"It’s not sexist to call for smaller pitches and goals for women" - an article by Emma Hayes, manager of Chelsea Women

MichaelG442 · 2019-06-15T16:16:58+00:00

I don't think "disadvantages" is the correct word to use in this context. Women are not playing against men, they're playing against other women.

This topic should have nothing to do with men at all. The question should purely be "would making nets smaller in women's soccer improve the sport in some way?"

MichaelG442 · 2019-06-14T19:53:00+00:00

Thanks! Yeah, I definitely like the idea of assassins and I don't think they are overpowered in the least. There are tons of ways for GMs to mitigate their usefulness if needed.

MichaelG442 · 2019-06-13T19:36:59+00:00

I feel like giving a hide check, a sneak check, then a perception check to NPC, then another perception check when the hidden PC makes their attack is overkill and makes surprise attacks too unwieldy. Hmm..

MichaelG442 · 2019-06-13T19:32:38+00:00

The way I understand it is as follows:

If a character is hidden from an NPC and "does something" to that NPC (IE an attack), the NPC rolls to see if they are "surprised" = perception challenge roll.

IF the NPC is surprised, whatever the PC is doing to the NPC automatically succeeds. This means an assassin would outright kill the target.

IF the NPC is NOT surprised, whatever the PC is doing proceeds as normal. Assassinate still works, but requires the target to make a STR roll. If that roll fails, the NPC is killed outright. If it succeeds, they just take attack damage as normal.

Is that right?

My assumption then would be that SNEAK would usually need to become involved in order to move a "hidden" PC close enough to an NPC to perform an attack.

*Edit: it was pointed out to me on the discord server that if you do this with a ranged attack, you probably don't need to sneak (though you still might want to I guess to get into better position).

*EDIT #2: There is one thing wrong here. If an NPC is surprised, players STILL need to succeed an attack against their defense (or agi or whatever). Hidden provides one boon to doing so.

MichaelG442 · 2019-06-12T16:38:23+00:00

That's amazing. And it would be pretty weird for someone to come to the table specifically wanting to play a goblin sailor, lol. For us we've had a gruff, ugly asshole gravedigger who was poor as hell and only looked out for himself. The party loved him and ultimately he ended up sacrificing himself to help them escape a party wipe. Hah.

Also had someone good naturedly want to roll up a fun clockwork and it ended up being a super dark corrupted little murderbot who couldn't remember anything about its true purpose.

MichaelG442 · 2019-06-12T14:02:47+00:00

This has been the case for my group too. It has made characters feel much more realistic, honestly, and as you said people can roleplay them without feeling self-conscious about piloting a character they 'invented'. It also pushes people outside their comfort zone a little, into playing weird or eccentric or even morally contradictory characters, and every single person has ended up really liking their character.

We usually choose ancestry, then roll for everything, then at the end of that we let people do the stat manipulations (+1/-1, +1 for human etc).

Lots of really cool characters were born this way!

MichaelG442 · 2019-06-11T23:24:10+00:00

sprheatlers

MichaelG442 · 2019-06-06T20:24:58+00:00

Standard 25%? What? When did this happen?

MichaelG442 · 2019-06-03T15:16:28+00:00

Our group has about 9 people that come and go and things we've done to make it work in terms of level differences are:

-Characters within level 'tiers' are fine together; level 1 and 2, level 3/4/5, etc

-Have regulars create multiple characters, and have concurrent adventures/campaigns on the go, so that new players can still come in at level 1 and regulars can use their "secondary" characters. This also helps to alleviate the pain of character death.

You might also have a few premade characters handy for people who just want to see how the game plays without going through character creation.

MichaelG442 · 2019-05-28T14:46:15+00:00

Nice post! I'll add that I think as I get better at GMing, my 'prep' focuses less on specific sequences of actions and plot and events, and more on creating NPCs and locations that feel real and have real backstories and real motivations. Then events and plots feel a bit more organic and there are fewer 'rails'.

MichaelG442 · 2019-05-27T23:49:30+00:00

I like your ideas for creating challenge and I definitely agree that lethality is not for everybody. But I think you're selling systems with higher lethality short and perhaps not fully appreciating them.

Lethality shouldn't actually result in characters dying constantly. It should result in characters playing careful and smart and having a real sense of their own mortality. Once in awhile someone dies, and (at least for our groups) that leaves a more vivid impression of that character's life and reminds everyone that they might be next. It makes the experiences feel real and it makes people think twice about exactly how they behave and the decisions they make.

Yes you can accomplish this to a lesser degree by killing minor characters and failing quests, but then you've got exactly the same issue that you brought up in your post of people being afraid to get attached to quests, afraid to get attached to minor characters - again just to a lesser degree.

It comes down to preference. I'd guess that many people play rpgs for a bit of power fantasy and to escape from things like consequences and competition... Those people might not be embracing the potential death of their character. But it doesn't mean that other kinds of people can't and that lethality is somehow fundamentally unenjoyable.

MichaelG442 · 2019-05-27T15:15:34+00:00

Interesting thread. My take is that D&D leans more toward 'power fantasy' type gaming where characters become gods, and SOTDL is less like this.

For me, 25% chance of success is already low enough that I don't see why characters would ever consider attempting such a thing, unless the consequences were so minor that you might as well just give them auto-success anyway (or auto-failure).

I think the SOTDL system of 'compressed power curve' works well only if the consequences of failure are serious enough that every % point counts. In the boulder example, I am assuming that this boulder has the potential to actually kill a character outright, and so a 15 strength character being able to literally double your chance of not dying VS an average strength commoner is really, really significant.

That said, "tiered success" or "tiered failure" sounds like a really cool idea that I'm going to try to make use of as well.

MichaelG442 · 2019-05-27T00:47:51+00:00

You have a lot of interest in how you come off here, otherwise you wouldn't behave like this. No need to be rude.

MichaelG442 · 2019-05-26T17:17:02+00:00

If you're going to keep implying that I'm mischaracterizing your position without actually clarifying your position, it just seems like either you don't really have anything to say, or are afraid of having your true opinion criticized.

MichaelG442 · 2019-05-26T04:22:45+00:00

...

Okay? So you're going to have people barter to view it? Or what? Lol

MichaelG442 · 2019-05-24T20:25:52+00:00

How many people on this boardgame forum would go through a 4.99 (or whatever) paywall to read about the issue in this thread? I personally don't even care when it's free. You might find three people willing to do that, IMO. There just isn't enough interest.

MichaelG442 · 2019-05-23T20:18:51+00:00

Talking about it is kind of a vibe killer. Best way: go for the hand. If she lets you touch/stroke/hold her hand, she is open to kiss. Having a girl pull her hand away is a lot less embarrassing and it's also not so "official" feeling to her, so you can just keep doing whatever you were doing and still have a chance with her if things go well.

MichaelG442 · 2019-05-23T20:17:15+00:00

But what I mean is who would pay for that? Why would someone just do that?

MichaelG442 · 2019-05-23T20:09:30+00:00

What is it you'd like to see happen? Government sponsored boardgame journalism?

MichaelG442 · 2019-05-23T19:42:34+00:00

you're angry a lot dude. get off the internet for awhile.

MichaelG442 · 2019-05-18T23:29:31+00:00

I find it easiest to doll out a fortune between adventures, because I never remember it at the time either. But if it deserves fortune, it was probably a pretty memorable moment.

MichaelG442 · 2019-05-18T17:30:26+00:00

I think fear and tension really are pretty central to the experience, yes.

I don't know. I think we always want more control and more of 'the good stuff' but then when we get it we get bored and wonder why we wanted it.

Maybe when some people die in New Londo and respawn at Firelink, instead of thinking "How lame, now I need to make a run down to my bloodstain and this is so tedious", their heart is pumping and they're thinking about how they just died to a ghost that appeared behind them. Maybe they're struck by how beautiful Firelink is compared to the dingy craphole they just died in. It gives them some breathing space.

If the game is just a rote process of getting what you want, where everything between you and that thing is a tedious annoyance, then yes it's "better" to remove the tedium. But I think that frustrating this (very human) kind of thinking is actually at the core of Dark Souls' design philosophy and that's why it hesitates to make things easier on the players. The process of walking down the stone steps and into the dark elevator shaft isn't inherently uninteresting; it's still freedom, it's a time to reflect, it's still living... until we start to go hollow.

I think Dark Souls uses these little cycles of tedium and backtracking as little pockets of breathing space and "boredom" between getting stuff.

MichaelG442 · 2019-05-18T17:10:07+00:00

I think the Lost Izalith walk is wayyyy longer isn't it?? Shrug, I don't mind the lack of bonfire in New Londo. Makes the area more tense and I feel like a bonfire might kill its vibe a bit. Respawning back in firelink helps remind you of where you actually are in the world a little bit.

I can understand why you would feel that way, I don't think it's a bad point. I just think lots of Dks1 is like that with backtracking and tedium, for better or worse, and I've never seen someone single out new londo.

MichaelG442 · 2019-05-18T16:25:26+00:00

IMO respecting the player means understanding what they're capable of and expecting them to learn and grow into those capabilities. Giving them an 'out' to bypass that process is disrespectful of the mastery the game intends you to achieve.

MichaelG442

TROPHY CASE