Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

All the time.

2 (13.3%)

Sometimes.

9 (60%)

Only when there's a new release.

2 (13.3%)

Never. ((get out))

2 (13.3%)

Total Members Voted: 13

[Akroma]

that post pretty much describes me 5 years ago.

I can't really give you a tried and tested method on how to really overcome that, but if I had to factor it down, there'd be about 3 main points.

for starters, a group of friends that actually likes the same things you do. It's easy to feel inadequate when you hang around tanned and trained party animals. My friends share many of my interests, and we can have plenty of a good time discussing tabletop lore, videogames, science and all that stuff that is really awesome but party animals dont care about. Sex and intimacy generaly does not come up. And believe it or not, you may yet be able to find even an SO that shares the same interests, once you have overcome number 2:


your self-image. of course you can't ignore the haters when you are your own biggest hater. What I did was simple - actually change myself. I started working out, got myself fashionable clothes, get regular haircuts and started to use various skin-cleaning products religiously. I still had really bad acne with 24 ("I'm too old for that zit!"). And I can tell you, it works. Changing your outside changes your inside. It's a chore, really, but once you get used to it, it is really only about as bothersome as brushing your teeth - all a matter of getting used to, and then you barely notice it. I am serious, it feels better. Your own self-image, and the image others have of you will improve - all by your own effort.


and lastly, though that is difficult, find something you are actually good at. I studied chemistry for 4 years, cheating my way through exams somehow, and really not having a good time. It really weighs you down once you start thinking "shit, I have a GPA of 4.0 (yes, it was that bad), and some time I will have to compete with all those fucking geniuses around here for money". so I quit that shit and started to cook - and I excel at that. And that feels really good. It is good for your self-image to quit all the bullshit that you hate and actually do what you are good at - because it feels good to be good at something. Now instead of dreading chemistry lectures that bring new and complicated stuff every day, making my life only worse, I jump at every opportunity to learn more about cooking, only making my life richer. Sure, I have to get up at times of the day man was simply not meant to get up at, but that's worth it.


tl;dr don't give up man. It actually can get better.

[Akroma]

meanwhile, I'm looking at how to stat the upcoming fight.

we roughly have what, 10-15 characters that will be in the fight, so a play-stat-total of about 1000-1500

under that light, I guess this may work out, as in this system, high stats don't bother quite as much an advantage as low stats offer a disadvantage...


edit: then again if I put mag or str to high, it gives a high risk of suddenly one-shotting someone..man, stuff is hard to balance to be hard but not unfair, but yet not boringly easy

[Empiricist]

How about having bosses suffer penalties for defending against multiple attacks and having their attacks vulnerable to interruption? That way they probably can one-shot half the party, it's just that there's a fair chance for characters to disrupt their action to prevent that.

[Akroma]

everyone already suffers penalties from multiple attacks.

only things that are vulnerable to interruption are those that take several turns. The enemy casters all have high enough mag that they should be able to put out most spells in a single action, but the same rules apply to everyone - if you cast a high level spell and don't beat the TN on your first try, the spell continues being cast and can be cast next round at decreased penalties.

though rather than really really high stats, I am more focused on the enemies spell synergies. It should make it relatively easy for them to deal with multiple opponents without immediatly nuking them with lots of AoE damage, that would be lame

[smurfingtonthethird]

No, because then we play deathball, where everyone joins up into the aforementioned ball of death and rolls over everything.

[Empiricist]

What about large scale battles against large quantities of enemies instead of boss battles and with significantly more powerful enemies eliminated through noncombat means such as carpet bombing and drink spiking?

[Akroma]

it's a total of 6 enemies, I think the number needs not be boosted further.

[smurfingtonthethird]

6 vs 15?

Depending who the 6 are, they're gonna need some hella skills to avoid being skewered.

[Empiricist]

I personally prefer the idea of having about 60 enemies scattered across an area each with PC stats with the PCs having to defeat them through noncombat preparation, the element of surprise, intel, stealth and dirty tactics.

[Akroma]

you mean like 6 vs 16 guards in antarctica?

yeah, those guards sure showed you hell. Their numbers totaly made a huge difference against the skillpoint and ability difference

[Empiricist]

I meant enemies with stat-totals as high as those of the PCs.

[Akroma]

and I meant smurfs post

[smurfingtonthethird]

One, they all cowarded out on us after Kaiser ripped the elevator doors off and rammed the captain with them.

Either way, you need to have a balance between numbers and stats, or provide a range of enemies.

[Akroma]

considering that likely not all characters that possibly could will join this fight, the number of enemies is sufficent. as far as stats go, without and proper testing yet, there is little telling beforehand

[Empiricist]

How difficult would you estimate the battle to be? We could probably use a couple near-death experiences to liven this up.