31
DFRPG / Re: Son of Thor.
« on: November 08, 2012, 03:07:34 PM »
I'm pretty sure the +1 is the one time discount
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
No. I intend to eventually though.
Rules that let you resolve standard dungeon challenges in an interesting and satisfying way. It's important that those challenges never become trivial or completely bypass-able.
Because inevitably, whatever games people like are "about" whatever playstyles those people like. Saying "D&D4 is not about story, D&D3.5 is" is usually a way for 3.5 players to express their contempt for 4e. And because it tells people that their fun is badwrong or that they're foolishly using the wrong game.
Objectively it's not. It may be inferred as insulting if you tie the concept discussed to your identity...but, objectively, it's just an opinion.Objectively, it's just an opinion.... Something about that phrase...
If the player wants to keep something alive, then the character dying is interesting and a consequence that they should be compensated for.
Because it's irrelevant and erroneous. If the player succeeds in his roll, then by the RAW, the result is whatever the hell he wants it to be, barring a compel.
This is negotiable, yes, and has to be within reason, but the result of a good roll by no means whatsoever has to mean, "You hit him full on with the full force of the attack." It doesn't even have to mean you hit him with any part of the attack.
A mechanical hit is not, and never has to be, a hit in the narrative. Your position revolves entirely around insisting that this isn't the case, when it is explicitly the case by the RAW.
Then, quite frankly? You're wrong. If they want the NPC alive and you're saying the NPC is dead, that is a direct complication. I honestly do not understand how you think it couldn't be.
Weapons have aspects, scenes have aspects. Make a declaration and compel it.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but if it's not interesting either way, then who gives a shit?
Any time you see Harry narrate something to the tune of, "I could _____, but ______," that's him getting a compel.
When a player rolls Guns to attack, they're not by default saying, "I shoot him. The roll determines how hard." What he's saying is, "I'm using Guns in such a way as to stop my opponent. The roll determines how effective this tactic is." The rolls are an abstract for how the tide of the conflict is going, not a direct simulation of how much damage someone takes.
I have found that this seems to happen frequently. Its like "hey this cool story" then theology breaks loose
I think what Mr. Death (and me too, to an extend) are trying to say is, that in the moment where you askyou would also offer a fate point, if the character has an aspect that makes him prone to overkill.
And you partially agree with it already, the only difference is, that you let the player paint himself into a corner first and then let him try to find a way out of it. If that is the way your group likes to play, far be it from me to say that is a bad thing. But I thought you still didn't see what we mean, so I thought I'd give it another try in explaining our point of view.
@Addicted2aa: You are incorrect. Aspects do affect combat, quite heavily. And sharing narrative control does not make a game "about story".
My impression, from your post, is that you're using "about story" as some kind of short-hand for narrative mechanics. This isn't correct, please don't do it.
PS: DFRPG is by a wide margin the best game I know of for a dungeon crawl.
PPS: You're providing a pretty good example of what I mean when I talk about insults.