Jump to content

Vondy

Members
  • Content Count

    513
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from Tramp Graphics in Feint   
    I will say that what people are saying about Feint doesn't really line up with our group's experience. Feint does lose utility as you become more powerful if your opposition doesn't become more powerful with you. Remember: Makashi is a dueling style for one on one lightsaber combat. If you are a master and you are fighting chumps, then Feint isn't likely to be useful or come into play. That is true. But, if you are up against a more substantial foe who is pumping negative dice into your pool, Feint remains useful. It can even prove decisive. It all boils down to dice pool composition. 
  2. Haha
    Vondy got a reaction from Aggressor97 in You Know You're Playing Age Of Rebellion When...   
    When your three Jedi survivors composing an "impossible missions force" type-cell for the Rebellion engage a company sized scout battalion of Imperial troops. And... one of them force-leaps on top of an AT-ST to cut their way in, but another one slices through a leg with their lightsaber at the same time, sending it careening sideways with a BOOM into the middle of a platoon of stormtroopers. This leaves the Jedi who had been on top of the AT-ST to land in the middle of the stormtroopers screaming foul-mouthed explicatives and looking for egress. Meanwhile, the third Jedi grins and charges into the afray sending a head flying and howling "helmet's away!" These are full-on real Jedi who are now into their third talent tree with fairly robust powers and lightsaber skills. They manage to survive despite themselves. The force is with them, but very few Rebel soliders are because, quite frankly, (those three) "Jedi are freaking nutjobs!"
  3. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from Archlyte in I feel PvP should be a consensual RP Choice   
    The word most gamers are looking for is "verisimilitude." We want the game to feel authentic or truthy enough to suspend disbelief and get into the story. Even if there are plot-speed drives, a panapoly of colorful aliens, mystical zen mind powers, and laser swords. The rest of the setting and gaming experience needs to be sufficiently rationalized for the story to feel plausible despite its impossible / unrealistic elements. I don't object to people using the word "realistic," however, because I know what they are trying to say and am not given to unecessary pedantry. And, because words like verisimilitude can cause one to be perceived as hoity-toity and elitist.  
  4. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from Timerron in Cyphers and Masks Spy book announced!   
    I just hope an Ewok slicer with the sobriquet Fancy Bear makes the cut.
  5. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from Ahrimon in Warriors rejoice   
    I know its not considered the power spec for lightsaber monkeys, but Niman Disciple covers it. Narratively, Move Closer and Force Assault can facilitate "The Full Vader" from Rogue One. A dollop of The Force is My Ally from another tree for flexibility and viola! And, based on what we see in the movies, Vader really doesn't need a super-high Force rating. 
    Vader has been fetishized and mythologized by fans into an invincible dark god, but his primary force using opposition is OT Luke Skywalker. Prior to Vader's death, Luke was was a greenhorn Jedi. The throne room scene was likely his Jedi trials. He really wasn't that powerful. And, in A New Hope, Obi-Wan let Vader kill him because destiny had to play itself out. Killing Vader himself would not have redeemed Anakin and brought down the Empire. It had to be Luke because "love conquers all." We don't know how that would have played out otherwise. What if Obi-Wan had been less wise? He might have won!
    An Old Republic Jedi Knight with Lightsaber-4, Force Rating-4, three trees, and some decent force powers should be able to give movie Vader a run for his money. Killing minion groups of rebel soldiers on screen looks Totally Awesome! (TM), but... I have a player with a padawan survivor in my game with Force Rating-2, lightsaber-2, the full shadow tree, and half of the shien tree who eats minion groups of stormtroopers for breakfast. In our last game she took down seven stormtroopers and was barely grazed by blaster fire, all without intermixing move. All she used was force leap and sense for defense. There's very little Luke from Return of the Jedi could do that she can't at this point.
    I'd build Vader with four trees: Aggressor, Shii-Cho, Niman, and one to flavor for taste. He's scary, but he's not all that fan-**** has made him out to be. IMO. Of course.
     
  6. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from Stan Fresh in Warriors rejoice   
    @Shlambate I find your faith unappealing. The ability to construct a nonsensical fan-**** villian cult is insignificant in comparison to the power of a sober assessment of the actual film canon.
    I ignore all comics and video games when evaluating character builds. Those mediums are often patently ridiculous and frequently do a disservice to the source material.
    That said, even with the PT casting Anakin as "force jesus" he doesn't actually do anything on screen that merits the sheer volumes of fan-**** and mythologized reverence commonly attributed to them. He doesn't live up to the fanboy hype.
    Nor, even with that premise, does it change what we see Luke is capable of on screen, which doesn't merit more than a force rating of 2-3, lightsaber-3, the shien tree, and some modest force powers. 
  7. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from Sturn in Can Pistol builds compete with Rifle builds?   
    No, he's not supporting cast. But, he's not presented as a professional combatant, either. He's a smuggler who carries a sidearm for (occassionally preemptive) self-defense. Repeat after me: "only a damned fool brings a sidearm to a gunfight when a longarm is available." A sidearm is a weapon with a specific application. Its a defensive weapon you carry for close-quarters personal protection. It is more easily concealed, can be worn in a broader array of circumstances, and is lighter and less cumbersome. Its can be there when you have no advanced warning that a combat is upon you.
    At the same time, sidearms are less powerful weapons in terms of range, penetration, and associated wound factors. Hands down. There is no contest. Its not even remotely open for debate. There is a simple and indisputable reason mainline infantry soldiers are carrying long-guns and not sidearms: firepower. Its the same reason special forces and and SWAT teams about to enter CQB opt for long-guns or sub-machineguns as their primary weapons: firepower. A sidearm is not an offensive weapon. If you walk into a firefight with a sidearm against long-guns without heavy-handed plot-immunity or lots and lots of genre-enforcing talents, you're dead.
    To that end, the system gives you some talent-paths to sidearm superiority:  the Gunslinger spec in Fly Casual is one. The signature ability Unmatched Destruction from No Disintegrations is another. Here is a two tree path to total sidearm destruction: Bounty Hunter (Career) with Assassin (Spec) and Gunslinger (Spec) plus Unmatched Destruction (SA). Enjoy.   
  8. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from kaosoe in Warriors rejoice   
    @Shlambate I find your faith unappealing. The ability to construct a nonsensical fan-**** villian cult is insignificant in comparison to the power of a sober assessment of the actual film canon.
    I ignore all comics and video games when evaluating character builds. Those mediums are often patently ridiculous and frequently do a disservice to the source material.
    That said, even with the PT casting Anakin as "force jesus" he doesn't actually do anything on screen that merits the sheer volumes of fan-**** and mythologized reverence commonly attributed to them. He doesn't live up to the fanboy hype.
    Nor, even with that premise, does it change what we see Luke is capable of on screen, which doesn't merit more than a force rating of 2-3, lightsaber-3, the shien tree, and some modest force powers. 
  9. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from kaosoe in Warriors rejoice   
    I know its not considered the power spec for lightsaber monkeys, but Niman Disciple covers it. Narratively, Move Closer and Force Assault can facilitate "The Full Vader" from Rogue One. A dollop of The Force is My Ally from another tree for flexibility and viola! And, based on what we see in the movies, Vader really doesn't need a super-high Force rating. 
    Vader has been fetishized and mythologized by fans into an invincible dark god, but his primary force using opposition is OT Luke Skywalker. Prior to Vader's death, Luke was was a greenhorn Jedi. The throne room scene was likely his Jedi trials. He really wasn't that powerful. And, in A New Hope, Obi-Wan let Vader kill him because destiny had to play itself out. Killing Vader himself would not have redeemed Anakin and brought down the Empire. It had to be Luke because "love conquers all." We don't know how that would have played out otherwise. What if Obi-Wan had been less wise? He might have won!
    An Old Republic Jedi Knight with Lightsaber-4, Force Rating-4, three trees, and some decent force powers should be able to give movie Vader a run for his money. Killing minion groups of rebel soldiers on screen looks Totally Awesome! (TM), but... I have a player with a padawan survivor in my game with Force Rating-2, lightsaber-2, the full shadow tree, and half of the shien tree who eats minion groups of stormtroopers for breakfast. In our last game she took down seven stormtroopers and was barely grazed by blaster fire, all without intermixing move. All she used was force leap and sense for defense. There's very little Luke from Return of the Jedi could do that she can't at this point.
    I'd build Vader with four trees: Aggressor, Shii-Cho, Niman, and one to flavor for taste. He's scary, but he's not all that fan-**** has made him out to be. IMO. Of course.
     
  10. Haha
    Vondy got a reaction from immortalfrieza in You Know You're Playing Age Of Rebellion When...   
    When your three Jedi survivors composing an "impossible missions force" type-cell for the Rebellion engage a company sized scout battalion of Imperial troops. And... one of them force-leaps on top of an AT-ST to cut their way in, but another one slices through a leg with their lightsaber at the same time, sending it careening sideways with a BOOM into the middle of a platoon of stormtroopers. This leaves the Jedi who had been on top of the AT-ST to land in the middle of the stormtroopers screaming foul-mouthed explicatives and looking for egress. Meanwhile, the third Jedi grins and charges into the afray sending a head flying and howling "helmet's away!" These are full-on real Jedi who are now into their third talent tree with fairly robust powers and lightsaber skills. They manage to survive despite themselves. The force is with them, but very few Rebel soliders are because, quite frankly, (those three) "Jedi are freaking nutjobs!"
  11. Thanks
    Vondy reacted to 2P51 in Can Pistol builds compete with Rifle builds?   
    You have beefy pistols that do a base 8 damage.  The beefy rifles are like 10.  2 points is not that big a deal.  Attachments and Talents make those 2 points meaningless.  This just isn't an issue.
  12. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from Archlyte in What makes someone a rules lawyer?   
    Here is the thing: I'm a GM who follows the "rule of cool." I know the rules as written fairly well and run without any house rules, but I'm willing to bend the letter of the law for a good story or to keep things moving along, and sometimes I do miss something. Yes, rules matter, but they aren't perfect and are intended to facilitate rather than impede everyone's fun.
    That said, you don't sound like much of a rules lawyer to me. Here is the number one rule: do not interrupt play to argue rules, especially minor ones. Unless it is a major rule with significant character-story stakes attached to it right then and there, wait until the session is over and then discuss it with your GM. You'll note I didn't say argue with your GM. Discuss it with them.
    Diplomacy is key. Not just in gaming, but in life. They may react strongly and come off like a "dictator" because you are interrupting, arguing, and publically correcting them mid-game. And, that can be, even if you are 100% right about the rules as written, quite rude. It may turn out that you and your GM have different play styles and irreconcilable differences. Or, you may discover that they are open to you helping them learn the rules out of game.
    I agree with the suggestion that, if you know the rules well enough to quote them without stopping the game to look stuff up, you can offer yourself up as a resource. I've been the rules reference at a table. Just remember: you are offering to help the GM during the game and are not there to police them or second guess them. When I'm running a game I have zero objections to a player saying "hey, doesn't that rule work like...?"
    I do, however, have little patience for players who make it feel like we're in a power-struggle or a constant game of one-upsmanship. Or who simply do stuff that throws off the flow of the game. That is tiresome and results in a player not being long for my table. Its not whether you are right and they are wrong. Its whether or not you effectively communicate in a way that builds bridges and brings results. Here is a method that might help: LERI.
    Ergo: Listening, Empathy, Rapport, Influence. If you want to communicate with the game master you have to talk to them. You need to listen to them in order to understand their position / viewpoint so that you can build a rapport with them through which to influence how the game runs. If you approach them as a friend and seek to reach a mutual understanding that works for both of you as opposed to walking in like adversary you have a much higher chance that they will be willing to listen to you, too.
    You see, that's the reason that rules lawyers are upopular: they are adversarial. Everything is a legal case that has to be argued and won. Its about winners, losers, and control. Outside of the courts, in the real world, that isn't how most things work. Especially when its just a hobby people are sitting down to socialize over and have some fun with. Negotiate, compromise, and have fun.
  13. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from Lotr_Nerd in You Know You're Playing Age Of Rebellion When...   
    When your three Jedi survivors composing an "impossible missions force" type-cell for the Rebellion engage a company sized scout battalion of Imperial troops. And... one of them force-leaps on top of an AT-ST to cut their way in, but another one slices through a leg with their lightsaber at the same time, sending it careening sideways with a BOOM into the middle of a platoon of stormtroopers. This leaves the Jedi who had been on top of the AT-ST to land in the middle of the stormtroopers screaming foul-mouthed explicatives and looking for egress. Meanwhile, the third Jedi grins and charges into the afray sending a head flying and howling "helmet's away!" These are full-on real Jedi who are now into their third talent tree with fairly robust powers and lightsaber skills. They manage to survive despite themselves. The force is with them, but very few Rebel soliders are because, quite frankly, (those three) "Jedi are freaking nutjobs!"
  14. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from Shock and Aweful in What makes someone a rules lawyer?   
    Here is the thing: I'm a GM who follows the "rule of cool." I know the rules as written fairly well and run without any house rules, but I'm willing to bend the letter of the law for a good story or to keep things moving along, and sometimes I do miss something. Yes, rules matter, but they aren't perfect and are intended to facilitate rather than impede everyone's fun.
    That said, you don't sound like much of a rules lawyer to me. Here is the number one rule: do not interrupt play to argue rules, especially minor ones. Unless it is a major rule with significant character-story stakes attached to it right then and there, wait until the session is over and then discuss it with your GM. You'll note I didn't say argue with your GM. Discuss it with them.
    Diplomacy is key. Not just in gaming, but in life. They may react strongly and come off like a "dictator" because you are interrupting, arguing, and publically correcting them mid-game. And, that can be, even if you are 100% right about the rules as written, quite rude. It may turn out that you and your GM have different play styles and irreconcilable differences. Or, you may discover that they are open to you helping them learn the rules out of game.
    I agree with the suggestion that, if you know the rules well enough to quote them without stopping the game to look stuff up, you can offer yourself up as a resource. I've been the rules reference at a table. Just remember: you are offering to help the GM during the game and are not there to police them or second guess them. When I'm running a game I have zero objections to a player saying "hey, doesn't that rule work like...?"
    I do, however, have little patience for players who make it feel like we're in a power-struggle or a constant game of one-upsmanship. Or who simply do stuff that throws off the flow of the game. That is tiresome and results in a player not being long for my table. Its not whether you are right and they are wrong. Its whether or not you effectively communicate in a way that builds bridges and brings results. Here is a method that might help: LERI.
    Ergo: Listening, Empathy, Rapport, Influence. If you want to communicate with the game master you have to talk to them. You need to listen to them in order to understand their position / viewpoint so that you can build a rapport with them through which to influence how the game runs. If you approach them as a friend and seek to reach a mutual understanding that works for both of you as opposed to walking in like adversary you have a much higher chance that they will be willing to listen to you, too.
    You see, that's the reason that rules lawyers are upopular: they are adversarial. Everything is a legal case that has to be argued and won. Its about winners, losers, and control. Outside of the courts, in the real world, that isn't how most things work. Especially when its just a hobby people are sitting down to socialize over and have some fun with. Negotiate, compromise, and have fun.
  15. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from Vestij Jai Galaar in What makes someone a rules lawyer?   
    Here is the thing: I'm a GM who follows the "rule of cool." I know the rules as written fairly well and run without any house rules, but I'm willing to bend the letter of the law for a good story or to keep things moving along, and sometimes I do miss something. Yes, rules matter, but they aren't perfect and are intended to facilitate rather than impede everyone's fun.
    That said, you don't sound like much of a rules lawyer to me. Here is the number one rule: do not interrupt play to argue rules, especially minor ones. Unless it is a major rule with significant character-story stakes attached to it right then and there, wait until the session is over and then discuss it with your GM. You'll note I didn't say argue with your GM. Discuss it with them.
    Diplomacy is key. Not just in gaming, but in life. They may react strongly and come off like a "dictator" because you are interrupting, arguing, and publically correcting them mid-game. And, that can be, even if you are 100% right about the rules as written, quite rude. It may turn out that you and your GM have different play styles and irreconcilable differences. Or, you may discover that they are open to you helping them learn the rules out of game.
    I agree with the suggestion that, if you know the rules well enough to quote them without stopping the game to look stuff up, you can offer yourself up as a resource. I've been the rules reference at a table. Just remember: you are offering to help the GM during the game and are not there to police them or second guess them. When I'm running a game I have zero objections to a player saying "hey, doesn't that rule work like...?"
    I do, however, have little patience for players who make it feel like we're in a power-struggle or a constant game of one-upsmanship. Or who simply do stuff that throws off the flow of the game. That is tiresome and results in a player not being long for my table. Its not whether you are right and they are wrong. Its whether or not you effectively communicate in a way that builds bridges and brings results. Here is a method that might help: LERI.
    Ergo: Listening, Empathy, Rapport, Influence. If you want to communicate with the game master you have to talk to them. You need to listen to them in order to understand their position / viewpoint so that you can build a rapport with them through which to influence how the game runs. If you approach them as a friend and seek to reach a mutual understanding that works for both of you as opposed to walking in like adversary you have a much higher chance that they will be willing to listen to you, too.
    You see, that's the reason that rules lawyers are upopular: they are adversarial. Everything is a legal case that has to be argued and won. Its about winners, losers, and control. Outside of the courts, in the real world, that isn't how most things work. Especially when its just a hobby people are sitting down to socialize over and have some fun with. Negotiate, compromise, and have fun.
  16. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from whafrog in I feel PvP should be a consensual RP Choice   
    The word most gamers are looking for is "verisimilitude." We want the game to feel authentic or truthy enough to suspend disbelief and get into the story. Even if there are plot-speed drives, a panapoly of colorful aliens, mystical zen mind powers, and laser swords. The rest of the setting and gaming experience needs to be sufficiently rationalized for the story to feel plausible despite its impossible / unrealistic elements. I don't object to people using the word "realistic," however, because I know what they are trying to say and am not given to unecessary pedantry. And, because words like verisimilitude can cause one to be perceived as hoity-toity and elitist.  
  17. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from Mark Caliber in Quick one shot story idea   
    So many options: assassinating Imperial officials without sanction, kidnapping-torturing-killing suspected but not confirmed collaborators, raids or bombings of Imperial targets with excessive collateral damage, leaking sensitive information to Imperial intelligence. You could put a clock on the hunt with the latter. What if they must be stopped before they hand the mcguffin secrets over to the empire. All might be sufficient to end up with a "rebel bounty" on their heads. 
    And twists: they were framed by an Imperial mole in the Alliance leadership who feared they were too close to uncovering their identity. Or, they learned something a corrupt senior rebel officer didn't want them to know. Using rebel resources to conduct hijackings / piracy raides, a liaison with a senior imperial figure, or their own off-book extremist actions (like the aforementioned unsanctioned kill list). 
    And moral quandaries: mayhaps the Rebel leadership itself wants this team dead as a part of a cover up. For instance, mayhaps on occassion,the rebel leadership does something they ordinarily denounce and classify as extremist and this was the team they used for those operations.  Only the last job they carried out went sideways and could potentially implicate the leadership and sow dissention in the ranks. Branding them traitors and hunting them down throws suspicion somewhere else. Or, maybe it was one dirty job over the line and they threatened to blow the lid off the thing. They must be silenced!
  18. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from hikari_dourden in What makes someone a rules lawyer?   
    Here is the thing: I'm a GM who follows the "rule of cool." I know the rules as written fairly well and run without any house rules, but I'm willing to bend the letter of the law for a good story or to keep things moving along, and sometimes I do miss something. Yes, rules matter, but they aren't perfect and are intended to facilitate rather than impede everyone's fun.
    That said, you don't sound like much of a rules lawyer to me. Here is the number one rule: do not interrupt play to argue rules, especially minor ones. Unless it is a major rule with significant character-story stakes attached to it right then and there, wait until the session is over and then discuss it with your GM. You'll note I didn't say argue with your GM. Discuss it with them.
    Diplomacy is key. Not just in gaming, but in life. They may react strongly and come off like a "dictator" because you are interrupting, arguing, and publically correcting them mid-game. And, that can be, even if you are 100% right about the rules as written, quite rude. It may turn out that you and your GM have different play styles and irreconcilable differences. Or, you may discover that they are open to you helping them learn the rules out of game.
    I agree with the suggestion that, if you know the rules well enough to quote them without stopping the game to look stuff up, you can offer yourself up as a resource. I've been the rules reference at a table. Just remember: you are offering to help the GM during the game and are not there to police them or second guess them. When I'm running a game I have zero objections to a player saying "hey, doesn't that rule work like...?"
    I do, however, have little patience for players who make it feel like we're in a power-struggle or a constant game of one-upsmanship. Or who simply do stuff that throws off the flow of the game. That is tiresome and results in a player not being long for my table. Its not whether you are right and they are wrong. Its whether or not you effectively communicate in a way that builds bridges and brings results. Here is a method that might help: LERI.
    Ergo: Listening, Empathy, Rapport, Influence. If you want to communicate with the game master you have to talk to them. You need to listen to them in order to understand their position / viewpoint so that you can build a rapport with them through which to influence how the game runs. If you approach them as a friend and seek to reach a mutual understanding that works for both of you as opposed to walking in like adversary you have a much higher chance that they will be willing to listen to you, too.
    You see, that's the reason that rules lawyers are upopular: they are adversarial. Everything is a legal case that has to be argued and won. Its about winners, losers, and control. Outside of the courts, in the real world, that isn't how most things work. Especially when its just a hobby people are sitting down to socialize over and have some fun with. Negotiate, compromise, and have fun.
  19. Haha
    Vondy got a reaction from Tramp Graphics in You Know You're Playing Age Of Rebellion When...   
    When your three Jedi survivors composing an "impossible missions force" type-cell for the Rebellion engage a company sized scout battalion of Imperial troops. And... one of them force-leaps on top of an AT-ST to cut their way in, but another one slices through a leg with their lightsaber at the same time, sending it careening sideways with a BOOM into the middle of a platoon of stormtroopers. This leaves the Jedi who had been on top of the AT-ST to land in the middle of the stormtroopers screaming foul-mouthed explicatives and looking for egress. Meanwhile, the third Jedi grins and charges into the afray sending a head flying and howling "helmet's away!" These are full-on real Jedi who are now into their third talent tree with fairly robust powers and lightsaber skills. They manage to survive despite themselves. The force is with them, but very few Rebel soliders are because, quite frankly, (those three) "Jedi are freaking nutjobs!"
  20. Haha
    Vondy got a reaction from Bellona in You Know You're Playing Age Of Rebellion When...   
    When your three Jedi survivors composing an "impossible missions force" type-cell for the Rebellion engage a company sized scout battalion of Imperial troops. And... one of them force-leaps on top of an AT-ST to cut their way in, but another one slices through a leg with their lightsaber at the same time, sending it careening sideways with a BOOM into the middle of a platoon of stormtroopers. This leaves the Jedi who had been on top of the AT-ST to land in the middle of the stormtroopers screaming foul-mouthed explicatives and looking for egress. Meanwhile, the third Jedi grins and charges into the afray sending a head flying and howling "helmet's away!" These are full-on real Jedi who are now into their third talent tree with fairly robust powers and lightsaber skills. They manage to survive despite themselves. The force is with them, but very few Rebel soliders are because, quite frankly, (those three) "Jedi are freaking nutjobs!"
  21. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from EliasWindrider in One of my players thinks I'm a Troll. Should I care?   
    Answer: "You have the wrong address." You are asking a bunch of strangers on a message board what one of your players intended when they called you a "troll." We can't answer that question. They can. Ask them. Once you have that information and share it we can offer meaningless and irrelevant opinions about whether you should be offended or not.
  22. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from Shaheed the Gand in What makes someone a rules lawyer?   
    Here is the thing: I'm a GM who follows the "rule of cool." I know the rules as written fairly well and run without any house rules, but I'm willing to bend the letter of the law for a good story or to keep things moving along, and sometimes I do miss something. Yes, rules matter, but they aren't perfect and are intended to facilitate rather than impede everyone's fun.
    That said, you don't sound like much of a rules lawyer to me. Here is the number one rule: do not interrupt play to argue rules, especially minor ones. Unless it is a major rule with significant character-story stakes attached to it right then and there, wait until the session is over and then discuss it with your GM. You'll note I didn't say argue with your GM. Discuss it with them.
    Diplomacy is key. Not just in gaming, but in life. They may react strongly and come off like a "dictator" because you are interrupting, arguing, and publically correcting them mid-game. And, that can be, even if you are 100% right about the rules as written, quite rude. It may turn out that you and your GM have different play styles and irreconcilable differences. Or, you may discover that they are open to you helping them learn the rules out of game.
    I agree with the suggestion that, if you know the rules well enough to quote them without stopping the game to look stuff up, you can offer yourself up as a resource. I've been the rules reference at a table. Just remember: you are offering to help the GM during the game and are not there to police them or second guess them. When I'm running a game I have zero objections to a player saying "hey, doesn't that rule work like...?"
    I do, however, have little patience for players who make it feel like we're in a power-struggle or a constant game of one-upsmanship. Or who simply do stuff that throws off the flow of the game. That is tiresome and results in a player not being long for my table. Its not whether you are right and they are wrong. Its whether or not you effectively communicate in a way that builds bridges and brings results. Here is a method that might help: LERI.
    Ergo: Listening, Empathy, Rapport, Influence. If you want to communicate with the game master you have to talk to them. You need to listen to them in order to understand their position / viewpoint so that you can build a rapport with them through which to influence how the game runs. If you approach them as a friend and seek to reach a mutual understanding that works for both of you as opposed to walking in like adversary you have a much higher chance that they will be willing to listen to you, too.
    You see, that's the reason that rules lawyers are upopular: they are adversarial. Everything is a legal case that has to be argued and won. Its about winners, losers, and control. Outside of the courts, in the real world, that isn't how most things work. Especially when its just a hobby people are sitting down to socialize over and have some fun with. Negotiate, compromise, and have fun.
  23. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from awayputurwpn in One of my players thinks I'm a Troll. Should I care?   
    Answer: "You have the wrong address." You are asking a bunch of strangers on a message board what one of your players intended when they called you a "troll." We can't answer that question. They can. Ask them. Once you have that information and share it we can offer meaningless and irrelevant opinions about whether you should be offended or not.
  24. Like
    Vondy got a reaction from Nytwyng in I feel PvP should be a consensual RP Choice   
    The word most gamers are looking for is "verisimilitude." We want the game to feel authentic or truthy enough to suspend disbelief and get into the story. Even if there are plot-speed drives, a panapoly of colorful aliens, mystical zen mind powers, and laser swords. The rest of the setting and gaming experience needs to be sufficiently rationalized for the story to feel plausible despite its impossible / unrealistic elements. I don't object to people using the word "realistic," however, because I know what they are trying to say and am not given to unecessary pedantry. And, because words like verisimilitude can cause one to be perceived as hoity-toity and elitist.  
  25. Like
    Vondy reacted to whafrog in What makes someone a rules lawyer?   
    Putting on devil's advocate hat:  but are we playing a game, in the traditional sense?  We're not playing Risk, or Monopoly, or any other game with a defined set of rules, a timeline, and a winner.  I prefer to think of it as cooperatively telling a story, and if the rules don't facilitate that, then **** them to heck.  And I say that as "the rules guy" at my table (whether playing or GMing).
    Anyway, as noted by almost everyone, you have to take it up away from the table.  I have a rep as the rules guy, but I don't interrupt and only offer info if asked.  And I do get asked, I have to assume because I don't interrupt.
     
×
×
  • Create New...