The Gaming Den

Ron Edwards has since dumped GNS theory in favor of something he faps over called "The Big Model." It has flow charts, and worthless tirades like this:

The main benefit of creative agenda is that it focuses play along unified lines. Players who attempt to play the same game with differing creative agenda run a very high risk of ruining each other's entertainment.

Seriously, what the fucking hell?



It's non-falsifiable claptrap that makes no predictions and does not even describe observable data points. Total. Fucking. Failure.

-Username17

What did he do? Fall over while changing a light bulb in the toilet, see a vision of the flux capacitor then travel forward in time at 1:1 speed in a DeLorean to reopen his forum threads and share the new eureka moment?

With delightfully phallic illustrations, too.

That was an interesting little history lesson. I went for several years without a computer when the internet was first forming, so I didn't know about the deep, obscure origins of GNS. I just saw the theory mentioned in a couple of places and figured out the rough meanings of the three words from context.

SO are there any GNS or big model games?

I think that they tried to use it to make Sorcerer.

But you honestly can't tell. It's a minor piece of fan wankery that no one cared about at the time and which hasn't gained any traction since. It's essentially SPULTURATORAH only "for realz."

-Username17

I actually know a guy who communicates with the people at The Forge.

---

Elennsar: Several points:

1) Drop the lottery / 1-in-1,000 analogy. It's utter crap on multiple levels. Either that or explain to me whether you would allow a human sorcerer without the player jumping through hoops, and explain the spread of sorcery through the human demographic.

2) I'm assuming that any give [race] is going to have certain racial characteristics above and beyond their stat modifiers. Elves will get their free Spot and Listen ranks, longbow proficiency, favored class: ranger, w/e. Therefore, removing the stat modifiers does not remove the "elfness."

Make stat modifiers optional. If I play an Orc, I have a choice between +2 Str/-2 Int and +0/-0. In either case I still have 4 free ranks in Intimidate, weapon proficiency (axe), favored class: barbarian, Savage Mien, etc., etc. More importantly, I've made a conscious decision to play an orc; which means that if I'm not just using my PC as a soulless Monopoly piece, I will be roleplaying an orc. Race is more about roleplaying and fluff than it will ever be about mechanical modifiers. I can probably RP any PHB race as any other PHB race if I really wanted to.

3) Regarding racial bonuses, I think there are three valid options:

~Free proficiencies/skill ranks;
~Situational reduction of penalties;
~New options.

We've already discussed #1.

#2 could include elves reducing the cover bonus when shooting at you; hallfings ignore the -5 stealth penalty when moving; dwarves move at full speed over rocky (difficult) terrain. Stuff like that. Figure out what schtick you want a given race to have, then figure out what penalties to reduce in the appropriate situation.

#3 requires more work. Ideally, each race should gain one option no other race can duplicate, and that option should never be objectively better or worse than either the standard option or another race's option. Maybe halflings base Climb on their Dex because they're a race of nimble little cliff-climbers. Although it pains me to say it, the 4e racial powers are kind of what I'm thinking of here...unique options for each race, but of equivalent power, and none outright better than the standard.

Talisman wrote:Make stat modifiers optional. If I play an Orc, I have a choice between +2 Str/-2 Int and +0/-0.

That manages to be more stupid than simply having the damn modifier. Hint: you had the balls to admit a useless balance dilemma. Kinda.

Bigode wrote:

Talisman wrote:Make stat modifiers optional. If I play an Orc, I have a choice between +2 Str/-2 Int and +0/-0.

That manages to be more stupid than simply having the damn modifier. Hint: you had the balls to admit a useless balance dilemma. Kinda.

Not sure I get you there, Bigode.

I still think making racial bonuses available to all PCs regardless of race would be the easiest and best option.

You had the balls to make orcs different by a method other than tiny modifiers that only serve to make people minimally but obviously and irrevocably unbalanced with regards to each other. You also had the balls to admit said modifiers might not even exist for some individuals. Given that said modifiers are a balance dilemma, and that you already forsook those modifiers being consistently applied to every individual (thus making them no longer an unifying racial trait, technically), there's precisely no reason to keep those modifiers around - just state orcish tendencies and create all characters the same (with regards to ability scores).

Fuchs wrote:I still think making racial bonuses available to all PCs regardless of race would be the easiest and best option.

What the fuching fuch are you talking about? Last time I checked, that was called "using the same point buy method for everyone" if you're talking about ability scores specifically, or "races are fluff" if not.

Hmm...
And optional modifiers takes us back to the 4e paradigm, eh?
I must ponder this.

Talisman wrote:Hmm...
And optional modifiers takes us back to the 4e paradigm, eh?
I must ponder this.

Go ponder while making ammo. But "4E paradigm" my backside - I hate 4E as much as the next guy, but if you don't know the marvels of playing gray/star elves, it's your own problem ...

Talisman wrote:Hmm...
And optional modifiers takes us back to the 4e paradigm, eh?
I must ponder this.

If you have the choice to get a bonus or not, then your RNG just narrowed.

Fuchs wrote:I still think making racial bonuses available to all PCs regardless of race would be the easiest and best option.

Those by definition are not racial bonuses.

-Username17

He's covered in fur, extremely strong, looks and moves just like a gorilla; only he's intelligent, psychic, and can talk. People don't mistake him for human.

Elennsar in reference to NPC only stuff wrote:
Its a stupid part of the game. There is no reason that PCs should not be allowed to take these classes.

See what I mean by you contradicting yourself?

No, but mistaking him for a real gorilla as opposed to some mutant gorilla (in the sense the X-men are mutant humans) is about as ridiculous.

As for NPC only stuff:

The stupid part is the "NPC only". Admitedly, the truly stupid part is having 1-20 classes that are designed to be inferior.

If Joe The Standard Guardsman is an inferior character, then he's lower level. If Joe the Above Average Guardsman is your peer, he should be the same level.

1) Drop the lottery / 1-in-1,000 analogy. It's utter crap on multiple levels. Either that or explain to me whether you would allow a human sorcerer without the player jumping through hoops, and explain the spread of sorcery through the human demographic.

I would allow a human sorcerer if he came from the right background one time in one, assuming the sorcerer class worked.

What is the right background? Blood of a dragon or outsider somewhere in there, with all of the interesting implications thereof.

Pure human stock (or mixed mortal and mortal) does not contain the traits at all.

2) I'm assuming that any give [race] is going to have certain racial characteristics above and beyond their stat modifiers. Elves will get their free Spot and Listen ranks, longbow proficiency, favored class: ranger, w/e. Therefore, removing the stat modifiers does not remove the "elfness."

Not in and of itself, no.

Race is more about roleplaying and fluff than it will ever be about mechanical modifiers. I can probably RP any PHB race as any other PHB race if I really wanted to.

Here's my problem right here.

Fluff should be reflected BY the mechanical modifiers as much as reasonably possible (I'm not sure how you would mechanically represent an appreciation for good music in D&D and I'm even less sure why anyone would want to try.).

More to the point, racial traits (both the traits found uncommonly, commonly, and all the damn time), influence personality and nature in ways that are different between races.

A claustrophobic dwarf is almost certainly (as in I'm not aware of any way its possible, but I'm not omniscient) impossible.

On the other hand, there are silver tongued dwarves. Not as common as silver tongued elves, perhaps, but common enough.

So racial traits have to actually be held by every damn member of the race in order to be racial traits.

That may mean there are remarkably few "racial traits" that all dwarves/elves/humans/whatever share in common, and each has a couple "one of the following: " traits from a racial list of "things seen in this race".

So you'd have say six traits (or ten, or however many...but a relatively short list.) and your dwarf and my dwarf might well make different picks.

But that list would not be shared by any other race.

'tis a problem. You don't want all ____ to be identical, and you don't want to eliminate racial traits entirely.

Not without having race be not only fluff but meaningless fluff. It really would be writing "orc" on your sheet and that's it.

Somehow, I'm not sure that helps playing a distinctive orc one bit.

Elennsar wrote:I would allow a human sorcerer if he came from the right background one time in one, assuming the sorcerer class worked.

What is the right background? Blood of a dragon or outsider somewhere in there, with all of the interesting implications thereof.

Pure human stock (or mixed mortal and mortal) does not contain the traits at all.

That's a house rule. Although RAW goes on about the "blood of dragons," it's fluff and it's only a theory.

However, your answer leads me to two other questions:

1) What about a human wizard? Wizardry is supposed to be rare. What about a human psychic warrior, assuming psionics exists? What about a human swordsage?

2) Given the "if he came from the right background" qualifier, and given that there is a non-unique chance for an orc to become a sorcerer, would you allow an orc sorcerer if I presented a background that made sense? Orc psion? Orc warlock?

If the answer to both of these questions is yes, the lottery analogy fails.

If the answer to either of these questions is no, you're merely arbitrarily restricting certain race/class combos.

Let me state this once, and if I have to state it again, I am going to dump hot potato soup on your head. Over the internet.

The lottery is an example. It is not an analogy.

Now, going back to your question.

Some things are damn rare and I want to know how the fuck your character managed to stumble into those circumstances.

Some things are rare to the point that I reserve DM veto power to say "this is literally one of a kind or close enough. Do something else."

Some things are uncommon, like being left handed, but come up often enough that its just less OFTEN that you see this.

And some things are common to the point that its not a problem.

And yes, it is a house rule...because "any damn human at all who has a high Charisma" doesn't work with "humans are not usually able to use magic." There are lots more humans with high Charisma than draconic blood.

1) Get back to me when I am okay with psionics. And familiar with swordsages.

But a wizard is the first thing there...how the fuck did you manage to get wizard training? Not just any nerd can get it...even assuming he wants to.

That's your cue for explaining the awesome background, not me being subtle about saying no.

2) See above (italics).

However, I reserve the right to say that your background, while awesome, fails to justify it.

I'm not sure of any examples, but being able to write a good tale and being able to convince me something is believable are different, so you might have the former without the latter.

Naturally, I'm for erring on the side of lenient when reasonably possible.

Too hard to generalize. But "street orphan adopted by a wizard who studied his master's books in secret" is not, however awesome your ability to write is, something I'd consider a good enough explaination, for instance.

You might learn something that way, but you won't learn enough to be a fully fledged wizard.

Wow so really this thread has finally boiled itself down to something resembling the truth. You just want to have absolute control over what a player can play. If I can't come up with a good enough reason to do anything you don't want you'll give an excuse.

I mean serious:

But "street orphan adopted by a wizard who studied his master's books in secret" is not, however awesome your ability to write is, something I'd consider a good enough explaination, for instance.

what the fuck! That is not good enough to explain being a wizard? Do I have to write a fucking novel to suit you? I swear I was obviously a better DM than you when I was 10.

Elennsar wrote:Let me state this once, and if I have to state it again, I am going to dump hot potato soup on your head. Over the internet.

I like potato soup.

But I get it.

Some things are damn rare and I want to know how the fuck your character managed to stumble into those circumstances.

Fair enough.

Some things are rare to the point that I reserve DM veto power to say "this is literally one of a kind or close enough. Do something else."

NPC-only tag. Agreed.

Some things are uncommon, like being left handed, but come up often enough that its just less OFTEN that you see this.

I assume these are available freely?

But a wizard is the first thing there...how the fuck did you manage to get wizard training? Not just any nerd can get it...even assuming he wants to.

That's your cue for explaining the awesome background, not me being subtle about saying no.

...

However, I reserve the right to say that your background, while awesome, fails to justify it.

I'm not sure of any examples, but being able to write a good tale and being able to convince me something is believable are different, so you might have the former without the latter.

...

Too hard to generalize. But "street orphan adopted by a wizard who studied his master's books in secret" is not, however awesome your ability to write is, something I'd consider a good enough explaination, for instance.

You might learn something that way, but you won't learn enough to be a fully fledged wizard.

Define "awesome background."

This is something of an issue with me, especially as newer players are less likely to be able to come up with an "awesome background," and therefore less likely to get the "cool PC" pass.

In my game crew, I have 5 other guys: 4 GMs and one newbie. Two of the GMs routinely write elaborate backgrounds for their characters. One does occasionally, but not regularly. The other GM and the new guy do not.

The new guy is currently playing a shapeshifting sorcerer in 7th Sea. Had I insisted that he write up an "awesome background" to justify this exotic choice, he probably would have picked something simpler and we most likely would have missed the "breaking the bear out of the zoo" tangent that consumed most of last session. Hilarity was had by all.

But until I know how you define an "awesome background" that justifies a given race/class combo (and whether you require equally awesome backgrounds for fighters, rogues, paladins and barbarians), I can't say much about this particular matter,

Anyway, this is a matter between you and your players, and has nothing to do with the actual subject at hand.

Can we assume, for the purposes of this thread, that anyone who wants to play a given class/race combo can come up with a backstory to justify it? Unique characters are still NPC-only, but rare characters are valid. Then we only have to deal with mechanical issues.

If the definition of "better DM" is "more permissive DM", probably.

Being a street orphan whose only knowledge of wizardry is by reading their foster parent's books in secret is very incomplete and very unlikely to lead to a full enough understanding to reliably cast spells and the other things wizards do and take for granted.

It'd be like saying "hey my character hit another kid with a stick in a pretend swordfight" as your excuse for Weapon Focus.

Novel not required. Plausible explaination very much required.

I'd personally rather have any discussion of any class be between me and the player rather than "Get back to me with six pages of stuff."

Because there's nothing wrong with a street orphan becoming a wizard if he's actually taught and trained.

Wait, wait, wait...

Just checking here...

Do you ask them explain their feat choices, too?

I assume these are available freely?

Correct. To use dwarves, and assuming the axe race model.

Any of the following are assumed to be perfectly okay:

Axe. Polearm. Hammer. Crossbow. Mace.

But until I know how you define an "awesome background" that justifies a given race/class combo (and whether you require equally awesome backgrounds for fighters, rogues, paladins and barbarians), I can't say much about this particular matter,

Basically, I'd like to know how this is cool and interesting enough with a believable "this could happen" explaination of anything out of the ordinary.

I mean, okay, you got raised by a wizard and he taught you for the same reason fathers teach their sons other things. Awesome. Believable.

Now, let's look at mechanics.

Can we assume, for the purposes of this thread, that anyone who wants to play a given class/race combo can come up with a backstory to justify it? Unique characters are still NPC-only, but rare characters are valid. Then we only have to deal with mechanical issues.

Yeah. We may be being optimistic here, but optimism is a requirement for progress, so I'm for the optimistic assumption.

So. Mechanics. How do we keep bonuses from being too good and penalties from being too dire?

Wait, wait, wait...

Just checking here...

Do you ask them explain their feat choices, too?

I'd like to know what you did to get it, yes. "A natural talent" is believable. "Lots and lots of training" is believable. "Um, I hit a kid with a stick when we were pretending to be (legendary fighters)." is not.

After all, if you say "I learned how to fight in the militia.", I can do things based on you having been in a militia that wouldn't apply if you got it because you studied under a great weapon master (in the sense Salvatore uses the term for Zak...master of many weapons, not the prestige class.).

Or vice-versa. Either is acceptable, but the more I know, the more I can work with that.

So "Explain", yes. "Justify" is not quite right, however. If you've a cool concept and its a concept that could actually work, and you can communicate, we can probably figure out how it would happen if its not marked with a "get my permission first"/NPC only (there is a difference) tag.

Some things of course don't take much of an explaination. Improved Initiative is a "He's fast. Always has been." kind of thing. Weapon Focus, not so much. (If and when all of the options are balanced, I intend to write down which things are "please explain".)

But balance time.

New thread, or not?

Elennsar wrote:Too hard to generalize. But "street orphan adopted by a wizard who studied his master's books in secret" is not, however awesome your ability to write is, something I'd consider a good enough explaination, for instance.

What do people think of just stopping replying to him?

Bigode wrote:

Elennsar wrote:Too hard to generalize. But "street orphan adopted by a wizard who studied his master's books in secret" is not, however awesome your ability to write is, something I'd consider a good enough explaination, for instance.

What do people think of just stopping replying to him?

Plus Fucking One.

Then why are you still posting here?

Roy, you've got a broken quote tag.

Yeah, new thread I think.

The more people considering that talking to him's a waste, the better for all things productive.

Not that Roy shouldn't fix it, but there's no need to worry much, because the next post'll start the next page.