|
Post by Grog on Dec 20, 2013 5:44:49 GMT -8
The key to replacing level advances is to include roleplaying stuff . . . increases in wealth and, most of all, INFLUENCE - once humble adventurers they now become Nation builders and Kingmakers. The investment is in being able to affect the game world on a grander scale without having to rely on GM caveat etc to keep the pieces moving in the background ie: the PC's are now moving the pieces for the GM . . . Aaron Yes. There are certain games (Traveller) in which character skill advancement gets about 100 words. "Advancement" really refers to increasing levels of influence, funds, and contacts. SavageCheerleader , I bold the following because it is the most important of my questions if you ignore the rest of my spiel, please answer me this What is it that you don't like about Pathfinder? My advice would most likely be different if I had this specified clearly.
I think your epic 9 argument is legit, although I don't really know anything about it. The sheer quantity of numerical damage isn't what makes them epic, it's how everyone else views them. Aragorn doesn do more damage when he stabs orcs, he is just a king who stabs orcs better than most everyone else. Just change the way NPCs react to them etc. Then again, I think you are already doing this. If you don't want to advance as fast, see how they react to the idea of "you only level up when you take the downtime to rest and relax, reflect on your experiences, and retrain." Maybe a week or fortnight per finished level, so moving from 8 to 9 is going to take a 9 or 18 weeks of off story time? This will distend the "time" which is part of what makes campaigns feel epic. Even if it only takes six sessions saying "we pursued this guy for 5 years and finally caught him and slew him at the Gates of Bigdik!" still sounds pretty epic. It also explains why they get this "chunk" of new powers when they level up. You know, this might be ridiculous but I think part of the thing that some D&D groups have is that they are phenomenally attached to the concept of "d20" without even realizing it. If you could break them of this it might be easier to "save" them. Some possibilities include the concept that Tyler? mentioned on the podcast of using two d10s instead of a d20 (actually increases the average roll to 11, so they will do "better). Also, you could use....3d6. I know that it doesn't have the range of 1-20, but the the average roll is going to be...10.5! just like d20. I wonder if Steve Jackson did this on purpose? Just make sure that the raw-roll fail/success barrier is on the left side of your curve (less than 10), otherwise they'll be pissed. Then, start letting them roll an extra d6 whenever they do something awesome. Pretty soon they are basically ready to play savage worlds, hero, or world of darkness. Once they have mothballed their d20s and you have interpreted and house-ruled in things from every other game under the sun, you can just point out that they aren't really even playing Pathfinder anymore but isn't this fun. When you finish your campaign say "you know, that was fun, but there are some other systems I think you guys would enjoy and they would be a lot more fun for me to run. How 'bout we try them out for a one-shot or something?" You just ran a great game for them, so if they say no...well, they might be douchebags. If they say yes... They can finally throw off their chains and walk out of Plato's cave and into the light.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Dec 20, 2013 6:40:22 GMT -8
The key to replacing level advances is to include roleplaying stuff . . . increases in wealth and, most of all, INFLUENCE - once humble adventurers they now become Nation builders and Kingmakers. The investment is in being able to affect the game world on a grander scale without having to rely on GM caveat etc to keep the pieces moving in the background ie: the PC's are now moving the pieces for the GM . . . Aaron Yes. There are certain games (Traveller) in which character skill advancement gets about 100 words. "Advancement" really refers to increasing levels of influence, funds, and contacts. I bold the following because it is the most important of my questions if you ignore the rest of my spiel, please answer me this What is it that you don't like about Pathfinder? My advice would most likely be different if I had this specified clearly.
I think your epic 9 argument is legit, although I don't really know anything about it. The sheer quantity of numerical damage isn't what makes them epic, it's how everyone else views them. Aragorn doesn do more damage when he stabs orcs, he is just a king who stabs orcs better than most everyone else. Just change the way NPCs react to them etc. Then again, I think you are already doing this. If you don't want to advance as fast, see how they react to the idea of "you only level up when you take the downtime to rest and relax, reflect on your experiences, and retrain." Maybe a week or fortnight per finished level, so moving from 8 to 9 is going to take a 9 or 18 weeks of off story time? This will distend the "time" which is part of what makes campaigns feel epic. Even if it only takes six sessions saying "we pursued this guy for 5 years and finally caught him and slew him at the Gates of Bigdik!" still sounds pretty epic. It also explains why they get this "chunk" of new powers when they level up. You know, this might be ridiculous but I think part of the thing that some D&D groups have is that they are phenomenally attached to the concept of "d20" without even realizing it. If you could break them of this it might be easier to "save" them. Some possibilities include the concept that Tyler? mentioned on the podcast of using two d10s instead of a d20 (actually increases the average roll to 11, so they will do "better). Also, you could use....3d6. I know that it doesn't have the range of 1-20, but the the average roll is going to be...10.5! just like d20. I wonder if Steve Jackson did this on purpose? Just make sure that the raw-roll fail/success barrier is on the left side of your curve (less than 10), otherwise they'll be pissed. Then, start letting them roll an extra d6 whenever they do something awesome. Pretty soon they are basically ready to play savage worlds, hero, or world of darkness. Once they have mothballed their d20s and you have interpreted and house-ruled in things from every other game under the sun, you can just point out that they aren't really even playing Pathfinder anymore but isn't this fun. When you finish your campaign say "you know, that was fun, but there are some other systems I think you guys would enjoy and they would be a lot more fun for me to run. How 'bout we try them out for a one-shot or something?" You just ran a great game for them, so if they say no...well, they might be douchebags. If they say yes... They can finally throw off their chains and walk out of Plato's cave and into the light. Ahh that's a bit from the left field cause I don't don't like Pathfinder. I call in Roadhider as tongue firmly in cheek jest nothing more I do miss save or die and only mention it because, with loads of blogs and podcasts speculating on its release, this has been an oft cited positive feedback. They, being the podcasts and blogs, in mentioning it so recently have simply made me aware of this facet of the old game that, being given cause to pause and reflect, I admit I miss. The next game I'll be a player in will be 4e and that GM and I discussed this when I was driving him home from my 1e game last week for exactly that reason - it's been mentioned, we both had thought about it and had to sort of agree with the sentiment. He'd concluded that 'save or die' was, in his opinion, a fundamental piece of what made/makes D&D D&D - as opposed to someother fantasy RPG' : this from an avowed fan of 4e. Noting that he is a person I respect enough to put aside my reservations and preconceptions about 4e and to give it a go (with one caveat - no dragonborn). Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Grog on Dec 20, 2013 6:43:50 GMT -8
I should clarify. I was actually referring to SavageCheerleader. Although that is an interesting opinion
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Dec 20, 2013 7:07:28 GMT -8
I should clarify. I was actually referring to SavageCheerleader. Although that is an interesting opinion Ahh a two part reply. No wonder I was confused. Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Grog on Dec 20, 2013 7:41:01 GMT -8
I should clarify. I was actually referring to SavageCheerleader. Although that is an interesting opinion Ahh a two part reply. No wonder I was confused. Aaron No mere two-part reply, a poorly formatted two-part reply!
|
|
|
Post by SavageCheerleader on Dec 20, 2013 14:54:39 GMT -8
@grog: I started playing with the White Box at 10. I have played every.single.edition since then. I was one of those people who would not play anything that did not say TSR or D&D on it (I was a fucktard). Then I played Rolemaster and saw how skills should work, if you are going to use them. Fighting is not a static thing where all fighters are more or less equal, it is a skill to be developed. HPs are not a simple, random thing, the body can be developed to deal with stress and pain.
Then I played Palladium. Then GURPS, Shadowrun 1e, and others. The 3e came out and I was 'meh', but I bought it and thought, wow, this is moving closer to an actual game that reflects what everyone else is doing. But it still had issues, then the Feats Arms Race started. Then all the shit that plagued 2e.
But I digress. Pathfinder is nothing but the same. A flat, boring ass chance to succeed or fail equally. Level-based advancement. Abilities tied to a Class, which still forces immersion breaking play for multi-classing (I am suddenly a wizard or sorcerer or monk). The most egregious fault lies in the sheer amount of stupid ass rules in the book which dictate how you can imaginate combat. We were bull rushing and tripping in 0e without a damn rule. We described our actions, then made a STR check. They got a Saving throw, maybe. Pathfinder is very much a NO, BUT system, as is all d20. You need a Feat or rule to tell/allow you to play. Fuck that.
And yes, before the Paizo Defense Force comes at me, you can run PF any way you like. Except that is not really true now is it? The moment you begin to make changes the munchkins get ass hurt because their domination of the game goes out the window and the rules lawyers grumble. We can talk custom rules all we want, but the truth is, that at the end of the day, most d20 players shun that shit. The reason...TRUST. Modern gamers have been lied to by dickheads like Mike Mearls, in his infamous "shitty DM" video on youtube. Fuck him. He is a shit DM. Perkins is lauded because he does funny voices, he is not all that, most gamers are just not used to that. Listen to actual plays...99%? suck balls.
Also, Sean K. Reynolds did write a Step Advancement guide, just as you or someone asked. In between levels, you can choose to gain skills, feats, spells, save, hit, etc. That way you are constantly learning and improving....wow, that sound alike other, better game systems...
|
|
D.T. Pints
Instigator
JACKERCON 2018: WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY June 22-July 1st
Posts: 2,857
Currently Playing: D&D 5e, Pathfinder, DUNGEONWORLD, Star Wars Edge of the Empire
Currently Running: DUNGEONWORLD, PATHFINDER
|
Post by D.T. Pints on Dec 21, 2013 21:16:39 GMT -8
Wow...I just don't get it. We've been playing Pathfinder for two years now and loving it. Not tons of rule disruptive arguments just lots of fun... Here's our AP...not that I'm suggesting you listen to it. Just an acknowledgement that this game is do much fun that we wanted to record it and share it with the world... I don't get system hate. Play groups hate I understand as some people are just assholes. But my group plays a great game of pick up sticks... happyjacks.proboards.com/thread/2273/6th-level-playCheers! Curt.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Dec 22, 2013 3:27:01 GMT -8
I think the 'problem' with PF is similar to the 'problem' with 2e and 3e: a certain mindset combined with splat books. Remove one component in the equation and the 'problem' goes away. I do have a lot to say about probabilities: linear and bell curves etc because the additional caveats on each method render a lot of the criticisms redundant. But I'm lazy and hate having to explain probability first then explain how the implementation of these probabilities - be they linear or flat - means that in reality they actually end up with very similar results. It's enough to say that in d20 the grouping of sets of numbers, rather than each number being a unique result with an equal probability, sort of kicks it's critics in the balls - what you end up with is a very steep bell curve with a very narrow set of outliers. 5% chance of critical success or failure and variable degrees of success or failure depending on the target number and the modifiers. If the TNT is 15 with no modifiers the chance if sucess is 30% and the chance if failure is 70% with a 5% chance of either result being critical. The linear nature makes it easier to tweak the desired probability without having to consider the vagaries of a bell curve and it's standard deviations. That's not a criticism of bell curve probability but like AC it's flawed but it works . . . Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Grog on Dec 22, 2013 10:19:35 GMT -8
I think the 'problem' with PF is similar to the 'problem' with 2e and 3e: a certain mindset combined with splat books. Remove one component in the equation and the 'problem' goes away. I do have a lot to say about probabilities: linear and bell curves etc because the additional caveats on each method render a lot of the criticisms redundant. But I'm lazy and hate having to explain probability first then explain how the implementation of these probabilities - be they linear or flat - means that in reality they actually end up with very similar results. It's enough to say that in d20 the grouping of sets of numbers, rather than each number being a unique result with an equal probability, sort of kicks it's critics in the balls - what you end up with is a very steep bell curve with a very narrow set of outliers. 5% chance of critical success or failure and variable degrees of success or failure depending on the target number and the modifiers. If the TNT is 15 with no modifiers the chance if sucess is 30% and the chance if failure is 70% with a 5% chance of either result being critical. The linear nature makes it easier to tweak the desired probability without having to consider the vagaries of a bell curve and it's standard deviations. That's not a criticism of bell curve probability but like AC it's flawed but it works . . . Aaron True. Any die can be made to create any kind probability by judiciously assigning success vs failure values. My main argument was that some d20 players are attached to the die itself and that by changing which die he uses he might be able make a transition easier. Pop-psychology at its finest. SavageCheerleaderWould collapsing leveling into "downtime" help alleviate some of the level-based issues? Or is it the fact that when you level you have no control over which things go up? Imaginating combat: what would happen in your group if you allowed players to bull-rush or knock down by taking a penalty to an attack roll (or some other improvised method) and just had the feat negate said penalty? I might not be a huge fan, but I could see it working for some groups. Philosophizing: I was as yet unborn when 0e came out, but I have a hypothesis about why it became so rules complex. In addition to the desire to publish more books, I think that it might have to do with the long history of douchey dms. I have heard very conflicting things about this time of yore, on the one hand it was a time of free-wheeling improvisation filled with 10-foot poles and roleplaying. On the other hand, it was beset by hordes of 14-year old dick-DMs who would kill their players for entertainment. Perhaps, in order to curb the power of the dick-DMs, the hobby gave up its right of improvisation. Whether it was a good or bad decision is for history to decide. The new generations (of which I am undeniably part) and the old-schoolers alike can now look back with their rose-colored glasses and see an era filled with freedom, all from a world made safe by overly constrictive rules. Only now do we begin to see these hippies publishing new games as the pendulum swings back in the other direction...I know that when I'm playing with a good GM that I trust, I'm totally comfortable improvising, but when that trust isn't complete I want to be able to fall back on some good disarm rules. (Yeah, I just read Apocalypse World, which sounds like great fun, with heavy potential for GM abuse). Grog
|
|
|
Post by guitarspider on Dec 22, 2013 12:14:27 GMT -8
Tales about the golden times of yore are usually bs, no matter the subject. Imho roleplaying games just got more complicated because they came from wargames and I seriously doubt the roleplaying was that amazing. Decades of rp practice can't have made people's roleplaying any worse, to put it bluntly. Of course, the overwhelming growth of non-combat D&D/PF rules support the "great roleplaying" claim, because that's what people were so interested in that they needed more rules for it... oh wait. Back to wargame roots: It's a natural tendency to mechanicize as many aspects of the game as possible if you look at roleplaying in that way. Your mention of disarm rules is a great example for that, in some ways. If you have rules for combat, why not make them a little more detailed and have special disarm rules? There's no good reason not to have them, except if that's not what the game is about. Having to fall back on good disarm rules also presupposes that the Gm works against you and you need a rule to defend yourself with, which is never the case in Apocalypse World, if the GM follows the MC Agendas and Principles. Both as player and as GM you simply need a different mindset for a game of AW than for a game of Pathfinder. You wouldn't behave the same way if you picked up and used two different tools (say hammer and screwdriver) either. And yes, the analogy carries insofar as AW stops working properly if you use it in the wrong way. It's also useful because it's not judgmental. As much as I like to make good-natured fun of D&D, you simply use screwdriver and hammer on different occasions for different tasks, doesn't mean one is inherently better than the other. History will in all likelihood not sit in judgment over the big screwdriver/hammer controversy and I honestly wish it would go away.
|
|
|
Post by SavageCheerleader on Dec 23, 2013 9:21:41 GMT -8
Tales about the golden times of yore are usually bs, no matter the subject. Imho roleplaying games just got more complicated because they came from wargames and I seriously doubt the roleplaying was that amazing. Decades of rp practice can't have made people's roleplaying any worse, to put it bluntly. Of course, the overwhelming growth of non-combat D&D/PF rules support the "great roleplaying" claim, because that's what people were so interested in that they needed more rules for it... oh wait. Back to wargame roots: It's a natural tendency to mechanicize as many aspects of the game as possible if you look at roleplaying in that way. Your mention of disarm rules is a great example for that, in some ways. If you have rules for combat, why not make them a little more detailed and have special disarm rules? There's no good reason not to have them, except if that's not what the game is about. Having to fall back on good disarm rules also presupposes that the Gm works against you and you need a rule to defend yourself with, which is never the case in Apocalypse World, if the GM follows the MC Agendas and Principles. Both as player and as GM you simply need a different mindset for a game of AW than for a game of Pathfinder. You wouldn't behave the same way if you picked up and used two different tools (say hammer and screwdriver) either. And yes, the analogy carries insofar as AW stops working properly if you use it in the wrong way. It's also useful because it's not judgmental. As much as I like to make good-natured fun of D&D, you simply use screwdriver and hammer on different occasions for different tasks, doesn't mean one is inherently better than the other. History will in all likelihood not sit in judgment over the big screwdriver/hammer controversy and I honestly wish it would go away. That is all bullshit, no winky face to pretend to be kidding. Roleplaying was absolutely a thing back in the day, it was not recently discovered. The reason the game rules, D&D and others, became so obtuse is because of the designers getting tired of answering the same fucking questions over and over; "let's say i want to charge an enemy and hit him with my shield or push him/knock him down...how can I has this?" The answer is an obvious, how ever the fuck it makes sense and is easy. But no...eveyrone demands a goddamn official ruling instead of just making the call on the spot, DM or player, and running with that as a thing in their game. It is crazy, because people ignore many rules anyway. The problem comes down to trust and the lies about this mass array of adversarial DMs. If there were such huge numbers, there would be a flood of stories about them, with no end in sight. We don't have that. We have some, mostly isolated incidents. In 30+ years of gaming, I have never had a lunatic DM. Ever. The real issue is that players tend to suck just as much and want things that are insane or just waaaay the fuck out there. That is another place these crunch heavy rules come into play; protect the sanity of the game. No, you should not play the half-drow half-demoness BDSM fighter/mage/thief. No, No, No. As for the silly tool thing, which car brand is better? Which soda is better? Which pizza is better? These things all have merit, just as does which system is better. Opinions matter.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Dec 23, 2013 10:20:46 GMT -8
I find myself agreeing with both sides of this debate so I'm sure as my shit stinks after a good vindaloo that there is more common ground than is immediately apparent. We just gotta identify it. Aaron
|
|
|
Post by guitarspider on Dec 23, 2013 11:31:50 GMT -8
That is all bullshit, no winky face to pretend to be kidding. Roleplaying was absolutely a thing back in the day, it was not recently discovered. Didn't say that, or much of what you go on about. Reading helps, no bullshit. Winky face. I said I don't believe it was a golden age of roleplaying. Of course there was always roleplaying, just as there is today, just as there were always games leaning more towards the rule heavy side with little roleplaying. Still, the cases where practice makes people worse are rare indeed, so I'm fairly sure that, on average, roleplaying today is probably better than it was 30 or 40 years ago. I don't really see what's so controversial about that. It's not like that invalidates the fun you had. I was and am a terrible football (soccer) player, I had and am still having fun with it when I do play. Note, I never even said roleplaying back then was terrible. I was simply talking about relative levels. And that's pretty much what I described as the wargaming mindset, without the condescension. Better for what? That's the important question. Maybe you want to represent and a Jaguar is certainly better for that than a Volkswagen Up. Maybe you commute and need to find a parking spot in the inner city every morning, for which a Volkswagen Up is certainly better than a Jaguar. You can still argue a Rolls-Royce is better for representing than a Jaguar, but that depends on what kind of effect your representing is intended to have. So no, it really doesn't matter which car brand, soda or pizza is "better", what matters is what you want from it and which car brand, soda or pizza works best for that purpose. Of course you can say everybody should like anchovy pizza, but what would be the point of that? In the same way it's just arrogant to say Apocalypse World (substitute whatever game you like) is better than D&D. There's very few games that are actually, truly terrible. Yes, AW is a more evolved, modern design, it does all kinds of things D&D can't, I personally prefer it by far over D&D. But here's the thing: I personally prefer it, because it does certain things, like a screwdriver does certain things a hammer can't. I want screwdrivy things, so for me AW is better. For someone else? Maybe a hammer would be exactly what they need to get to what they want, so good on them for using one. I'll certainly mention screwdrivers when I think that's what they might really be after, but ultimately, who am I to decide for them? And that's why the silly tool thing is a pretty good way of looking at games, because it allows you to think about what you, personally, really want and need from a game. Instead of having to comb through countless threads on the Internet devolving into flame massacres perpetrated by nerds over which thing is definitely and for all eternity better before arming yourself for the time after you will have chosen sides. Because those "discussions" have nothing to do with any inherent value of the subject, they're about identity politics and as far as I am concerned, every roleplayer who is able to free himself of that is a net plus for the hobby.
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Dec 23, 2013 11:35:03 GMT -8
I wanna see this Mike Mearls "shitty DM" video.
|
|
|
Post by Arcona on Dec 23, 2013 12:54:46 GMT -8
Tales about the golden times of yore are usually bs, no matter the subject. Imho roleplaying games just got more complicated because they came from wargames and I seriously doubt the roleplaying was that amazing. Decades of rp practice can't have made people's roleplaying any worse, to put it bluntly. Of course, the overwhelming growth of non-combat D&D/PF rules support the "great roleplaying" claim, because that's what people were so interested in that they needed more rules for it... oh wait. Back to wargame roots: It's a natural tendency to mechanicize as many aspects of the game as possible if you look at roleplaying in that way. Your mention of disarm rules is a great example for that, in some ways. If you have rules for combat, why not make them a little more detailed and have special disarm rules? There's no good reason not to have them, except if that's not what the game is about. Having to fall back on good disarm rules also presupposes that the Gm works against you and you need a rule to defend yourself with, which is never the case in Apocalypse World, if the GM follows the MC Agendas and Principles. Both as player and as GM you simply need a different mindset for a game of AW than for a game of Pathfinder. You wouldn't behave the same way if you picked up and used two different tools (say hammer and screwdriver) either. And yes, the analogy carries insofar as AW stops working properly if you use it in the wrong way. It's also useful because it's not judgmental. As much as I like to make good-natured fun of D&D, you simply use screwdriver and hammer on different occasions for different tasks, doesn't mean one is inherently better than the other. History will in all likelihood not sit in judgment over the big screwdriver/hammer controversy and I honestly wish it would go away. That is all bullshit, no winky face to pretend to be kidding. Roleplaying was absolutely a thing back in the day, it was not recently discovered. The reason the game rules, D&D and others, became so obtuse is because of the designers getting tired of answering the same fucking questions over and over; "let's say i want to charge an enemy and hit him with my shield or push him/knock him down...how can I has this?" The answer is an obvious, how ever the fuck it makes sense and is easy. But no...eveyrone demands a goddamn official ruling instead of just making the call on the spot, DM or player, and running with that as a thing in their game. It is crazy, because people ignore many rules anyway. The problem comes down to trust and the lies about this mass array of adversarial DMs. If there were such huge numbers, there would be a flood of stories about them, with no end in sight. We don't have that. We have some, mostly isolated incidents. In 30+ years of gaming, I have never had a lunatic DM. Ever. The real issue is that players tend to suck just as much and want things that are insane or just waaaay the fuck out there. That is another place these crunch heavy rules come into play; protect the sanity of the game. No, you should not play the half-drow half-demoness BDSM fighter/mage/thief. No, No, No. As for the silly tool thing, which car brand is better? Which soda is better? Which pizza is better? These things all have merit, just as does which system is better. Opinions matter. Blah Blah Blah. Golden age my beautiful, curved buttocks. When you are 14 things seem cooler than you are older. If I ask my grandpa he will tell me 'pfff... the winters now? They are so warm I dont even put my second sweater on' or if I ask a PC gamer 'pfff games now? We used to game at the best age when solutions and walkthroughs were distributed by the initiated house by house'. If I ask a 30 year old about his youth he will say 'oh kids today, bunch of spoiled brats with their X-box and PS4 debates... we had Sega vs Nintendo... or we would play in the yard and make games out of a piece of wood and things were ideal and the coca cola tasted better and the football with a pressed down empty soda can was so much better'. If I ask my aunt she will say ' music today? This Skrillex noisemaker is such a shitty thing and all those autotuned talentless buffons. In my day we had rock and roll and oh my parents were so angry cause they couldnt understand it' ad infinitum... You are saying 'it was better then cause we had no rules and just made shit up'. Grats, you win. Why the hell didnt you make the whole thing up then? Why use AW, Gurps, D&D 0 or 1st or whatever? Just call your friends over and say 'today we are playing make belief in Tolkiens world. We will just make it up as we go along cause rules bog the damn game down. Ok so you are in a dungeon..." cause lets face it... thats what 'roleplaying' was back in the days of yore. Dungeon after Dungeon. Random room after random room, 50 random encounters per hex of travelling and responses given by the NPCs not because you thought reasonably but because you rolled 5 on the table which meant the tavern keeper was 'friendly' but the city councilman would make your life hell because you rolled 00 which meant he was 'intolerant against elves' and you had one in the party (oh and while we are at it, you elf can only ever be level 10 because....er... because.) I remember why I laughed when my bf showed me a 1st edition book and it mentions the assassin and it says if they use poison random people in the street will attack him. Random peasants... who dont know what is the difference between a long sword and a bastard sword or cant read and write but they can tell when someone used poison and are so outraged they will go against him even though he just gutted Jimmy the Smith.
|
|