Jump to content

Missing Arm as a DF not Physical Complication


mallet

Recommended Posts

I think it's fine, as long as it falls within the boundaries of the genre.

 

I've played in fantasy games that were basically "medieval Europe with this small handful of changes".  The GM would be a stickler for what he considered "realism" and something like this would never fly there.  That's okay, not everybody wants their orcs to have anime hair.  More cinematic/fantastical games would suit it just fine.

 

Think about this -- how far can a ninja jump in this campaign?  What would you accept?  If a ninja is just a guy who is sneaky and stabs people in the dark, then one-armed guy is inappropriate.  If a ninja can leap from rooftop to rooftop, bouncing around with 30 foot jumps, then one-armed guy is no less realistic.

 

I'd imagine that one-armed guy fights with sword and shield by wearing his shield on his back, and just maneuvers so that he spins around to defend against any blow normally "blocked" by the shield.  Two weapon fighting, maybe he holds one blade in his mouth, or both weapons in one hand (sword and dagger), or maybe he kind of juggles them as he fights, so he's only got one weapon in hand at a time.  These could all look really cool, visually, if they were in a movie or a cartoon or something.  You'd be like "wow, that guy's awesome."  And it's not appropriate for a more realistic game, so maybe the answer is "not in this particular campaign".  But if other exotic feats are allowed, this should be fine too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Christopher said:

As  a Programmer I know of hte danger of trying to compare anything with nothing. So Invalid Operation :)

 

can't be the only one who sees the parallel here.  However, it's unimportant, and off topic.  As I said, it was more rhetorical than anything else

 

47 minutes ago, Christopher said:

I am unsure what the exact rule is, but would htat not just mean he would default for the Torso on all "arm hits"?

 

Yes it would. 

 

That was just a joke. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

First off, I think we agree the PCs are more important than the NPCs.  Sure, PCs can compromise the game experience.  As Duke points out above, this player is not really asking for anything that compromises the game experience. 

 

I think the "importance" of the PCs over the NPCs is a somewhat philosophical issue. The NPCs are run by another player (despite the "Non-" prefix), and I don't see why one player should get more accommodation in the game than any other. I mean, the GM is supposed to have fun too, and that includes playing his NPCs and managing an internally-consistent game world. If you said that this issue is group/campaign-dependent I would agree with you. I don't think there is any single perspective on this that applies to tabletop roleplaying as a whole though.

 

And Duke's player is not really asking for anything that compromises the game experience until it does. The moment the character is required, according to a crucial cultural tradition in the game world, to shake the hand of an important foreign dignitary with an arm he doesn't possess, and the GM is expected to just sweep it under the rug because the complications that might arise from this are inconvenient or "not heroic" is the moment the internal reality of the game world is compromised and the game experience along with it. Players don't get to dictate the axioms of the game world by how they spend their points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, zslane said:

 

etc etc

 

Players don't get to dictate the axioms of the game world by how they spend their points.

 

I have to disagree to a point. The player isn't telling the GM how to run his world, he's asking for an interesting take on his character. If a GM allows a character that changes the GM's world, then it's the GMs fault. If the GM allows it, that means it fits within the world envisioned (or should), and if not, a different character concept should be tried. The same thing could be said for a superhero world. The GM and the players are to having a game to have fun: both need to work together for everyone to have fun. The GM is the final say-so on a new power/skill/whatever and if approved, good. If said approval causes problems, it's really the GM's responsibility now to work with the player and say 'why' it's causing a problem and offer alternatives. This way, it doesn't come off as a tight-fisted GM call.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, zslane said:

I think the "importance" of the PCs over the NPCs is a somewhat philosophical issue. The NPCs are run by another player (despite the "Non-" prefix), and I don't see why one player should get more accommodation in the game than any other. I mean, the GM is supposed to have fun too, and that includes playing his NPCs and managing an internally-consistent game world.

There is a alterantive interpretation for NPC. The guys making Age of Wonders Planetfall called various Minor Factions "NPC" Factions.

That does not make sense, as most factions were computer controlled and thus "non player" either.

 

Unless you interpret it as "Non Primary Combatant".

I guess in the same way, "Non Primary Character" would fit for a classic RPG setting.

Fun with Backronyms. Sheldon Cooper should make a youtube series about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, zslane said:

And Duke's player is not really asking for anything that compromises the game experience until it does.

 

Just wanted to point out, it's not Duke's player.  Mallet was the OP on this thread, it's his player.

 

As to the original question, I lean toward those who say that it's a cool idea and the GM should allow it with out requiring a Physical Complication.  As a GM I'd suggest the player share some creative descriptions of how he does things that normally require two hands (e.g. swinging his sword to battle a foe while hanging from a rope), not to penalize him but to illustrate how this character overcomes his handicap with panache.  ("Gripping the rope with my feet and teeth, I slash at the flying foe while cursing him - though of course he can't understand what I'm saying because, y'know, mouth full of rope.") 

 

I'd also point out to the player that not taking a physical complication doesn't mean that he automatically avoids things like potential penalties for using a 2-handed weapon one-handed.  If he doesn't have adequately high STR, he takes a minus to hit. 

 

Oh, and as to bows and arrows...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/12/2018 at 1:58 PM, mallet said:

But, here is the thing, how does something like this situation apply when dealing with things like 1 1/2 or 2-handed weapons, Grabs, etc... things in the rules that specifically mention needing or using two hands or suffering penalties? In those situations it is basically either assuming the character is choosing to use one hand or has the Physical Complication preventing him from doing so, neither is the case in this situation. Again, if he doesn't get the points from the Complication, then he shouldn't suffer the penalties, but...

 

It's not always a choice or a physical complication driving that, however.  For example, a person might have taken a disabling blow to one arm, forcing him to wield his 1 1/2-handed weapon in one hand.  As I say above, not getting points from a Physical Complication doesn't make him immune to potential penalties that his teammates might face if circumstances put them into a similar situation, albeit temporarily.  After all, they didn't get points for being in that situation that forced them to fight one-handed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, zslane said:

 

I think the "importance" of the PCs over the NPCs is a somewhat philosophical issue. The NPCs are run by another player (despite the "Non-" prefix), and I don't see why one player should get more accommodation in the game than any other.

 

The character in question (not my player; I just highly endorse the idea) is only getting "more accommodation" if the GM is unwilling to do similar "not changes" for anyone else, himself included.  If he is willing to let the one-armed man not be handicapped but unwilling to let the one-eyed pirate judge distance, then yes: that player is getting more accommodation.  If he is willing to let the one-armed man not be handicapped but unwilling to let the half-orc be unrepugnant, then yes, again: that player is getting more accommodation.  

 

However, if he is willing to let the dwarf keep pace on forced marches, but _not_ willing to let the one-armed man be unhandicapped, then that player is receiving _less_ accommodation.  Honestly, if he is willing to let the majority of dwarves not suffer various spinal defects and limb deformities (i.e., not be handicapped) but not willing to let the one-armed man not be handicapped, that character is, again, receiving _less_ accommodation.   

 

Looking back, that last example isn't terribly valid, given that fantasy dwarves are not human dwarves.  They are, however, still monstrously short-legged.  However, if he will allow a short ugly elf-- maybe even a hairy one-- but not the one-armed guy, again: less accommodation for something that has absolutely no game effect.  That's not terribly hard to say, simply because if he has no physical limitation, the missing limb has no game effect.

 

At the end of the day, though, the distribution, and therefore the equality, of accommodation is entirely in the hands of the GM.  What equally-fair penalties will be forced upon the other players as penalty for their concept?  None, because they are not handicapped?  That doesn't work, because this guy is missing an arm.  He is _not_ handicapped.  The problem is the perception that he _must_ be handicapped.  Why?  Because someone else want's him to be?  Why?  Maybe because the person judging him thinks "well if I were missing an arm, _I_ would be handicapped.  Maybe you would; maybe you wouldn't.  There's a sure-fire way to find out, but I will _not_ recommend it.  The fact of the matter is that his character is better than you.  And why not?  All my characters are better than me.  I'm a beyond-middle aged guy with a bad heart who has twice as many years behind him as he has in front.  Why the hell would I want to play that?  I live it.  I want my characters to be strong, powerful, and able to overcome any adversity, even if it takes time.  So does this player, apparently: he's conceived him as already having overcome what a lot of us would consider to be a pretty big one.

 

The problem, I believe, is this habit that every atom of a fictional universe must somehow be constructed in HERO terms, even when it's just not necessary.  If you're playing a game set in the 1600s, you really _don't_ need to stat out the effects of the thin atmosphere on top of Mt Everest because no one went there.  You don't need to stat out the extreme effects of being in Death Valley when the party is wandering around Western Europe, either.  But for some folks, if you didn't build the entire world, you don't have a _real_ campaign.

 

The nasty side-effect to this is that you _will_ stat out everything that _is_ in your little area of adventure.  It becomes a reflex.  And problematically, it tends to be done exclusively "the way that's right to me."  There is no room for actually _evaluating the need_ to do so: it is something that _can_ be built a certain way, and therefore _must_ be built a certain way.

 

So even before wondering just which hoops are going to be set on fire before making your players jump through them, I think it might be best to step back, and really think long and hard about what effect this _will actually have_ on the game.  How is the game lessened, damaged, or broken because one stalwart adventurer didn't let a horrible twist of fate get him down?

 

Let's be honest:  in the era most fantasy settings are roughly analogous to, we wouldn't be worried about if he should be forced to take a ten or five point disadvantage: we'd shun him like a leper and leave him and his begging bowl sitting on a foul scrap of cloth outside a city gate or on the path to a temple, and never think of him again.  But we've decided to ignore _that_ little bit of _actual_ reality, and are arguing about how much someone else's _perceived_ reality should override the player's desire.

 

 

 

5 hours ago, zslane said:

 

I mean, the GM is supposed to have fun too, and that includes playing his NPCs and managing an internally-consistent game world. 

 

I agree.  But I don't see anything about this character that would reduce anyone else's fun.  He is not asking for any special favors.  He's asking for a character who (as far as we know) in all other ways meets the criteria for the game at hand, but doesn't want to be additionally penalized for taking a distinctive features limitation.

 

How about if he doesn't take the limitation?  How about if we go all 5e on this thing and decide that you simply _state_ "my character is big" or "my character floats two inches above the ground at all times and can't turn it off" or "my character is missing an arm" but don't do anything, plus or minus, with points?  Two of those work and one doesn't?  There are accommodation issues afoot.

 

How about "distinctive features: _appears_ to be missing an arm"?  That would probably fly with the folks against the character.  Then the questions: So, Johnny, why does your guy look like he's missing an arm?

Because he is.

 

Then it's not okay again.  

 

5 hours ago, zslane said:

 

And Duke's player is not really asking for anything that compromises the game experience until it does. The moment the character is required, according to a crucial cultural tradition in the game world, to shake the hand of an important foreign dignitary with an arm he doesn't possess, and the GM is expected to just sweep it under the rug because the complications that might arise from this are inconvenient or "not heroic" is the moment the internal reality of the game world is compromised and the game experience along with it.

 

Not my player.  To be assured, I understand it's an easy mistake, because I'm championing him heavily, mostly because I think it's an _awesome_ idea, and I think that forcing a penalty on someone do to a narrow-sighted inability to see beyond "if it was me, it would be limiting" is taking from everyone else in the game, the GM included, what seems to be a really inspired player.  Beat him down with the rest of old hands, I suppose. Might as well get that over with.

 

Though I do have one _major_ quibble with your what you point out as incredibly crucial:

 

When I met Senator Daniel Inouye in 1986, I shook his hand.  Just like anyone would, what with him being a de-facto "head of state," in a manner of speaking.  Lots of us did.

 

His left one.  I don't know if you call that sweeping it under the rug of what-have-you, but we weren't angered, upset, or horrified.  We were damned honored.  That man was amazing.  And very humble.  You don't expect that from a politician.  It didn't break anyone's world.  It _did_ upset dinner, but I think that's mostly because of the standing ovation.

 

5 hours ago, zslane said:

 

 

Players don't get to dictate the axioms of the game world by how they spend their points.

 

But GMs get to walk through it and say "Nope.  You're a gimp. Deal with it.  You, too.  Frankly, I think you're character should sweat too much and smell bad like _all_ the time.  What do you mean why?  Because I can't see it any other way, that's why!"?  No room for negotiation?  No room for "hear me out: this is what I envisioned.'

 

So what was all that talk about accommodation that opened this conversation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/12/2018 at 10:23 PM, dmjalund said:

1) his armor has a torch holder

2) large hook on his armor to carry loot

3) practise

4) special boots

 

 

The premise of the character is that he learned to cope, not that he's spent his money on special gear to compensate for his handicap.

 

If he wants to sink his time and money into finding someone to design special gear like sacks with an eyehook so that they can be dangled from his armor without tearing and pay for the sacks, I've got no problem with that. But then he's going to have to find an armorer, who can design and build a special suit of armor then pay for that. Then he's going to have to find a cobbler to design and build special boots.

 

And every time he changes cities and gets some of his equipment damaged, he'll have to do the same thing all over again.

 

And of course your torch idea is stupid because he couldn't move the torch up and down without raising and lowering his whole body. And heaven help him if the ceilings are low or flammable.

 

and shame on you for poking fun at the disabled

 

I very much did not appreciate this statement  (and that's the understatement of the century), mainly because I was specifically talking about one of my players rather than a handicapped person.

 

The forum rules do not allow me to express myself in the manner which your statement has earned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, there is a lot of talk about the things that the character would not be able to do so well.  All of that following the line that he is disabled (he only has one arm).  In pure game terms, the character is not disabled - there is nothing in the rules that indicate a disability (like a physical limitation would).  

 

I think that the player and GM will sit down and think about things in advance.  I do not think that the character should be specifically disadvantaged in doing things.  I would say that issues, like using a two handed sword, are things the player needs to think about.  I would say that trying to use a two handed sword one handed does have penalties unless you have the necessary strength.  But for those places where there are disadvantages there should also be advantages, such as not being able to be handcuffed etc brought to attention. 

 

There would be advantages in people underestimating him, believing the lack of an arm would make him less able in many ways.  I would not restrict most skills like I would if the Physical limitation was made and I would not poke fun at the character - indeed there should be an element of praise for doing things that most people use two hands/arms for.  People in-game should find it extraordinary what the character is able to do (that is what the DF does - it draws attention to him, even when he is doing mundane things - folk will not forget the one-armed man).

 

I find it slightly amazing that people that have been playing this game for so long might find it difficult to separate special effects from game effects...

 

Doc

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, massey said:

I think it's fine, as long as it falls within the boundaries of the genre.

 

I'd imagine that one-armed guy fights with sword and shield by wearing his shield on his back, and just maneuvers so that he spins around to defend against any blow normally "blocked" by the shield.  Two weapon fighting, maybe he holds one blade in his mouth, or both weapons in one hand (sword and dagger), or maybe he kind of juggles them as he fights, so he's only got one weapon in hand at a time.  These could all look really cool, visually, if they were in a movie or a cartoon or something.  You'd be like "wow, that guy's awesome."  And it's not appropriate for a more realistic game, so maybe the answer is "not in this particular campaign".  But if other exotic feats are allowed, this should be fine too.

 

This is key, IMO.  See elaboration below.

 

18 hours ago, zslane said:

 

I think the "importance" of the PCs over the NPCs is a somewhat philosophical issue. The NPCs are run by another player (despite the "Non-" prefix), and I don't see why one player should get more accommodation in the game than any other. I mean, the GM is supposed to have fun too, and that includes playing his NPCs and managing an internally-consistent game world. If you said that this issue is group/campaign-dependent I would agree with you. I don't think there is any single perspective on this that applies to tabletop roleplaying as a whole though.

 

The GM is not in the same role as a player.  The player gets one character, where the GM gets thousands.   There are games where the players' role is to watch as the GM weaves the story of his world through his characters.  Those are not, in my mind, RPGs.  They are GM storytellling, just like a player writing a story about his character is writing fan fiction, not engaging in the game.

 

11 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

But I don't see anything about this character that would reduce anyone else's fun.  He is not asking for any special favors.  He's asking for a character who (as far as we know) in all other ways meets the criteria for the game at hand, but doesn't want to be additionally penalized for taking a distinctive features limitation.

 

But GMs get to walk through it and say "Nope.  You're a gimp. Deal with it.  You, too.  Frankly, I think you're character should sweat too much and smell bad like _all_ the time.  What do you mean why?  Because I can't see it any other way, that's why!"?  No room for negotiation?  No room for "hear me out: this is what I envisioned.'

 

So what was all that talk about accommodation that opened this conversation?

 

Edited down to what I wanted to highlight.  The GM decides unilaterally what accommodations his NPCs will get.  What, specifically, is offensive to the game, ruining everyone else's fun, about this character?  The GM is in the most powerful position to ruin evewryone's fun - taking over their characters and overriding their vision with his vision is. in my opinion and experience, a terrific way to do this.

 

I'll come back to the "only looks like he is missing an arm" question below,

 

10 hours ago, Christopher said:

There is a huge difference between Target Shooting and Combat Shooting.

And at least in my opinion, most RPG characters tend towards the later :D

 

There is a huge difference between the real world, the cinematic world and a fantasy world.  Which type of world is the game set in?  I could certainly see a fantasy genre novel or movie using that one armed archery technique.  The promise of Hero is that you can build and play any character you can imagine, not limited to any character you can find in the real world.

 

2 hours ago, archer said:

The premise of the character is that he learned to cope, not that he's spent his money on special gear to compensate for his handicap.

 

If he wants to sink his time and money into finding someone to design special gear like sacks with an eyehook so that they can be dangled from his armor without tearing and pay for the sacks, I've got no problem with that. But then he's going to have to find an armorer, who can design and build a special suit of armor then pay for that. Then he's going to have to find a cobbler to design and build special boots.

 

And every time he changes cities and gets some of his equipment damaged, he'll have to do the same thing all over again.

 

And of course your torch idea is stupid because he couldn't move the torch up and down without raising and lowering his whole body. And heaven help him if the ceilings are low or flammable.

 

First off, the premise of the character is defined by the player, not someone else.  Your premise is no more or less valid than that of the poster who suggested special equipment.  In my view, if the p;ayer's explanation is "special equipment", then he can tell me how he gets that equipment.  Maybe he makes it himself.  Maybe he just has a knack for finding skilled crafters.  If he paid for equipment, he would be able to easily replace that equipment, even where other characters can't.  Here, he has "paid" for the equipment by NOT taking a limitation that says he will routinely be disadvantaged by its absence.

 

1 hour ago, Doc Democracy said:

You know, there is a lot of talk about the things that the character would not be able to do so well.  All of that following the line that he is disabled (he only has one arm).  In pure game terms, the character is not disabled - there is nothing in the rules that indicate a disability (like a physical limitation would). 

 

I find it slightly amazing that people that have been playing this game for so long might find it difficult to separate special effects from game effects...

 

Again, edited down for the points I want to highlight.  My first choice is "make the player's vision work in-game".  If that is not possible given setting, tone, genre, etc., my next choice is discuss with the player, set the mechanics required for this game or he can select a different character and shelve this one for a more appropriate game.  Not allowing him the in-game benefits of his mechanical design throws the rules out.  That's a choice I could not accept.  Enforcing the Phys Lim of only having one arm, without awarding the attendant points, would be no more acceptable than the player taking that complication, then trying to explain his way out of every issue it could create in-game to get the points without the complications.

 

Now, let's talk about "realism".  This is a fantasy game, right?  So what if the player instead wanted:

 

 - a character like Duke suggested, who only looks like he has one arm - a powerful illusion has been crafted which is neither detectable nor capable of being dispelled (until/unless he buys off the DF or gets Transformed)?

 

 - a character who lost his arm in the war, only to have it:

   magically replaced by a sea wizard with an octopus tentacle, with the full functionality (no more, no less) of his old arm;

   magically replaced by a necromancer with the skeletal form of his old arm, with the full functionality (no more, no less) of his old arm;

   replaced by a steampunk-style prosthetic, so firmly attached as to be unremoveable, with the full functionality (no more, no less) of his old arm;

   replaced by a clay version covered in mysical sigils, to the same effect as the steampunk arm;

   magically replaced by a replica, with the full functionality (no more, no less) of his old arm, which is completely invisible and undetectable;

   magically regrown by a healing priest, with the full functionality (no more, no less) of his old arm?

 

Which of these would be so unrealistic as to be unacceptable in a fantasy game?  Which is more or less realistic than this warrior, by sheer grit, determination and personal ingenuity, has overcome the disability of losing an arm, and is as fully functional as someone who has never faced the same adversity he has?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

I’ve noticed several people are stating that it’s “the GM’s World”. I believe in “it’s the groups world”, the GM is just a judge. There is a difference there. 

 

11 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Well, he's more than a judge, but you are absolutely right: the game belongs to _everyone_ involved.

The GM is about as much "just a player" as the guy giving the presentation is "just a person in the meeting".*

Worldbuilding or World-representation is a integral part of the job. As such the GM can not allow characters that fly against it.

*Both are btw. jobs I am abymal at!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The GM does, generally, create the world - though IMO a GM should listen to the players and may make changes based on their input. 

 

For example, I've mentioned before that I ask my players to provide a brief (at least 1-2 paragraphs) background of their characters.  (Some players really get into this, providing me with multipage histories of their characters.)  One character's background mentioned:  "Dad is a member of the Boston Area Mage Association, or BAMA, which is a branch of the International Mage Association."  Now, I wasn't planning on having magic users organized like an electrician's union or a gaggle of lawyers, but I didn't really have any objections to that either.  So BAMA and IMA are now part of my game world. 

 

And yes, if what a player wants conflicts with what the GM created, he can disallow the player's wishes.**  In a perfect world, this sort of thing would be discussed by the GM and player(s) and worked out to everyone's satisfaction.  I realize that doesn't always happen - some GMs or players try to run roughshod over their opposite numbers.  But I suspect from the OP that is likely not the case here, and I'm confident Mallet is going to iron out all the minor wrinkles with his player.

 

** For instance, if the GM says that his world's history is the same as ours up until 2016, at which point people started popping up with superpowers (and the source of those powers being an ongoing mystery for the players to eventually solve), he's perfectly fine to toss aside a player's decision that his PC hero is a seventh-generation Superman type, with his ancestors flying around in a red-and-blue outfit and cape since the Civil War.

 

Edited to add:  To clarify, Christopher, I was speaking generally, not directing the above at your post.  When I read yours, then mine, I worried that you might think my post was directed specifically at you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BoloOfEarth said:

The GM does, generally, create the world - though IMO a GM should listen to the players and may make changes based on their input. 

 

For example, I've mentioned before that I ask my players to provide a brief (at least 1-2 paragraphs) background of their characters.  (Some players really get into this, providing me with multipage histories of their characters.)  One character's background mentioned:  "Dad is a member of the Boston Area Mage Association, or BAMA, which is a branch of the International Mage Association."  Now, I wasn't planning on having magic users organized like an electrician's union or a gaggle of lawyers, but I didn't really have any objections to that either.  So BAMA and IMA are now part of my game world. 

 

And yes, if what a player wants conflicts with what the GM created, he can disallow the player's wishes.**  In a perfect world, this sort of thing would be discussed by the GM and player(s) and worked out to everyone's satisfaction.  I realize that doesn't always happen - some GMs or players try to run roughshod over their opposite numbers.  But I suspect from the OP that is likely not the case here, and I'm confident Mallet is going to iron out all the minor wrinkles with his player.

 

** For instance, if the GM says that his world's history is the same as ours up until 2016, at which point people started popping up with superpowers (and the source of those powers being an ongoing mystery for the players to eventually solve), he's perfectly fine to toss aside a player's decision that his PC hero is a seventh-generation Superman type, with his ancestors flying around in a red-and-blue outfit and cape since the Civil War.

 

Edited to add:  To clarify, Christopher, I was speaking generally, not directing the above at your post.  When I read yours, then mine, I worried that you might think my post was directed specifically at you.

 

I agree.  If somebody wants to play Batman, except he's angry because orcs killed his parents, and so he patrols the streets of Gotham fighting orcs, then... umm... what?  You're doing what now, Batman?

 

"Orcs killed my parents, so I'm hunting them down."

"There are no orcs in Gotham, Batman.  This is not a fantasy world."

 

Now maybe the idea sounds awesome, and everybody decides that orcs in Gotham are totally a thing now.  No problem.  But we all have the right to walk away from the gaming table.  Nobody can force you to play in a campaign that sounds stupid.  If the GM says "no, this is lame.  It's not what I want to run, I'm not running that game" then that's his right.  We do this for fun, and if one person is being unreasonable about it and ruining other people's fun, that's something that needs to be discussed among the people at the table.  Sometimes that's a player who is ruining the fun, sometimes it's the GM.

 

For most fantasy games, I don't think the one-armed man is any more unrealistic than the blind ninja.  I'm reminded of a character in Street Fighter 3 who only had one arm, and it doesn't affect him because "he's that damn good".  It sounds like the player wants it to be purely cosmetic, like Nick Fury's eyepatch.  Now, maybe that ruins the game for some people, but I don't really see it being a problem in most campaigns.  An ultra-gritty game?  Probably not appropriate.  But fantasy?  I don't see an issue.  For me anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bright was okay.  Worth an hour and a half, I think.  But yeah, if you're okay with a little bit of Bright existing in your superhero world, that's fine.  But the guy who wants a straight up 1940s Golden Age game won't be happy.  Every campaign ends up a mixture of styles, that's part of what makes them unique.

 

Of course now I'm thinking of a 1940s orc detective in a trenchoat with a fedora and a bottle of Jack Daniels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Scott Ruggels said:

 No, the orcs are in Los Angeles, see: Bright on Netflix  (or don't, it wasn't that good).

 

Based on the behavior of the locals, I'd say they dominate Philadelphia.

On the point that he can't use 2-handed weapons...eek.  If this is fantasy, and he's not a magical/psi type, then there's a problem because almost all long-range weapons require 2 hands.  Melee options are only subpar in theory...he can say he's incredibly skilled with single-handed fencing, tho, so he does damage equivalent to a 2-hander.

 

Sure, there's lots of things he can't do...but he'll be picking and choosing what his character does, so he won't pick things where only one hand would be a big drawback.  Sure, he's putting a filter on *where* he can spend his points...but that doesn't necessarily mean he's any less effective, unless the GM has genre-related limitations as noted above.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Well, he's more than a judge, but you are absolutely right: the game belongs to _everyone_ involved.

 

I guess I'm not sure what is meant by "belongs to" in this context. I mean, in a conventional RPG, the players do not really have equal authorship of the game world and its axioms (only partial authorship of the events that occur during play), particularly given the fact that they will usually leave it up to the GM to do all the work of creating the world and its history, populating it with adversaries, and coming up with all the dramatic plotlines (or equivalently, do all the work of reading up on a pre-written campaign setting and the adventures they are going to experience). Sure, there are times when the GM uses the backstories of the PCs to help fill in gaps here and there in his game world--and will collaborate with the players accordingly--but that is a very limited form of player authorship which ultimately becomes "owned" by the GM the moment it is integrated into the game world. And given that the GM is ultimately the sole interface to all events and activities in the game, I'm not quite sure where we can meaningfully draw the boundaries of "belongs to" in a table-top RPG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...