Search results

This is one of those cases where you're being, if anything, overly generous: I've absolutely hit GMs who would not let players add something as simple as a village their character from, because they assume a player will take some sort of advantage from it or simply don't want players adding...

I was just curious whether "If they can be adventurers they can be PCs" was liable to come up against some species that are humanoid and theoretically can do that, but have too many baked in special abilities to make much sense to be placed in the same framework as standard PC species.

Well, yes, deepfakes are a different question not really related to AI generated (adjusted or not) artwork (and if someone wants to decide to be some sort of confrontation about that term, don't expect a response). Vocal/visual faking in the public sphere especially is a real problem, but it...

And yet I'm perfectly comfortable having done so in this case. Given the complete statement I made there (both sentences) if someone wants to disagree with me, they can feel free to do so.

If I may ask, how does 5e handle PCs from races with more baked in special abilities? Otherwise, it helps to have potentially playable races written up so that's practical from the get go.

Yeah, that seems excessive. I just got my oar in because there are a lot of cases where I think ongoing NPCs on the fly is kind of a bad idea in the kinds of games I tend to play (your description suggests this is less true in D&D 5e).

Well, using OD&D as an example here is setting the bar about as low as it can get. Even a lot of pretty lightweight modern RPGs would consider it woefully incomplete in comparison. You had to really want to be doing an enormous amount on pure judgment calls to consider it complete.

I can do that with one or two numbers, but with others the combination of making them up and keeping them consistent from one session to another is not something I'd be wanting to do on-the-fly/by-memory.

Well, I wasn't thinking of D&D5e because I know next to nothing about it, and most of the games I do GM do not have that sort of quasi-lockstep (and may have non-combat relevant other numbers that have a relationship to each other).

A popular one is engineers who think they understand medicine more than biologists or even doctors.

This is one of the reasons I suspect AI art is going to end up being more acceptable in RPG books than purely AI text; at least at its current stage, I suspect the latter is going to stand out to a lot more people and in an area which is the priority point in buying a game text. (Yes, I know...

That just turns on how much I'm sure someone is going to interact with the NPC in a way that might require some numbers. If that's the case there's no upside from my POV in doing in on-the-fly-and-after-the-fact; I'd probably end up doing more work that way.

That's probably fine if you only think you'll need them once. More than that I'd like a little consistency.

To make it clear up front, contrary to what it might have seemed from my posts, I'm probably closer to Belen in how I approach GMing than, say, TwoSix. As such, I'd find rigidity about classes odder than about races. Barring Earthdawn, classes per se are not things that recognized as actual...

And to the people wanting to play one who want a specific look and feel "Here, play this other thing that seems close enough to me" is telling them what they want and what matters. That's not compromise to them, that's telling them to throw away what are to them, important elements of what they...

I'd say if some of the suggestions ("Let's come out with a way to have one as a stranger from Somewhere Else") is "demanding capitulation" to you, your definition of "compromise" is so rigid it doesn't mean anything.

But they aren't insisting on 100% in some of the cases I saw. Its just that the 1% you're fussy about is also the 1% they are. Your red lines have a gap between them.

As I've noted, I don't think that's the question here. I think @SableWyvern was much closer to it in his post upthread.

Though as a fan of 50's SF movies, that's hit or miss. Modern viewers tend to be a lot more tolerant of Forbidden Planet than Them.

And again, you've suggested player capitulation is a compromise when its not. You really don't get to have it both ways. Either people are allowed to have red lines in their acceptable compromises or they aren't.