The Gaming Den

You know if 1 in 20 orcs had three arms and telekinesis then I damn well expect the option to have some sort of support.

But expecting your reply to have any consistency with your previous claims, even directly previous, is like expecting you not to be a dick.

"Some kind of", yes. Permited to 100% of PCs 100% of the time, no.

Elennsar wrote:"Some kind of", yes. Permited to 100% of PCs 100% of the time, no.

That statement contains so many failures within so few words I think it just won several awards.

What, so you let people be something that is one in a billion for no better reason than "they asked for it", and that's literally enough?

Okay, I want spellfire and a major artifact.

At first level.

Because there is the possibility that someone might have that at first level.

elennsar wrote:"Some kind of", yes. Permited to 100% of PCs 100% of the time, no.

Exactly. It should only be available to PCs who want it, and only when they want it. This will probably be low enough to satisfy you.
edit: tags

zerus: you've got a broken quote tag.

Low enough to satisfy me is low enough to include the PCs as among the possibilities and no more than that.

If there's a one in a hundred chance of you getting something freakish (that you want), roll 1d100.

If its greater than one in a thousand, I reserve the right to say "Um, no."

Reason? If you're even more special than that, we've cleared that up before getting to this point.

Naturally, this is of the people who are worth a damn, not of all people.

1/1000 in the general population and 1/30 in adventurers is 1/30 for you.

Elennsar wrote:is one in a billion... at first level...etc...

Numbers are just something that happen to other people aren't they.

Here's a thing stick to one fucking example for more than two seconds without having to pull out some other insane shit.

YOU set the fucking number and it was fucking one in twenty.

YOU also were talking about smart orcs. If you need to say one in a billion and talk about high level artefacts and even then don't make sense maybe you are FUCKING WRONG about your 1 in 20 smart orc impossibility theory?

Elennsar wrote:If there's a one in a hundred chance of you getting something freakish (that you want), roll 1d100.

Yay, randomised character generation well touche my friend you have stumbled across the perfect solution for playable character customizatio... no wait...THAT IS SO FRICKING STUPID.

1/1000 in the general population and 1/30 in adventurers is 1/30 for you.

"We likes it, we hates it, we likes it, we hates it."

Arguments of playability, trait association and sanity aside... can you raise a single proposal and stick to it for even a single additional sentence or not? Because that's a self contradiction right there. AGAIN.

The point is that PCs are among the special people in the world, which MIGHT mean that something highly UNUSUAL but not UNHEARD of is found in a PC.

So if 1/1000 people are able to use magic, in some form, but 1/30 adventurers are, then adventurer PCs can do it 1/30.

Saying that orcs are always dumber than equal humans is not "all orcs are Int 8 forever."

Its "16 in an orc would have been 18 in a human."

If one orc in twenty has three arms and tenacles, then in any given group of twenty orcs, the PC orc might be that one. Might. Not "will be".

As for one in a billion: If you're insisting that because the possibility exists at all then a PC should be able to have it, it doesn't matter the odds, does it?

If you want orcs to be just as smart as humans, then you need to avoid orcs with "not quite" on their trait list.

Since orcs are fictional, any given set of orc traits is only true of that group of orcs, not every race called "orcs".

If I as a player read "Orcs rarely become wizards because their racial intelligence penalty is a severe hindrance," I have four options:

1) Play something else;
2) Play an orc wizard being aware that it's a suboptimal choice;
3) As the GM for ways to make Orc Wizard non-suboptimal.
4) Play an orc wizard expecting to be optimal, then cry when I realize I'm not.

To quote Talisman. If you're unhappy with all of those choices, then you need to find someone setting up orcs as unhindered at anything, which would be almost as bad as "actively good at anything".

And since no one gets that for good reason, no one should lose "not so good here".

Random chance in character creation is what we call "being a douche for no good reason." Of course, with the random chance, you end up with fewer than one in thirty orcs being wizards because only one in thirty of the people who want to play orc wizards get to. To avoid this, you could make everybody roll, and if they get a thirty then they have to play an orc wizard.

99% of the time I agree. However, if you want to do something ludicriously uncommon, how do you keep it uncommon?

Saying any PC can somehow be the one in however many means that you just made up "one in however many" for no reason at all.

Personally, I prefer the approach that 90% of all options are balanced and one is slightly inferior because not every asset is useful in all circumstances and not every penalty is equally hindering in all.

At least if you set it up so that 90% of the choices are valid, then you are left with only 10% being inferior, instead of trying to make everything valid and winding up with it not mattering if wizards need Intelligence because you can just ask to use Wisdom or Charisma or something.

That defeats designing wizards around favoring Intelligence.

Like someone said... You have one character. One.

So it doesn't matter the odds that any one Orc is you, because you are that Orc.

It's like saying there's one in a million chance for any one ticket win a lotto drawing, therefore there is no winning ticket. Even though we know that one of the tickets will win... So there's a 100% chance that there is a winner.

*sigh*

-Crissa

Elennsar wrote:So if 1/1000 people are able to use magic, in some form, but 1/30 adventurers are, then adventurer PCs can do it 1/30.

You completely missed the bit where I pointed out that statement is directly contradictory of everything you are (currently) muttering incoherently about.

If its OK for some arbitrary bullshit sub group to have a higher rate then here is a higher rate and arbitrary sub group "Smart Orc Wizards" they get 1 out of 1 for being smart.

When someone sits down to make a character from that sub group, the character is in that damn sub group.

If that isn't allowed because you NEED to wank off to some sort of randomised chance representing your preferred imaginary rates of trait occurrence within an entire population then the 1 in 30 adventurer sub group is a direct fucking violation of that holy goal.

Crissa: If you (IC) buy a lottery ticket, you have a one in a million chance like everyone else.

If there is only one orc with the ability to use Spellfire, and there are ten million orcs...guess what the odds of that are?

PCs being entitled to win the lottery is assine.

As for Orcs and Intelligence:

The orc range of Intelligence is not the same as (though it covers part of the same ground as) the human range. There ARE no Orcs with Intelligence 20 if max is 20+racial modifiers.

Zero. PCs included. And if Strength +4 and Int -2 are balanced, then saying "I want the bonus but not the penalty." is unbalanced.

And if you want neither, why are you insisting on being an orc? So you can have green skin? Paint your PC's skin green. Done.

Elennsar wrote:PCs being entitled to win the lottery is assine.

Well I guess 99% of PCs also don't go on adventures and certainly don't try and save the world.

I also guess that of those that do at least 90% of them will fail and die.

Wheee!

elennsar wrote:PCs being entitled to win the lottery is assine.

Only one in a thousand orcs is and adventurer. Why is this lottery any different? What about the orc barbarian lottery? I mean it's already established that fewer than twenty nine in thirty orc adventurers are barbarians. Do they win the lottery for free just because they happen to be somewhat more likely than orc wizards?

PhoneLobster wrote:

Elennsar wrote:PCs being entitled to win the lottery is assine.

Well I guess 99% of PCs also don't go on adventures and certainly don't try and save the world.

I also guess that of those that do at least 90% of them will fail and die.

Wheee!

Elennsar is looking forward to "Potatoes & Ploughs, the exiting game of orcish subsistence farming".


But seriously, Elensaar, I have the perfect game for you: Rolemaster.

What if we dispensed with the penalties but kept the bonuses (i.e., the 4e method)? orcs would then get +2 to Str but no Int penalty.

Better, or worse?

Talisman wrote:What if we dispensed with the penalties but kept the bonuses (i.e., the 4e method)? orcs would then get +2 to Str but no Int penalty.

Better, or worse?

Basically no change there at all. Like I said there are two types of bonuses. Ones we care about and ones we don't.

If we care and it's tied uniformly to a single minor background flavour element like being blonde then it's at least moderately dicky.

But Orcs are no longer restricted as wizards...ah, but you're saying the game shifts from "never play an orc wizard" to 'always play a [Int +2 race] wizard," yes?

All right, a challenge: How can we (assuming we even want to) preserve the "flavor" of orcs as dumb savages without crippling orcish wizardry?

---

Elennsar: Sorry pal, but the lottery analogy is total bullshit. PCs are exceptional by definition. They hunt man-eating monsters for a living; they do things like travel to other planes and summon demons and kill 30' giants with pointy sticks. As far as, like, 95% of the world is concerned, all PCs are heavily armed lunatics.

What are the chances a given human can become a wizard? Sorcerer? Paladin? Warlock? Psion? Averaged over the entire human demographic, the answer can be anything you want, provided it's greater than zero (unless, of course, a given class cannot be taken by humans).

Now, what are the chances a give PC human can be a wizard, sorcerer, paladin, warlock or psion? If the answer is other than 1 in 1, you fail as a GM. Restricted classes died with 2e's "your paladin must have 17 Charisma," and I for one spit on their grave.

For that matter, the majority of humans are commoners. The majority of humans who can swing a sword are warriors (the NPC class). Are you telling me you make your players roll dice to determine whether they're allowed to play a given character class?

If you want to restrict classes, tell your players, "No more than one human wizard in the party; first one to call it gets it." That's a house rule.

If >0% of a given race is of a given class, that class is available to PCs, and they don't shouldn't need to jump through hoops to play it.

Catharz: In a word, no. And no.

Talisman:

As for the lottery analogy: The point is that if something is 1 in a million, if you are in the group that finds it to be that infrequent, it is that uncommon. It is not "Oh, Bob's PC bought a lottery ticket. Guess we know who's winning." kind of -crap- where being a PC entitles you to whatever the player asks for.

PCs are all in the "Adventurer" group, where "one of these classes" is one in one. PCs are not necessarily in the "unique" category, where something that only happens once a generation happens to these guys that happen to be PCs.

One thing that deeply bothers me is this.

If you can't have a 20 (or whatever the best possible score is), you might as well have a 6 (or whatever the worst is), because you will suck equally much if you're not optimal as if you're actually inept.

If that goes away, then being an orc wizard is just a bigger challenge rather than actively unplayable.

I'm personally in favor of restricted classes assuming that PCs are given the opportunity to be that good reasonably.

"Roll 3d6. If your Charisma is not 17+, you can't be a paladin." needs to die. Hell, 4d6 drop lowest or even 5d6 drop lowest two needs to die.

But "If your Charisma is not 17+, you can't be a paladin." may be reasonable IF it is done so that if paladins are permited then getting 17+ is just a matter of making sure that's where you put points (which should be worth it).

Hoops not necessary. If you're not good enough, the SEALS won't accept you. Same with a wizard instructor or whatever. If you are, you get access to the same training as everyone else and should benefit as much as anyone else at the same level of ability.

Making it so that orcs have a harder time being good wizards would be a good thing if orcs are dumb and not prone to disciplined study and savages . Making it so that orc = forever unable is not the goal, so the mechanics should not turn into that goal.[/i]

Talisman wrote:All right, a challenge: How can we (assuming we even want to) preserve the "flavor" of orcs as dumb savages without crippling orcish wizardry?

Well, you could have specific set-ups that beef up underpowered options. So maybe there's an Orc Wizard level one substitution that sets the class to cast off Wisdom for the rest of its life, or just straight up gives +x Int to remove the penalty, or whatever has to be done to make it work. Then they can have some other trait to make up for the bonus, based on being the nerd in jock culture who got picked on all the time, or whatever. It could be bullshit because the strength bonus isn't something a wizard cares about, or it could be like a sizable grapple penalty (representing adequacy issues or dominance trauma) to keep Orc Wizards from uniformly grapplemancer-ing their way to victory.

Or instead of an Int penalty, Orcs could have a penalty to civilized Craft and Profession skills. That way they can be cunning but still suck at civil engineering, marble statuary, and agriculture.

Or instead of an Int penalty, Orcs could have a penalty to civilized Craft and Profession skills. That way they can be cunning but still suck at civil engineering, marble statuary, and agriculture.

Which unfortunately means that the average PC gets a penalty to something he doesn't give a shit about and bonuses to things he does, because "I am a savage. Savage strength for the win!" works for adventurers more than "good at civilized Craft and Profession skills." helps any PC choice in the game ever.


Its appealing, but its not something that balances with any bonus except an equivalantly useless one, and I'd rather not write stuff that's totally irrelevant (either as a player on my sheet or a DM or a worldbuilder).

Elennsar wrote:As for the lottery analogy: The point is that if something is 1 in a million, if you are in the group that finds it to be that infrequent, it is that uncommon. It is not "Oh, Bob's PC bought a lottery ticket. Guess we know who's winning." kind of -crap- where being a PC entitles you to whatever the player asks for.

PCs are all in the "Adventurer" group, where "one of these classes" is one in one. PCs are not necessarily in the "unique" category, where something that only happens once a generation happens to these guys that happen to be PCs.

I'm not at all sure I understand or agree with this.

If orc wizards exist, and they're not marked with the "NPC Only" tag, then a player is allowed to play an orc wizard.

As people have been saying, I'm not playing "orcs." I'm playing "one orc." If there is a non-unique chance for an orc to possess trait X, I as a player deserve a chance to play an orc with trait X.

If trait X is rare enough to deny it to your players, it's rare enough to say "it doesn't exist," or "legends tell than one orc, once, 3,000 years ago, did that."

One thing that deeply bothers me is this.

If you can't have a 20 (or whatever the best possible score is), you might as well have a 6 (or whatever the worst is), because you will suck equally much if you're not optimal as if you're actually inept.

If that goes away, then being an orc wizard is just a bigger challenge rather than actively unplayable.

FWIW, I agree with this sentiment. I don't think it's necessary to have a given attribute maximized in order to be playable. If your wizard's Int is 16 instead of 18, either cast buffs/no-save spells, or just accept the fact that foes will make their saves 5% more often. It's a petty annoyance, not a crippling flaw.

But "If your Charisma is not 17+, you can't be a paladin." may be reasonable IF it is done so that if paladins are permited then getting 17+ is just a matter of making sure that's where you put points (which should be worth it).

Hoops not necessary. If you're not good enough, the SEALS won't accept you. Same with a wizard instructor or whatever. If you are, you get access to the same training as everyone else and should benefit as much as anyone else at the same level of ability.

But you can accomplish the same thing same thing simply by tying class abilities to ability scores. Paladin itself is a perfect example; so is any spellcasting class.

If you want restrictions, use a PrC. That's what they're for.

"Navy Grunt" is a base class. "SEAL" is a PrC.

Making it so that orcs have a harder time being good wizards would be a good thing if orcs are dumb and not prone to disciplined study and savages . Making it so that orc = forever unable is not the goal, so the mechanics should not turn into that goal.

"Hard time" culturally, socially, fluffwise - yes. Hard time mechanically - I disagree.

6-page background describing how hard your orc had to work even to get a half-blind, down-and-out old wizard to accept him as an apprentice after being laughed out of every Pigdiseases wizard school in the land = good.

Edit: Damn italic tags
"You're a crappy wizard because 999,999 members of your race out of 1,000,000 aren't wizards" = bad.

PCs are exceptional. They just are.
PC can be the exception. Plenty of players enjoy embracing the archtype, but some want to play the exception. They shouldn't be punished for doing so.[/i]