RPG StackExchange
July 10, 2016 3:14 PM Subscribe
So, apparently there's now a StackExchange for table top roleplaying games. Featuring questions like, "What is the easiest way a Wizard can copy-protect the scrolls he makes?" and "Managing a Medieval Low-Orbit Ion Cannon." And a bunch of generally good (though less comical) advice in the sorted by votes page.
I'm a little disappointed there isn't an exclusive nethack stackexchange on which to be modded down to oblivion for asking about quaffing from fountains.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 4:32 PM on July 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by RonButNotStupid at 4:32 PM on July 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
schmod: nothing says that the wizard is unambiguously good – and I am amused by the concept of other wizards trying to release “cracked” versions, or the possible chaotic events after the equivalent of Richard Stallman starts a movement to to publish similar recipes and every bright, bored teenager starts trying them…
posted by adamsc at 4:59 PM on July 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by adamsc at 4:59 PM on July 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
What if I teleport a portable hole into a bag holding?
And of course it's already there... and this one: "However, this is a terrible idea. If you hate the people in a group so much, there are few things you can do that are worse than just walking out on them. Even if you manage to TPK the party or otherwise derail the game, once the game collapses (and you're not invited back), the GM can simply retcon the whole thing and continue without you, while they all congratulate themselves on being rid of that weirdo who tried to wreck the game for no reason. They're not hostage to whatever scheme you cook up, because imagination.
posted by GuyZero at 5:43 PM on July 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
And of course it's already there... and this one: "However, this is a terrible idea. If you hate the people in a group so much, there are few things you can do that are worse than just walking out on them. Even if you manage to TPK the party or otherwise derail the game, once the game collapses (and you're not invited back), the GM can simply retcon the whole thing and continue without you, while they all congratulate themselves on being rid of that weirdo who tried to wreck the game for no reason. They're not hostage to whatever scheme you cook up, because imagination.
posted by GuyZero at 5:43 PM on July 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Truly the most important role-playing questions: Can a portable hole be used on a shield?
posted by GuyZero at 5:44 PM on July 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by GuyZero at 5:44 PM on July 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Dear RPG Stackexchange,
How do I counter a "Block Question" spell when playing Stack Overflow?
posted by srboisvert at 5:46 PM on July 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
How do I counter a "Block Question" spell when playing Stack Overflow?
posted by srboisvert at 5:46 PM on July 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
What happens if you turn a bag of holding inside out, again? I forget.
posted by kafziel at 5:51 PM on July 10, 2016
posted by kafziel at 5:51 PM on July 10, 2016
Fun happens.
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:13 PM on July 10, 2016
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:13 PM on July 10, 2016
I found the RPG StackExchange a while back and stopped following it when it became obvious that most of the questions could be answered with "talk to your group and come up with a workable compromise" or "you're the goddamn GM, make up something vaguely plausible".
posted by murphy slaw at 6:19 PM on July 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by murphy slaw at 6:19 PM on July 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
"you're the goddamn GM, make up something vaguely plausible".Most people who play RPGs understand that the aim is to create an engaging, absorbing narrative. The rulebooks and monster manuals are a framework for building a world you want to share adventures in.
For these people, anomalies, inconsistencies and straight-up impossibilities that emerge from the framework are irrelevant. We wrap our stories around them, absorbing and eliding them. Sometimes they become a cause of in-jokes. "Sir Rodney confuses his Bag of Holding for underpants again."
For a regrettably large subset of players, the rules are not a framework. They are a strict constraint. The world must be consistent, or their sense of justice is offended. People with this worldview are genuinely affronted when someone points out that a Bag of Holding is clearly a free-energy device. Their only toolkit for dealing with this is to add another rule to an already-teetering edifice of pedantry.
When I used to run games, I'd drop a few little tests in front of any new member. Narrative-builders were welcome. Rule-followers were gently nudged towards their fellows in other groups. We were all happier.
posted by Combat Wombat at 6:35 PM on July 10, 2016 [14 favorites]
The answer is "let me roll this D20 a few times behind my DM screen to stall for time while I come up with an idea for dealing with that".
posted by turbid dahlia at 6:37 PM on July 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by turbid dahlia at 6:37 PM on July 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Fun with topology: How to turn enemies inside-out
"First, the player is swallowed by a large monster, such as a Dragon. Next, the player puts a bag of holding into a portable hole. This opens a gate to the Astral plane inside the large monster. The player is closest to the portal, so they are pulled through first. They arrive, no longer inside the monster. After the player, the monster is pulled through the gateway insides-first, causing it to arrive on the other side inside-out. Its organs are exposed and the hide of its back and belly envelops its limbs and head like a sack."
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 6:58 PM on July 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
"First, the player is swallowed by a large monster, such as a Dragon. Next, the player puts a bag of holding into a portable hole. This opens a gate to the Astral plane inside the large monster. The player is closest to the portal, so they are pulled through first. They arrive, no longer inside the monster. After the player, the monster is pulled through the gateway insides-first, causing it to arrive on the other side inside-out. Its organs are exposed and the hide of its back and belly envelops its limbs and head like a sack."
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 6:58 PM on July 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
Most people who play RPGs understand that the aim is to create an engaging, absorbing narrative. The rulebooks and monster manuals are a framework for building a world you want to share adventures in.
For these people, anomalies, inconsistencies and straight-up impossibilities that emerge from the framework are irrelevant. We wrap our stories around them, absorbing and eliding them. Sometimes they become a cause of in-jokes. "Sir Rodney confuses his Bag of Holding for underpants again."
For a regrettably large subset of players, the rules are not a framework. They are a strict constraint. The world must be consistent, or their sense of justice is offended. People with this worldview are genuinely affronted when someone points out that a Bag of Holding is clearly a free-energy device. Their only toolkit for dealing with this is to add another rule to an already-teetering edifice of pedantry.
For some of us on the other hand the rules are integral to the style of game you are actually playing. I'm as free wheeling as anyone and more than most in Fate or Marvel Heroic Roleplaying - but if you want to play GURPS or Hero or even D&D 3.X or Pathfinder then you are dropping hundreds of pages of rules on me and telling me they are a part of the game.
And you know what? Fast flowing rules light play that ends up being freeform plus is awesome. Detailed games with consistent rules that therefore allow for a lot of planning and strategising secure in the knowledge that you have a clear understanding of the setting from the rulebook and aren't subject to the whims of whatever mood the GM is in today? Also awesome. Dungeons and Dragons developed quite literally from a hacked tabletop wargame played by players trying to win and where exploiting the inconsistencies was part of the game.
You know what's not awesome? Wading through several hundred pages of rulebook (or of several rulebooks) when their only impact on the game will be to make it worse. You know what's also not awesome? Being given a game under false pretenses and then being told that a screwdriver makes a perfectly good chisel and asked why I'm trying to put a cabinet together. (And yes, using a rules-heavy game where you want a rules light playstyle to me feels just as bad as trying to chisel with a screwdriver).
What's even worse of course is when the game designers use their rulebooks to rant about "Roleplaying not Rollplaying" because they were bad enough designers that actually playing the game they had designed didn't lead to the experience they wanted.
posted by Francis at 3:38 AM on July 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
For these people, anomalies, inconsistencies and straight-up impossibilities that emerge from the framework are irrelevant. We wrap our stories around them, absorbing and eliding them. Sometimes they become a cause of in-jokes. "Sir Rodney confuses his Bag of Holding for underpants again."
For a regrettably large subset of players, the rules are not a framework. They are a strict constraint. The world must be consistent, or their sense of justice is offended. People with this worldview are genuinely affronted when someone points out that a Bag of Holding is clearly a free-energy device. Their only toolkit for dealing with this is to add another rule to an already-teetering edifice of pedantry.
For some of us on the other hand the rules are integral to the style of game you are actually playing. I'm as free wheeling as anyone and more than most in Fate or Marvel Heroic Roleplaying - but if you want to play GURPS or Hero or even D&D 3.X or Pathfinder then you are dropping hundreds of pages of rules on me and telling me they are a part of the game.
And you know what? Fast flowing rules light play that ends up being freeform plus is awesome. Detailed games with consistent rules that therefore allow for a lot of planning and strategising secure in the knowledge that you have a clear understanding of the setting from the rulebook and aren't subject to the whims of whatever mood the GM is in today? Also awesome. Dungeons and Dragons developed quite literally from a hacked tabletop wargame played by players trying to win and where exploiting the inconsistencies was part of the game.
You know what's not awesome? Wading through several hundred pages of rulebook (or of several rulebooks) when their only impact on the game will be to make it worse. You know what's also not awesome? Being given a game under false pretenses and then being told that a screwdriver makes a perfectly good chisel and asked why I'm trying to put a cabinet together. (And yes, using a rules-heavy game where you want a rules light playstyle to me feels just as bad as trying to chisel with a screwdriver).
What's even worse of course is when the game designers use their rulebooks to rant about "Roleplaying not Rollplaying" because they were bad enough designers that actually playing the game they had designed didn't lead to the experience they wanted.
posted by Francis at 3:38 AM on July 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
I've been on it on and off for a while. It doesn't have the best reputation from what I've heard, with the mods being very, very strict on what type of questions are allowed. There were some I was able to answer when I started, but lately it seems to be very rules focused.
posted by Canageek at 10:36 AM on July 11, 2016
posted by Canageek at 10:36 AM on July 11, 2016
« Older The Italian Job | Bloody Fist: Aussies inviting malice from 1994 to... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by schmod at 3:31 PM on July 10, 2016 [7 favorites]