Oct 31, 2014
Oct 30, 2014
#11 The Ruined altar
Man this is one long comic! We just didn't know where to stop! (Hey look we even threw in some original artwork!) And it even ends on a semi-cliffhanger! who is this mysterious shadowy figure? What are his reasons for trying to drive the Three-Headed-Halfling out of business? Why is the author of this post inexplicably much more hyper than usual? What will happen next?
ONLY NEXT WEEKS POST WILL TELL!
Oct 28, 2014
KOHT#15.4
...if that helps....
Oct 26, 2014
KOHT#15
Oct 25, 2014
KOHT#14.55
Oct 23, 2014
#10: Instant gratification. What you got?
This is inevitable in a RPG session. Every group will have one or two people who will discuss tactics ad nauseum and one person who has no patience for tactics of any kind and will simply rush to the next situation. Much to the chagrin of the planners.
hmmn... RF seems to be melding himself with the trail......
Oct 21, 2014
KOHT#14.5
Maybe I should give them different helmets to help distinguish them more?
Oct 19, 2014
KOHT#14
Hence my not actually deciding what was being carried in that particular chest.
Oct 16, 2014
#9 Maybe if we set the woods on fire...
Paranoia.
It's one of the DM's greatest tools. Nothing can make the players more nervous than an unexplained die roll or question. particularly asking for a player's armorclass or save bonus will cause a frantic scramble to cover every possible avenue of danger. There is just so much scrambling it's almost more effective NOT to have anything prepared when you ask, so that the players can continue to freak out while you just sit there chuckling to yourself.
But don't let the players know that.
Oct 12, 2014
KOHT#13
..................................
..................................
..................................
..................................
..................................
..................................
Umm....... Because he's a good person?
Oct 9, 2014
Oct 5, 2014
Oct 4, 2014
Combat: the spotlight of gaming.
Okay, so originally, I was planning to simply talk about the focus on combat in Role-playing games (particularly D&D) and the lack of comparative effort put into such arenas as stealth and negotiation, but on further reflection, this issue proves endemic in the entire gaming genre. Let's look through the whole field of gaming first before we hone in on how RPGs fit in all of this.
One of the biggest categories associated with gaming are video games(and I'll be using the term video games to refer to both PC games and console games), so I think it's probably the best place to illustrate my point.
The truth is most video games have combat in them, and if combat is an option it is usually a vital game mechanic. While some genres are notably peaceful, for many more combat and violence is the main tool (the meat) of the game. Yes, you can brew potions in Skyrim, but why would you when you can just go kill dragons instead, and the controls for fighting those dragons are a whole heck of a lot clearer than the alchemy system. So if we really need those potions, we'll buy them from an uppity merchant OR (if you're one of those people) kill a merchant that no one will miss and steal the potions. Then get back to dragon-slaying. The reason? It's more fun!
Well why is that?
We've just decided that it's more fun to either rob/kill an innocent civilian or to pay hard earned money for a product, than it is to do the work of creating the product ourselves. All so that we can get back to the main (usually violent) point of game. Why do we feel like this is a normal and okay thing to do?
The answer is found back in the very roots of gaming: sports.
Sports are a conflict, one that we have attempted to organized so that the competitiveness of the athletes can be expended in a method that doesn't (usually) cause any serious injury. But for some reason, we prefer to be competitive physically more so than mentally, (there's certainly a lot more football players than chess players in the world) the only solution I can think for this is that it harkens back to our genetic heritage, and we have an instinctive affinity to overcoming physical challenges.
Furthermore, sports key into another of our instinctual objectives: social dominance.
Humans are social, but we also like to be on top of the scene, in such a way that we can gain the respect of those around us. Sports are a prime way of doing this, because the competition provides us with a rubric for who deserves our respect. although one could argue that you are proving your dominance when you are victorious in a mental challenge, doing so does not have the same instinctive respect that physical dominance provides. If there's an angry bear trying to eat you and someone, would you rather that other person is strong enough to fight off the bear? or smart enough to hide from the bear so it chases you instead? mental dominance is not an admired trait in the distant past.
Okay, so we like sports because they let us show off to everyone, what does that have to do with everything?
well, combat games(particularly Multiplayer ones) are really virtual sports, a tool we can use to scale ourselves. We grind our way through countless hours of gameplay, just to get that shiny badge of recognition from the game. think back to your early days playing Call or Duty or another similar game weren't you impressed by that guy with all the stars on his profile? didn't you wish you could be as cool as he was?
And that's how this all ties back to RPGs. One the biggest parts of an RPG is watching your character grow, from fighting off pesky goblins to epic combats with the newest dark doomsday deity, we find it enjoyable to watch ourselves climb the rungs of the power ladder, both in the world the game is set in and with our own abilities.
But you can't really experience that same growth with talking. While it makes sense that a fight with a dragon is more difficult than fighting an orc, the difficulty of negotiations are often so dependent on variables that one cannot create an accurate "scale" with which to measure. Since there is no real scale, there's no feeling of progression, and you are left with a repetition that ends up being largely unfulfilling (yet if you beat 1000 slimes you can get this one secret.... but I digress) negotiation-based progession does not really work, because you can't really tell if you're making progress. That's the reason that games do not usually focus on negotiating or stealth. They aren't consistent enough.
Truth is: combat is fun because you can use math on it.
We find assigning numbers to your physical abilities a lot more realistic than assigning yourself values in Rebuttals or Evade Questions. Communication is such a fluid situation that stats for your abilities make little sense. You can (almost) always kill something by hitting it hard enough, but you can't always convince someone with the same techniques. Therefore you can't really use as complex of a system for negotiation or stealth as you would with combat. Without the sense of progression that is the backbone of every RPG, games that focus on negotiation or stealth make you feel like you're going in circles without really getting anywhere. This makes the gameplay itself less entertaining and requires a lot more comedy or story strength to get you to keep playing.
But we never get tired of pwning n00bs or ransacking villages, why? Because we're showing them who's boss: social dominance via gaming.
But anyway, I'm starting to ramble, so to sum it up:
We like combat in our RPGs because it lets us know that we're getting somewhere. Yes there are situations where diplomacy and stealth are required, but they are more often tied to story and advancing the plot than they are to your character. RPGers (and gamers in general) are self-centered, and getting an Axe of +10 damage is WAY cooler than an Axe of +10 to making smart remarks.
Communication is something that happens on an inspirational basis, trying to quantify it takes away some of what makes it special. So while I don't like the way that violence and destruction is sewn into the very core of RPGs, just consider for a moment running a pacifism D&D campaign? I would give you an hour before something gets lit on fire. violence keeps our interest, because we like to measure ourselves against the obstacles. I don't greatly like the way that violence is necessary in nearly every RPG, but I understand why it's there, and I can respect it for the role it has in the gaming industry. Because despite the gratuitous blood and gore, it keeps us involved enough to make stories. Who hasn't named their favorite sword? (not counting those times when you just got a new ability and you made a lame pun out of it) That's the sign of being connected and immersed in the game you are playing, the goal of every game company. (you know besides getting you to pay real money for virtual items and stuff. Thanks Diablo 3 and Candy Crush)
It's just plain awesome when you get that crit right when most needed. because you were invested in the fate of your character, and were concerned that this might be the end for them. But turns out their going to be around for a few more turns at least, and that makes you glad.
Natural 20. The answer to every problem.
NEXT TIME: it's a surprise!!!
One of the biggest categories associated with gaming are video games(and I'll be using the term video games to refer to both PC games and console games), so I think it's probably the best place to illustrate my point.
The truth is most video games have combat in them, and if combat is an option it is usually a vital game mechanic. While some genres are notably peaceful, for many more combat and violence is the main tool (the meat) of the game. Yes, you can brew potions in Skyrim, but why would you when you can just go kill dragons instead, and the controls for fighting those dragons are a whole heck of a lot clearer than the alchemy system. So if we really need those potions, we'll buy them from an uppity merchant OR (if you're one of those people) kill a merchant that no one will miss and steal the potions. Then get back to dragon-slaying. The reason? It's more fun!
Well why is that?
We've just decided that it's more fun to either rob/kill an innocent civilian or to pay hard earned money for a product, than it is to do the work of creating the product ourselves. All so that we can get back to the main (usually violent) point of game. Why do we feel like this is a normal and okay thing to do?
The answer is found back in the very roots of gaming: sports.
Sports are a conflict, one that we have attempted to organized so that the competitiveness of the athletes can be expended in a method that doesn't (usually) cause any serious injury. But for some reason, we prefer to be competitive physically more so than mentally, (there's certainly a lot more football players than chess players in the world) the only solution I can think for this is that it harkens back to our genetic heritage, and we have an instinctive affinity to overcoming physical challenges.
Furthermore, sports key into another of our instinctual objectives: social dominance.
Humans are social, but we also like to be on top of the scene, in such a way that we can gain the respect of those around us. Sports are a prime way of doing this, because the competition provides us with a rubric for who deserves our respect. although one could argue that you are proving your dominance when you are victorious in a mental challenge, doing so does not have the same instinctive respect that physical dominance provides. If there's an angry bear trying to eat you and someone, would you rather that other person is strong enough to fight off the bear? or smart enough to hide from the bear so it chases you instead? mental dominance is not an admired trait in the distant past.
Okay, so we like sports because they let us show off to everyone, what does that have to do with everything?
well, combat games(particularly Multiplayer ones) are really virtual sports, a tool we can use to scale ourselves. We grind our way through countless hours of gameplay, just to get that shiny badge of recognition from the game. think back to your early days playing Call or Duty or another similar game weren't you impressed by that guy with all the stars on his profile? didn't you wish you could be as cool as he was?
And that's how this all ties back to RPGs. One the biggest parts of an RPG is watching your character grow, from fighting off pesky goblins to epic combats with the newest dark doomsday deity, we find it enjoyable to watch ourselves climb the rungs of the power ladder, both in the world the game is set in and with our own abilities.
But you can't really experience that same growth with talking. While it makes sense that a fight with a dragon is more difficult than fighting an orc, the difficulty of negotiations are often so dependent on variables that one cannot create an accurate "scale" with which to measure. Since there is no real scale, there's no feeling of progression, and you are left with a repetition that ends up being largely unfulfilling (yet if you beat 1000 slimes you can get this one secret.... but I digress) negotiation-based progession does not really work, because you can't really tell if you're making progress. That's the reason that games do not usually focus on negotiating or stealth. They aren't consistent enough.
Truth is: combat is fun because you can use math on it.
We find assigning numbers to your physical abilities a lot more realistic than assigning yourself values in Rebuttals or Evade Questions. Communication is such a fluid situation that stats for your abilities make little sense. You can (almost) always kill something by hitting it hard enough, but you can't always convince someone with the same techniques. Therefore you can't really use as complex of a system for negotiation or stealth as you would with combat. Without the sense of progression that is the backbone of every RPG, games that focus on negotiation or stealth make you feel like you're going in circles without really getting anywhere. This makes the gameplay itself less entertaining and requires a lot more comedy or story strength to get you to keep playing.
But we never get tired of pwning n00bs or ransacking villages, why? Because we're showing them who's boss: social dominance via gaming.
But anyway, I'm starting to ramble, so to sum it up:
We like combat in our RPGs because it lets us know that we're getting somewhere. Yes there are situations where diplomacy and stealth are required, but they are more often tied to story and advancing the plot than they are to your character. RPGers (and gamers in general) are self-centered, and getting an Axe of +10 damage is WAY cooler than an Axe of +10 to making smart remarks.
Communication is something that happens on an inspirational basis, trying to quantify it takes away some of what makes it special. So while I don't like the way that violence and destruction is sewn into the very core of RPGs, just consider for a moment running a pacifism D&D campaign? I would give you an hour before something gets lit on fire. violence keeps our interest, because we like to measure ourselves against the obstacles. I don't greatly like the way that violence is necessary in nearly every RPG, but I understand why it's there, and I can respect it for the role it has in the gaming industry. Because despite the gratuitous blood and gore, it keeps us involved enough to make stories. Who hasn't named their favorite sword? (not counting those times when you just got a new ability and you made a lame pun out of it) That's the sign of being connected and immersed in the game you are playing, the goal of every game company. (you know besides getting you to pay real money for virtual items and stuff. Thanks Diablo 3 and Candy Crush)
It's just plain awesome when you get that crit right when most needed. because you were invested in the fate of your character, and were concerned that this might be the end for them. But turns out their going to be around for a few more turns at least, and that makes you glad.
Natural 20. The answer to every problem.
NEXT TIME: it's a surprise!!!
Oct 2, 2014
#7 First Blood
There are a rather alarmingly disproportionate amount of rules for combat in Role-playing games. Arguably combat style is what separates the different classes more than any other feature, while similarly complex events like negotiations and infiltrations (incidentally, the new name of my upcoming 007 role-playing game) are given one or two "skills" to cover the entire field of situations. (sure someone could argue that there are multiple skills to use, but honestly chances are you'll just resort to whatever skill you're best at and only use that one.)
It seems strange to me that there are complex rules for grabbing and pinning people, (arcane to the point that no one can do it without looking up how first) but a trial for the character's life would boil down to "make a diplomacy check." repeated once or twice (maybe throwing in a bluff check to change up the scene if the DM feels particularly devious.)
Why is there such an unbalanced focus on combat?
Fine. Know what? This is the topic of my next unsolicited opinion!
(so wait this whole blurb is just an advertisement then? lame!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)