Jump to content

Slendertroll

Bones Supporter
  • Posts

    3650
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Slendertroll

  1.  

    I'm going to go against the flow and suggest "no."

     

    The main reason for this is as follows:  The only reason this door exists is to mess with the players.  Not the characters.  Frustrating the players should not be your job.  The only benefit that comes out of it is that the DM gets to show that he's in charge of the world.

     

    Now, I do like the idea of an NPC sentient door.  The ideas following it (can turn up anywhere there is a door, can change the room beyond) seem overpowered and obnoxious.

    See, I don't agree with this.

     

    Firstly, literature is rife with characters that are there to mess with the protagonists. Such characters are a known trope. Somebody mentioned "Q". Perfect example. This is not a default adversarial position the GM is taking. He is not badgering players by default. And if you think that way, then you could interpret ANY monster in the game, or any opposition AT ALL, as something there to badger the players.

     

    Secondly, I've had recurring NPCs or monsters in my own games that were similar to this door, and nobody ever took it personally.

     

    The concept is sound. It is in the doing that a GM becomes or does not become, adversarial.

     

    A dragon is an opponent. A dragon that shows up when the PCs are low on spells and supplies, and just because the GM says so, is a problem with the Game Master.

     

    Let him actually do something wrong before you accuse him.

     

    No, I actually agree with Doug. There's a distinction between a challenge for the players and a challenge for the characters. A dragon is a challenge for the characters--they have to use their strength, cunning, magic, and so forth to defeat it. A riddle, at least as it is typically used, is a challenge for the players. It becomes sort of a minigame, a break from the actual roleplay, because you're suddenly asking the players to solve a problem themselves, rather than through their characters. A player needn't be able to actually swing a sword to battle a dragon, but the players are the ones who have to come up with the answer to the riddle. Now, you could certainly design a game where challenges to characters were also challenges to the players, which I guess would just be LARP, but it is incongruous to use such a mechanic only in one specific case. A really smart character should be able to solve it quickly, even if his player isn't so good with riddles, and vice versa.

     

    The other issue with this proposal is that, mechanically speaking, traditional riddles are just kind of boring and frustrating. There's one right answer, and you're stuck until you get it. It's a dead end. When you're up against a dragon, you can fight it, run away, try to bargain or reason with it, trick it, mind control it and ride it around, or anything else you can come up with. When you need to get through a door, and anything other than correctly answering the riddle will cause it to open into a furnace, you're stuck sitting around until someone comes up with the solution. (Alternatively, you can let the characters solve it, rather than the players, but I don't know how you could do that that wouldn't be unsatisfying, since it seems like you'd have to just let them roll INT checks until one of them hits a certain number or whatever. Then why even bother coming up with a riddle at all?)

     

    The idea of a trickster adversary isn't bad in and of itself; something that lives to frustrate the characters and by extension their players can be cool. But the simple "answer a riddle if you want to pass" mechanic is the real issue as I see it, especially if any attempt to subvert it will result in fiery death. Canuckotter also suggested that this sort of thing would be an opportunity for roleplaying, but as I said above, it is in some ways actually a break from any roleplay at all, as it forces the players to solve problems as themselves, rather than as their characters. Your earlier proposal of having it provide a fetch quest is fine, to me--it just becomes a reason for the characters to go out and achieve a particular goal. Others have suggested other open-ended sorts of puzzles, which also work great. I think one solution would be that the door represents a shortcut: if they can solve the riddle they can go through, but if not, they'll have to go the long way around. You could even just require the players to convince the door to let them through, through whatever means they see fit. But the idea of presenting characters with a dead end that can only be solved by one of the players making a certain mental leap is a bad one, especially when the obvious response to getting stuck and frustrated (try the thing that has always worked in the past, i.e. stab it to death) results in a disproportionately massive punishment (massive flood or fireball or what have you, followed by still not being able to get to the goal).

     

    The problem with comparisons to other types of media is that, for example, Q's writer also wrote Picard. They could just decide that Picard would solve the riddle in the nick of time, or make whatever they wanted happen. It would have been really boring if he had been stumped, and then just sat around thinking for the rest of the episode, but you can't prevent that if you're posing a riddle to a group of players. Not every trope in literature works well in RPGs.

     

    I also think that giving it some consistent rules, as some people have suggested, will help if it shows up as a recurring villain. An omnipotent trickster that just shows up by GM fiat to be annoying is going to be annoying and seem unfair. It might make for compelling TV, but it would be a bad RPG mechanic, since it's obvious that it's just there by the GM's say-so. If the door has a definite purpose, and rules by which it can go about achieving that goal, then it will make some sense within the fiction of the game, and will seem reasonable. If it can just show up whenever and punish the characters as it sees fit, it will feel like frustrating GM fiat. (Of course, anything in the game only exists because the GM says so, but most things are chosen to fit into a coherent narrative, even if it's wacky or fantastical. A trickster door with ill-defined abilities and no goal other than to be annoying doesn't do that so well.)

     

    So, in summary, I think this is at its most basic level a cool concept for a character, but in order to avoid being frustrating, you'll need to avoid traditional riddles, at least in contexts where they can be dead ends, and you'll need to make sure the door has some reasonable motive and limitations.

     

    (Also, I don't see where Doug "accused" canuckotter of anything other than proposing a mechanic that sounds likely to be really frustrating.)

     

    EDIT: Oh wow, this came out way longer than I intended it to. Uh, sorry about that. I guess I feel strongly about dead-ends and GM fiat in RPGs.

    • Like 5
  2. I do 99% of my painting with a W&N S7 size 1. (Though as I've moved to larger busts, I've started incorporating some slightly larger ones for more than the base coating they were previously relegated to.) Frankly, stuff like eyes is actually much easier with a mid-sized brush, since the larger belly means you have a lot longer to line it up and get it exactly right before the paint dries on the brush, which was what I always struggled with back when I used those little tiny "detail" brushes. The tip is the same, and that's the only part you're using when doing details. I know some people swear by them (Buglips goes through them like candy, apparently) but for me personally, I have no reason to use anything smaller than a 1.

    • Like 6
  3.  

    Vintage Valiant mini arrived from eBay today! 54mm, supposedly from some time in the 70s.

    IMG_20151109_130954165.jpgIMG_20151109_131001432.jpgIMG_20151109_155448897.jpg

     

     

    Links aren't working. :down:

     

    Really? Huh. They're working fine for me. Not sure what to do about that; guess I'll try a different hosting service.

    EDIT: How's that?

    • Like 3
  4. The issue is that when you thin, you are trying to dilute the paint, so adding any old liquid will do the trick. When you're thickening a paint, however, you probably want to make it more concentrated and less dilute. As such, adding anything will be counterproductive, even if it makes it thicker overall, since it'll result in even less pigment per drop than before you added it. So you have to remove something, and the only way to do that is wait for natural evaporation.

    • Like 1
  5. I ended up changing my mind about what I was going to get a few times, but finally settled on the Thunderbird, Ogopogo, PNW Whalers, and PNW Headman. I figured that was a good mix of my favorite of the big creatures and a little squad of the guys from my area of the country, which was what first got me interested in your company in the first place.

    • Like 2
  6. After a really busy week, I finally had a chance to relax and slap a little more paint down. I focused on the skin, layering in some more shading and glazing in some color. You can't really see it too well in the pictures, but his hand has some blue veins going on. I guess I made them too subtle; I'll have to give that another pass. Otherwise, though, I think I'm pretty much at the point where I have to do whatever I'm going to do with the cuff and call it done.

    post-8362-0-27005700-1446277193_thumb.jpgpost-8362-0-26439500-1446277192_thumb.jpgpost-8362-0-08947500-1446277191_thumb.jpg

     

    EDIT: Reviewed the photos, added a couple of highlights back in and put another layer of blue down on those veins. They're really visible in person, but still not so much in the photos, so I think I'll just have to leave them there. Also, the first estimation of where the highlight will go!

    post-8362-0-20494100-1446277959_thumb.jpg

    • Like 7
  7. Using liners as primer has the added benefit of actually behaving as a liner as well. Priming dark like that allows you to leave your crevices and hard-to-reach spots dark, and lets you essentially pre-line, rather than going in after to carefully brush in your lines. I believe this was Buglips's original intention with the ill-fated Walnut Brown.

    • Like 10
  8. Reaper facebook page says these are the exact same formula as the HD line. Why the rebranding? Reapers business, possibly to encourage more sales of their bones line, but at the same time this may confuse people into thinking that only MSP Bones paint will work on bones? 

     

    I'm not complaining, I'll buy either way and the dragon colors and new colors just encourages that. I'm hoping these are some reintroduced Propaint colors that I can't get anymore.

    It's not even clear to me that this is a rebranding. Are they eliminating or transferring the HD line, or are they just keeping two lines with different paints of identical formulations?

    • Like 1
  9. Alright, he's nearing completion, but I think I'm going to have to go put down some deeper skin shadows; I'm just not satisfied with the contrast on his face compared to the rest of him. I'm also going to go in with a red glaze to put some color in his cheeks and nose, but that's my last skin step so it'll have to wait for the shading. Besides that, I think it's just his cuff left to do. Not sure what I'm going to do for that--try for NMM (which I'm almost totally new to) or a warm TMM gold (with metallic paints I find pretty hard to work with). Given the limited palette on the rest of him, I can't get away with the greenish Clockwork Brass that I often turn to when I need metallics. Oh, and I have to do something about his lips, too.

     

    post-8362-0-22563400-1445556995_thumb.jpgpost-8362-0-54898800-1445556997_thumb.jpgpost-8362-0-95372800-1445556992_thumb.jpgpost-8362-0-79362100-1445556998_thumb.jpgpost-8362-0-15625800-1445556994_thumb.jpgpost-8362-0-76150000-1445556999_thumb.jpgpost-8362-0-36822000-1445556996_thumb.jpg

    • Like 8
  10. I've never heard of anyone having to wait three weeks to apply sealer, but you should wait at least 24 hours as a matter of course. It's certainly possible, however, that your particular brand of paints cure exceptionally slowly, so unless you need to use them before then, I would be inclined to wait the suggested time.

    • Like 2
×
×
  • Create New...