D&D Subforum / Pen & Paper RPG Discussion Thread

Fourier

Pter wrote: »

Ok point taken. Apologies for the wording. I'm not trying to imply any wrongdoing or impropriety on your part.

It could equally be overt defensiveness on my part and not your fault, no worries at all Pter.

Baggly

Genuinely four didn't mean to imply any wrongdoing by yourself or anyone here. I really like the d&d sub forum and value the input of the players and GMs.

Baggly

Necro wrote:

I think the current FG charter kinda covers the D&D forum. Obviously there might be changes coming to that gauging on this discussion but a lot of the WW rules are applicable to other Play by Post RPGs too. Werewolf, by design is also a play by post RPG.

Ok let me rephrase the question. If you copied and pasted the normal fg forum in here....there wouldn't be any additions or edits you would make?

OldGoat

Pter wrote: »

... GMs are not allowed to turn away players where there is space for them in the game. The official line from boards is it is half backseat modding and half bullying.

IRL the GM is the creator of the game and if he know that a player will not suit the form of the game then that player does not get to play the game as it will inevitably make the game poorer for all to play. Shoehorning a player in that is not a good match for the game or team is inevitably going to **** up everything.
If this is Boards official policy then it's a poor policy (for this situation) and that we should see about changing it. The GM is the one tasked with making the game playable and should ultimately has say in who plays and who doesn't.

I agree that a consistently disruptive player should have their card marked by the mods so the reporting of such players is welcome but the mods should not have the right to decide who the GM puts into a game team.

Pter wrote: »

Sorry i should add; if we have golden rules or a list of rules that need to be understood, we NEED to get them into a proper charter. We dont have one for D&D. We have a welcome message and an outdated list of games.

I do agree here, the forum should have a charter. It should list out what is expected of a GM and what is expected of a player. It should note that any players leaving SHOULD notify the GM when possible and at the earliest possible time. The charter should be a simple request for for polite consideration of others involved.

Setting rules and structures (beyond the Boards specific rules) before they are required is a redundant move. The "Don't be a dick" disclaimer covers the majority of situations for a games forum featuring grown up people should be enough. Anything that it doesn't cover can be added if and when the situation arises.

Baggly

OldGoat wrote: »

IRL the GM is the creator of the game and if he know that a player will not suit the form of the game then that player does not get to play the game as it will inevitably make the game poorer for all to play. Shoehorning a player in that is not a good match for the game or team is inevitably going to **** up everything.
If this is Boards official policy then it's a poor policy (for this situation) and that we should see about changing it. The GM is the one tasked with making the game playable and should ultimately has say in who plays and who doesn't.

I agree that a consistently disruptive player should have their card marked by the mods so the reporting of such players is welcome but the mods should not have the right to decide who the GM puts into a game team.



I do agree here, the forum should have a charter. It should list out what is expected of a GM and what is expected of a player. It should note that any players leaving SHOULD notify the GM when possible and at the earliest possible time. The charter should be a simple request for for polite consideration of others involved.

Setting rules and structures (beyond the Boards specific rules) before they are required is a redundant move. The "Don't be a dick" disclaimer covers the majority of situations for a games forum featuring grown up people should be enough. Anything that it doesn't cover can be added if and when the situation arises.

On your first point; its something we are also going to discuss with the powers that be, for WW (whether we can exclude people who havent been banned for something). As things stand we cant. It may not suit D&D but then we are trying to make D&D work on boards, not make boards work for D&D.

On the second point, i have had feedback previously that the 'dont be a dick' rule is very undefined and a bad idea in and of itself. Now i dont agree, but if you are going to suggest using that as a catch all, you have to accept it will be used for a wide range of situations, even ones you wouldnt want it used for.

The point of coming up with some ground rules before they are needed is that the community here in D&D has guidelines on what is acceptable and what is not, and any new players do too.

Ill repeat, i have no issue with anyone here in D&D. BUT to have a charter with no forum specific rules to D&D is more or less what we have in place now in the welcome message we have.

Banjo

I cast Wall of Text!

As requested by mod, taking the Private message conversation to public message :

But on that last point <regarding oversight> :

No.

I can see the need to appear to be fair, but it's not supposed to be fair.

Look at the original Dungeons and Dragons. The DM in that game is specifically tasked with killing the party. He's not a referee, he's an antagonist. How do you police that?
"My GM killed my character! I spent weeks writing that character"
"What happened"
"well, it all started when we voluntarily went into this incredibly dangerous pit full of vicious monsters and deadly traps…"
The idea that a player dying is somehow NOT a foregone conclusion is crazy. The odds are against you. Survival is not assured. That's the fun of it. Risk/Reward.

More generally though, there has to be trust or the game doesn't work. The GM requires absolute power over their world, and the players need to surrender themselves to that power or find another table. The GM does a lot of stuff behind closed doors, and you need to trust that they're either doing it fairly or they're doing it unfairly but equitably against all players.

By all means have a process for dealing with players feeling aggrieved but there need to be severe limits e.g. :

Player vs Player interactions are strictly moderated by the GM
Your remit should only be to look at Player vs GM dispute. Players **** with eachother. The only game it hasn't happened in here was Vampire, because there's only one player. Exception being if the GM favours one player over the other. But….

You should not be getting involved in Player vs GM disputes until you have a full understanding of what the dispute is - that means reading the game. The whole game. It's the context against which the dispute is judged. Often perceived injustice develops over a long period of time. And in many cases you're talking about asking a GM about what's (possibly) going to happen in the future - a lot of stuff that doesn't seem fair isn't, because it's building to something.

Actually, stopping there - Reading those back, it still feels like "No" was a much better answer. You don't like your GM? You talk to your GM. If you can't reach an accord, find another table.

What's your best case outcome of involving F- or C-Mods?
You reverse a GM decision? That GM is never playing with you again. There's no trust.
Your GM's decision is upheld? You're never playing with that GM again. There's no trust.
And you do that enough, the GM is just not going to bother playing games on that site because clearly the Mods are happy to GM for them, so what's the point?

The exception might be a GM going to a Mod regarding a non-player - e.g. someone dives into a game they're not part of, but that's already accounted for in the charter - or a GM complaining about a player but again, that needs to first be a GM - Player chat to resolve. If you can't work it out with that player without shopping them in to the Mods, how are the other players supposed to trust you? And what good comes from involving the Mod? The game is already over.

In conclusion - Trying to apply some kind of oversight to D&D beyond what is already provided for in the charter, given the nature of the game, does not benefit the players, the GMs, the Mod team or Boards. I realise you need to have a process, but for christs sake don't ever use the process!

To address some of the stuff brought up last night :
I don't think you have a full understanding of what you're asking, or a plan for how to implement it. It would be my opinion that - based on observing the Brexit process - you would benefit from having both before proceeding. I appreciate you're looking for opinions here, but the buck doesn't stop with us.

You can't have it both ways.
GM acts as Moderator within the game :
If they're elevated then sure, they should be held to a higher standard just like a Mod should be held to a higher standard. But, equally due to that elevation they absolutely should have authority to run that game as they see fit, and in accordance with the player-GM pact (Trust me and let's get you killing some orcs, or **** off) as long as it's within the bounds of Boards rules and good taste, as defined by Vampire The Masquerade, 5th edition 1st printing unabridged. Matters of Boards rules and discipline are referred to Boards mods. Matters of game rules have nothing to do with the mods unless they also violate Boards rules.

GM has no more authority than any other member of Boards :
Then you have no right to oversight. Do you have oversight over the thought process that goes into other posters' posts? No you don't. What gives you the right to demand that of these members over other members? <Snip>.

The problem here is you're coming off the back of a WW issue and diving straight into this as if it's the same problem, and they're not the same. Werewolf is a round-table between all players with moderators standing behind the table to make sure rules are followed, depending on the rules ensure that events occur on time, answer questions, handle background admin and make sure the game runs smoothly. They set the rules at the start and then the players take control. The players run the game. On Day 0, there is a plan for how the game will end, and that only changes if there's an issue. You can show that plan up front to the mods. You shouldn't because they're often in the game, but you can.

An RPG is more like an interview - the GM is on one side of the table, the players are on the other. There is back and forth, and players are free to discuss things between themselves but for the most part the narrative is driven by Player - GM interaction. Where that conversation goes is dependent on what the players do when you challenge them. It constantly evolves. There may be a plan for how the game will end, but in my extremely limited experience a plan is a list of things that don't happen because your players miss all the cues and just want to murder NPCs, instead of interviewing the adorable Mitten Kitten (don't go looking for her now, I binned her dialog in a sulk).

So where a WW mod refusing to allow admittance to a single applicant is 1 person saying "I will not let you have a conversation with these other 20 people, of which I am not one" which is exclusionist and could be seen as bullying, a GM saying "I do not wish to have you in my game" is the same as one poster telling another "I am adding you to my ignore list" which is absolutely allowed under boards rules, it's built into the functionality of the site. It does not require Moderator action.

The exception to that would be if a GM were considered more than a regular user, in which case they would have moderator privileges and there is no requirement for this conversation.

And there's a further complication - Take Icons as an example : You're currently playing a very popular commercially available module for Icons, it costs $5 ($3.35 in the black Friday sale!) and I do not have the distribution rights to send you a copy.

So there you go - you want Oversight? $5 and a please will get you a download from DriveThru RPG.

Now, none of what you're reading is lifted directly from the source module in order to avoid copyright issues that might cause problems for Boards but if you think any of the "original" flesh on the Gangbusters bones is planned, well you clearly haven't read what I've been writing.

I know this idea of "Trust the GM" has you nervous, but if I can GM for you fairly, and if you could see the amount of background fudging I've tried to do…. Honestly… anyway, If we two can co-exist around a table then I'm pretty sure RPGs on Boards will be safe for the foreseeable.

So tell me - what's your vision for how the Oversight would work?
Here's what you would have had going in to "Withdrawl Symptoms" (with some information that's pertinent and thus far undisclosed in the game redacted - none of it would make a difference here though) - I think I got all the spoilers but reader be warned all the same.

the plan wrote:

OK so the basic premise is this :
Apex is gone, and underworld is emboldened. Downtown is up for grabs. There's no major power structure in downtown, it's dominated by small pockets of <REDACTED - LIVE GAME!> - but there's no cohesion and they don't really value <REDACTED>.
The crime syndicate - <REDACTED> - who predominantly run the lower island and southern mainland between them - are pushing. Their constituents have conflicting agendas - <REDACTED>
The street gangs of the Skillet have an uneasy truce - <REDACTED>


Chapter 1.
A super-powered gang from the Skillet have assaulted a bank downtown.

What do they want?
Money! It's not a well thought out plan. They're not interested in unifying to take on <REDACTED> - everyone knows that you’re really just capitulating to the new foundrymen. (the Loomies are particularly sensitive to this as the Baker Boys (are you sold on that name? It's worse than Loomies), Foundrymen and Loomies are all vaguely fire-themed gangs, and the Foundrymen arguably were stronger than the Loomies before they got swallowed up by the BBs, so there's a very real threat they'll cease to exist. So why not just take what they want instead? They're hoping to reinvest this cash into buying more of these weapons outright and securing their survival. Or so they think - their leader (candle pun, candle pun…why aren't there more words for candles?) is trying to get out of the Skillet and go legit, a big wodge of cash will help and so much the better if he's walking away from the gang scene imploding; he's happy for the deal to go south as a farewell ****-you to the NewFies and let the whole island burn.

Sista Blista and Menorah go in the basement. Blista hits the vault, Menny grabs the staff as hostages and holds them in the office on the 1st floor. Wait - how many people would work in a bank?
Menny has 2 powerglovers, 3 candlestickers and 3 shooters.
Blista has 3 powerglovers, 2 Candlestickers.
Tallowman goes in the front door. Say, 3 Powerglove goons and 3 candlestickers - to create havoc. (No hostages? What will you do with the civilians in the front-of-house? Ignore them? Have them run screaming? **** it, see what the team do and what works at the time. But Tal' doesn't want hostages, he wants panic in the streets)

Dude, that's a lot of goons.
**** you! Running tests, Indi and Plas can easily take out 6 thugs without taking a scratch on mediocre rolls. And neither of them is the main combat guy. On paper, if Shelly walks into a room, only Shelly walks out of that room alive - with Prowess 7, the goons will beat themselves up just trying to hit her (any room for a Pyramid test or rigged combined effort to make it more interesting? Skeith likes a puzzle). Fourier could come up with some interesting TK moves. So any encounter should have a minimum of 3 thugs per Hero, but this is the opener - split them into 1 Lieutenant, 6 thugs; 3 groups, 3 separate locations, any encounter is 7 vs 5, let them get used to their powers and being heroic and how the system works, then ramp it up if anyone sticks around.


Starting Positions
Indigo Spirit : Could be sent out by Hamilton. I like the idea that he's practicing slipstreaming behind trains and has the option to keep doing it or react to the bank robbery as he passes over. But now you need to think about what Hamilton wants, little rabbit.
<Pter> & <Necro> : On patrol outside - they're proper heroes. Are they *the* city's heroes now?
<sKeith> : Is he still playing?
Dirty Joe / Mooman - negotiating a bank loan on the inside.

Powers in play :
Alt Form, Transformation, Images, Dirty J's stuff are independent of environment.
Wall crawling : Banks have walls. Tick!
Danger sense : I'd say getting punched in the face by the love child of wolverine and lumiere is dangerous. Tick!
Matter Control (TK) : See what he asks for. How much stuff isn't nailed down in a bank? What can he lift?
Machine Control : Not sure this will be useful at the front door, isn't most stuff computer controlled? Vault doors would have machinery to move them - would you shield that if you knew there were supers? Flip for it. Otherwise it's what, Aircon, ATMs, doors - can you MC an Electromagnet? You can power one up, but can you power it down? Wing it!
<redacted> : I don't think you can fit that in.

And finally, once the mods have oversight, what's your plan for mod involvement in the games? You can't play a game that you have access to the GM handbook for. Will one of you police D&D and one of you police WW with the other in each case getting to play, or chop and change? How will that be managed?
I know, I know, you don't have to discuss your decisions with me, it's not my business or place to ask

But it is - If I'm a GM, I cannot accept a Forum Mod into the game if I can't reassure my players that said Mod does not have an advantage over them. It would not be fair on those other players.

My Solution
Make Fourier the mod for the D&D sub. Once Icons peters out, he's the only one GMing anyway, and it's a small community of next-to-no people so shouldn't represent anything like a workload for him to worry about.

Anyway, that's as much as I can politely say in public.

Cheers

B.

Baggly

Mod

Banjo I asked you if you would be amenable to posting that pm here for the benefit of the discussion, I didn't request you would.

Thank you for your feedback on the d&d forum oversight. That is what I am looking for.

Your feedback on moderation was not requested and does not belong here.

You have the benefit of the feedback forum for that.

I'm snipping out the parts that don't belong in this thread and asking sully and pawwed to review. I personally don't believe your conduct in that post is acceptable but I shall allow my colleagues to decide that.

Necro

I dunno, I'll stress again, I'm of the old adage - 'If it ain't broke, why fix it.'

I think this discussion is pointless tbh.

Baggly

To try and keep things on track in the meantime (because I do believe we should continue to discuss this): I'll try my best to broach the points you have raised.

That's not the last message in that conversation, so I'm not sure I can recreate our conversation, having answered the original queries and now answer everything in the 'wall of text' above, without this getting very messy.

What I will say is this, walls of text won't scare me off this topic. I genuinely believe this chat is overdue.

Banjo, and everyone really, I'm coming to you proactively to say we will probably need more oversight than we have now. And that if there isn't such, our subforum is at risk.

You can liken it to brexit all you want, but it's probably closer to the introduction of regulations to any industry.

Being very upfront and honest with you, listing out the reasons why oversight might not be possible doesn't cut muster. It doesn't answer the question I'm asking and is kicking the can down the road. I'm saying now, unregulated forums get closed down. That's what happens. I said it to you privately banjo and ive said it here as well.

If we can't find a way to regulate the subforum ourselves, how or why would boards let us keep going? As I said, it's only one bad egg that will cause a problem and the house of cards falls down for everyone else.

Four has asked me what I'm proposing and now you have too and tbh....I don't have a solution. But I know there is a problem. That's why I'm asking. If I had a solution I'd give it to ye for feedback and the implement it.

I acknowledge that WW and RPGs are fundamentally different but I'm not trying to make them the same....I'm trying to make sure they are both safe and free to continue on boards. As I said before, we need to amend RPGs to be safe on boards, not the other way around. The same checks and balances that work for ww won't work for d&d, I get that....but that doesn't mean we should abandon it. When ww started we had relatively few checks and balances as well.

With regards to me modding and playing, you have raised this before and I'll give you the same answer pawwed gave you. Forum modding and playing haven't conflicted in the past. The forum has been fine while sully and I both modded and played. The crisis in abuse of power you seem to be worrying about doesn't exist, and if you don't take my word for it, there is plenty of feedback throughout ww to back this up.

However I had been considering stepping back from RPGs after Icons finishes, so there isn't a conflict there at all.

Necro

And by that I mean, there are literally thousands of posts in the D&D forum without a single sanction. Coming up with 'what if' scenarios just feels over micro-managey to me.

Necro

Pter wrote: »

Four has asked me what I'm proposing and now you have too and tbh....I don't have a solution. But I know there is a problem. That's why I'm asking. If I had a solution I'd give it to ye for feedback and the implement it.

This is horsesh1t Pter. What problem? If you don't know the answer there likely isn't one.

Banjo

Pter wrote: »

With regards to me modding and playing, you have raised this before and I'll give you the same answer pawwed gave you. Forum modding and playing haven't conflicted in the past. The forum has been fine while sully and I both modded and played. The crisis in abuse of power you seem to be worrying about doesn't exist, and if you don't take my word for it, there is plenty of feedback throughout ww to back this up.

Read everything you posted about GMs since yesterday afternoon. Then read the paragraph above back to yourself. When you get the joke, lets all laugh together and move forward.

What if, Pter? WHAT IF?????

Baggly

Mod

Ok gents. I'm pausing this discussion regarding oversight of GMs.

Necro, please choose your words much much more carefully

Necro

I apologise for my use of the phrase 'horsesh1t.'

I still fail to see any issue at all. But I guess we're leaving it there so that's grand.

Fourier

Monster of the Week starts next Monday December 3rd at 19.00

Fourier

Anybody yet to send the rest of the character details, just send me a name for the opening post. If you want a pregen that's no problem.

Necro

Fourier wrote: »

Anybody yet to send the rest of the character details, just send me a name for the opening post. If you want a pregen that's no problem.

Cron Minus reporting for duty

I'll try and get a few posts in on my lunch today, working evening shift but don't worry about me, I'll catch up anyways so keep going

Banjo

Darren Dedicoat, present and correct.
May be in the middle of homework and dinner when this kicks off, but as long as no one minds me accidentally posting the 4 Plus tables as my contribution if I get confused, we'll be all good.

Can I ask what country this will be set in and if it's present day? Need to see a man about a motor.

Necro

Banjo wrote: »

Darren Dedicoat, present and correct.
May be in the middle of homework and dinner when this kicks off, but as long as no one minds me accidentally posting the 4 Plus tables as my contribution if I get confused, we'll be all good.

Ha, it's just letters and how they sound in our house at the moment, my guy is already great with numbers so hopefully won't be hugely difficult when they start the maths:)

Banjo

Necro wrote: »

Ha, it's just letters and how they sound in our house at the moment, my guy is already great with numbers so hopefully won't be hugely difficult when they start the maths:)

Yeah, I've got blending to do to, but I can use the letter cards and tricky words as cover while I type.
"Ten-tah-kleh?"
"You said it wrong and now your whole party is trapped in a negative energy realm!"
Maths at that stage is mostly colouring in.

Having fierce trouble convincing the elder two that tables are to be memorised to speed up the more interesting stuff down the line, no amount of going to smyths with limited cash and figuring out how to maximise it with feats of addition and subtraction is getting the message across. And my house is full of ****ing lol-surprises!

Fourier

Banjo wrote: »

Can I ask what country this will be set in and if it's present day? Need to see a man about a motor.

Stephen King-esque nowheresville America, in the Pacific NorthWest.

Nebelwerfer

"The name is Bubby Beelze, but you can call me 'Bub'".

"Dont call me Bub in a derogative manner though, as I might punch you in the throat. I'll apologize, and maybe even weep a little... not crying though, just something stuck in my eye.... DONT LOOK AT ME!!!".

Trying out character flavaahs! TTY'allL!

Fourier

Up:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=108789828

Fourier

Off for the night

Fourier

Next Monster of the Week is Thursday, hoping for 19.00

Fourier

Off for the night

Fourier

Monster of the week today at 19.00

General schedule will be Monday and Wednesday at 19.00

Evade

I won't be around this evening but should be here Wednesday.

Necro

Ha, I'm available tonight but likely will be busy Wednesday. Working so at the PC just depends how busy it is

Fourier

Off for the night