2 ms·

> like the peasant railgun Which doesn't exist in the game. When the last peasant lets go of the object, it falls to the grown on the same square as the peasan

> like the peasant railgun Which doesn't exist in the game. When the last peasant lets go of the object, it falls to the grown on the same square as the peasant. It only becomes "bullshit", when the improv player comes in and argues that because the object traveled 500-squares in less than 5-seconds, it must be going at X speed or Y momentum and carries forward. But that's just bullshit. There's nothing in 3.5 that discusses "momentum", or "acceleration". It is "It is a move action to hand an object to another player". That's the rule. People who mess with shenanigans are the problem, including peasant railgunners.

lmm 4y ago
> It only becomes "bullshit", when the improv player comes in and argues that because the object traveled 500-squares in less than 5-seconds, it must be going at X speed or Y momentum and carries forward. This is very much not an improv-player attitude IME; improv-players mostly want in-genre things to happen. When you simulate the nuts and bolts, you're more likely to attract the kind of player who sees that as an abstract puzzle to optimize and does so. (And I note you skipped the Locate City nuke, I guess because that does work in-game? Fundamentally rule-based magic systems tend to be exploitable, because if you want the kind of things that fictional magic does in-genre to be possible, you have to make your magic be able to do impossible things, but the rules that allow that will tend to allow other impossible things which are more min-maxable). > People who mess with shenanigans are the problem, including peasant railgunners. Sure. My point is that adding more detailed mechanics does nothing to deter that; quite the opposite.
- dragontamer 4y ago
  > This is very much not an improv-player attitude IME; improv-players mostly want in-genre things to happen Hardly. Everyone likes to pretend "they're just in it for the story", but in my experience, they just want to give themselves advantages in my experience. > And I note you skipped the Locate City nuke 3.5 is known to be pretty busted. I'm not aware of this sequence of events being possible in Pathfinder, which is my preferred crunch. There are certainly busted things in Pathfinder (see Summoner). But upon recognition, I talk with the player and we work something out. (see Summoner Unchained). If something is busted and truly too much for the system to handle, I stomp down as dungeon master. That's my duty above all, to ensure fairness in the game. ------- EDIT: Looking at the Locate City Nuke, it seems like the problem is solved if I just ban the Snowcasting metamagic feat from Frostburn. In general, my rule is: Do the players want me (the Dungeon Master), using the trick? If so, I use it on them. If not, then its banned. Generally speaking, I, as the dungeon master, can take advantage of these things far more than they can. So its in their best interests to keep the shenanigans in check. --------- Honestly, the "Locate City Nuke" sounds like a fun adventure setting, now that I read up on it. Its a complicated set of 7 metamagics applied to one level 1 spell The players, unlikely would be using this tactic, because its an evil action (indiscriminate killing). If this were "crunchier", and closer to level 5 or 4 spell, yeah, that's a problem. But with this much metamagic needed to make Locate City into an actual problem (plus the need for a very specific Sorcerer / class build to serve as "The Ritual focus"), "Locate City Nuke" follows the pattern of Magical McGuffin (Wizard tries to steal a Princess/Sorceror named Elsa, who has innate connection to Ice Magic) who then stacks 7x kinds of Metamagic to build a particular spell into devestating power. Alternatively, I patch "Locate City" so that it has no "Area" but only a "Range". Dungeon Masters are allowed to patch spells after all.
  - lmm 4y ago
    > Hardly. Everyone likes to pretend "they're just in it for the story", but in my experience, they just want to give themselves advantages in my experience. Meh, at some point the only solution is "get better players". I've had if anything the opposite problem, with players who enjoy doing a dramatic death scene so much that they'd rush to these moments of sacrifice and loss even when they weren't really necessary. Improv-oriented players as I know them enjoy telling a story and are there for that; the problem you get is every player trying to hog the narrative spotlight (often with their moments of tragic suffering) rather than every player trying to be more powerful than the others.

lmm 4y ago

> It only becomes "bullshit", when the improv player comes in and argues that because the object traveled 500-squares in less than 5-seconds, it must be going at X speed or Y momentum and carries forward. This is very much not an improv-player attitude IME; improv-players mostly want in-genre things to happen. When you simulate the nuts and bolts, you're more likely to attract the kind of player who sees that as an abstract puzzle to optimize and does so. (And I note you skipped the Locate City nuke, I guess because that does work in-game? Fundamentally rule-based magic systems tend to be exploitable, because if you want the kind of things that fictional magic does in-genre to be possible, you have to make your magic be able to do impossible things, but the rules that allow that will tend to allow other impossible things which are more min-maxable). > People who mess with shenanigans are the problem, including peasant railgunners. Sure. My point is that adding more detailed mechanics does nothing to deter that; quite the opposite.

dragontamer 4y ago
> This is very much not an improv-player attitude IME; improv-players mostly want in-genre things to happen Hardly. Everyone likes to pretend "they're just in it for the story", but in my experience, they just want to give themselves advantages in my experience. > And I note you skipped the Locate City nuke 3.5 is known to be pretty busted. I'm not aware of this sequence of events being possible in Pathfinder, which is my preferred crunch. There are certainly busted things in Pathfinder (see Summoner). But upon recognition, I talk with the player and we work something out. (see Summoner Unchained). If something is busted and truly too much for the system to handle, I stomp down as dungeon master. That's my duty above all, to ensure fairness in the game. ------- EDIT: Looking at the Locate City Nuke, it seems like the problem is solved if I just ban the Snowcasting metamagic feat from Frostburn. In general, my rule is: Do the players want me (the Dungeon Master), using the trick? If so, I use it on them. If not, then its banned. Generally speaking, I, as the dungeon master, can take advantage of these things far more than they can. So its in their best interests to keep the shenanigans in check. --------- Honestly, the "Locate City Nuke" sounds like a fun adventure setting, now that I read up on it. Its a complicated set of 7 metamagics applied to one level 1 spell The players, unlikely would be using this tactic, because its an evil action (indiscriminate killing). If this were "crunchier", and closer to level 5 or 4 spell, yeah, that's a problem. But with this much metamagic needed to make Locate City into an actual problem (plus the need for a very specific Sorcerer / class build to serve as "The Ritual focus"), "Locate City Nuke" follows the pattern of Magical McGuffin (Wizard tries to steal a Princess/Sorceror named Elsa, who has innate connection to Ice Magic) who then stacks 7x kinds of Metamagic to build a particular spell into devestating power. Alternatively, I patch "Locate City" so that it has no "Area" but only a "Range". Dungeon Masters are allowed to patch spells after all.
- lmm 4y ago
  > Hardly. Everyone likes to pretend "they're just in it for the story", but in my experience, they just want to give themselves advantages in my experience. Meh, at some point the only solution is "get better players". I've had if anything the opposite problem, with players who enjoy doing a dramatic death scene so much that they'd rush to these moments of sacrifice and loss even when they weren't really necessary. Improv-oriented players as I know them enjoy telling a story and are there for that; the problem you get is every player trying to hog the narrative spotlight (often with their moments of tragic suffering) rather than every player trying to be more powerful than the others.