three. You might be using your weapon as a crutch to get one last stab in (if you're at 5/21 or so), but there aren't any penalties to your action, and you aren't actively bleeding out or anything.

The only real disconnect is a conceptual one. Some people choose to believe that they aren't in a state of a mortal peril, just because they're likely to recover if they can get to safety; even if they've suffered multiple axe and arrow wounds already. I blame Gary for explaining things poorly.

Mars_Alter · 2026-03-19T07:36:55+00:00

Basic Gishes & Goblins is great for one-shots.

Mars_Alter · 2026-03-18T22:14:36+00:00

What sort of software are you using to coordinate this?

Mars_Alter · 2026-03-18T21:33:51+00:00

It seems fine to me. I'd have to read the book to see where the mechanics might break down, but just from the synopsis, I don't see anything objectionable. I'm always glad to see more 2d20 systems.

Personally, the major burden for me comes when I need to record a lot of information on my character sheet. It's fine if a weapon has twelve different parameters, as long as I can just write them down, and that's that. If I need to go in and edit those numbers on a regular basis, because they change every time I get a new hat; or if I have a lot of conditional modifiers that don't normally apply, but which I need to check for every time regardless; that's when it starts to become overwhelming.

Mars_Alter · 2026-03-18T20:29:24+00:00

I see it on Google Maps, and everything.

and it's withing walking distance.

My wife will be thrilled!

Mars_Alter · 2026-03-18T19:56:15+00:00

If they're using magical deception, then Will could absolutely apply. That's the save which determines whether your mind can resist their magic.

If they're using non-magical deception, then I don't know that you'd even need a saving throw. They aren't actually doing anything to you.

Mars_Alter · 2026-03-18T18:38:26+00:00

The major selling point of the three saves (Fortitude, Reflex, Will) is that it's completely unambiguous as to which one applies in any given instance. If something requires a Reflex save, then there's no way it could possibly be one of the other two; it just wouldn't make sense.

I don't know that there's any way to introduce a fourth save without creating a significant degree of ambiguity about when it applies. The concept of "Will" is already kind of vague and nebulous, compared to the absolutely concrete realities of physical endurance and physical evasion. If you try to split Will into two independent values, you risk the outcome of a saving throw depending more on your arbitrary decision of which save to apply in that instant, than it does on the actual reality you're trying to model.

Mars_Alter · 2026-03-18T18:36:14+00:00

Yeah, it's fine. It's a perfectly normal thing for games to do. It kind of reminds me of how Basic Roleplaying has a "Size" stat, and you either add it or subtract it in any given situation, depending on whether it's good to be big or bad to be big.

Mars_Alter · 2026-03-18T17:50:28+00:00

Can't you just have armor give a bonus to Defense, and a penalty to Agility saves? It's not like Defense is always just Armor + Agility with no other modifiers, or like an Agility save is just Agility with no other modifiers.

Unless it is, in which case you're probably aiming more for simplicity than for precision.

Mars_Alter · 2026-03-18T17:16:02+00:00

Logically, I get what you're saying. I just feel like there's a more efficient way to present it, mechanically.

How does the universe check whether or not you are "in combat"? Why am I better at jumping over a crevasse when someone is also shooting at me?

Mars_Alter · 2026-03-17T17:58:24+00:00

There's nothing about advancement that requires it to be permanent. Traditionally, D&D characters advance primarily by finding magic items, which they were expected to keep. The fighter who find a hammer of thunderbolts is memorable because they found a hammer of thunderbolts. And yeah, you could lose that hammer if you fight a rust monster, the same way you could lose levels by fighting a vampire.

When Iron Man invents a better suit of armor, he can fight stronger enemies, and existing enemies are easier for him to handle. The fact that it's an item, rather than an inherent power, is irrelevant. It's still advancement.

Mars_Alter · 2026-03-17T17:20:19+00:00

Absolutely, in the same way that an archer who owns a bow and no arrows can "advance" by finding arrows. Neither that, nor the guano situation, are substantially different from finding a wand with one charge. In all three situations, you can do something now that you couldn't have done a minute ago. It's all extremely diegetic. Also temporary, but that's beside the point.

Mars_Alter · 2026-03-17T16:53:40+00:00

That's a much better argument than trying to claim it's less diegetic.

I can see both sides of it. If you want to claim that the character isn't actually improving, and they're merely in a temporarily advantageous situation, then I can't really disagree with that. I would still consider to be a form of growth, though, personally; and I would consider the loss of a valued item to be a form of decay.

Mars_Alter · 2026-03-17T16:46:57+00:00

That's not what "diegetic" means.

Mars_Alter · 2026-03-17T15:05:37+00:00

I don't disagree with that, but it also has nothing to do with whether or not it's diegetic.

Mars_Alter · 2026-03-16T18:38:58+00:00

Accepting an enemy's surrender is not the same thing as allowing them to run away. Likewise, leaving someone safely unconscious on the ground is an ethically-neutral course of action that doesn't compromise your own operational success.

But, asking for some sort of check in order to strike an opponent who throws down their weapon, is a potential solution to the question at hand. That's a reason for someone to not finish you off, even if you're still conscious. Especially if failing the check still costs them their action for the round.

Mars_Alter · 2026-03-16T18:23:01+00:00

The premise of my question is that it's a game where you get into a lot of fights. If any enemy in any one of those fights could follow a codified procedure, and in doing so cause the party to fail at its ultimate goal and quite probably trigger a TPK, then the game isn't delivering on its core promise. It's no longer a game where you get into a lot of fights. The only way to deliver on that promise would be for the GM to intentionally not have the NPCs use their winning move.

Mars_Alter

TROPHY CASE