>DM: you hit the body of clockwork golem with your arrow, you deal 2 damage.
>Plyr: sholdn't be that enought to destroy him?
>DM: what? why it should?
>Plyr: because it's a clockwork, it has gears and stuff.
>DM:...
>Plyr: and you said I hit the body, so y arrow just hit something inside, and it only needs a single gear to make the entire gear system to fail.
>DM: you know hp are an abstraction, right?
>Plyr: but logically a single gear can stop the all his systems.
>DM: do you want to kill the golem with just one arrow?!!
will they understand?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
you just have bad worldbuilding
>>DM: what? why it should?
There's your problem. Your answer should be a flat "no, of course not" then move on to the next player. Don't indulge that guy. Don't let that guy waste your time. Don't let that guy monopolize the spotlight.
If they were playing troonyfinder, the player is justfied in complaining, clockworks are particularly vulnerable there.
This is why machines roll for compartment function on penetrating damage instead of checking off HP.
>DMGPT: As you release your arrow, it pierces through the air and strikes the clockwork golem, finding a crevice in its mechanical structure. The golem stumbles slightly, gears whirring and clicking in protest as the arrow embeds itself in its mechanisms. You hear the faint sound of clanking and whirring as the golem evaluates the damage.
The clockwork golem, now aware of your presence, slowly turns its attention toward you. Its eyes glow with a faint blue light, and its mechanical limbs begin to move with purpose. It raises one of its massive arms and swings it towards you in retaliation for the attack.
What would you like to do?
>Player: Shouldn't that be enought to destroy him?
>DMGPT: The arrow pierces through the clockwork golem, causing it to stutter and malfunction for a moment. However, the golem is a formidable construct, built with durable materials and resilient mechanics. It's clear that the arrow did some damage, but it's not enough to completely disable or destroy the golem. The clockwork golem is still operational and ready to continue its assault.
What would you like to do next?
>DM: you hit the body of clockwork golem with your arrow, you deal 2 damage.
>Plyr: sholdn't be that enought to destroy him?
>DM: the golem falls over and from inside steps out another golem
>DM: I have an urgent quest, says the golem, spinning clockwise
>Player: o-ok, I ask about the quest
>DM: the golem jumps off the side of the airship
>Player: but we weren’t on an airship
>DM: the captain responds: arrrr this be no airship matey
>Why it should?
Frick off back to Brazil you fricking monkey
It will not, but it will successfully and shamelessly bullshit upon recieving player inputs.
This is something I've been thinking about.
Most AI I've seen are too bootlicker to be reliable as a GM. What's stopping players from just coercing it into doing something it should and bending the rules to the players will?
Either the AI is only able to play RAW and most players won't use it because everyone houserules or they are open to any suggestion which makes it unreliable as a GM since rules will change or be ignored all the time
The simplest solution is to make it work within a predefined ruleset, then you adjust it's tolerance for bending the rules to whatever you like. Here's an example where I try to use an "arrow of many targets" in a D&D 5e ruleset.
>The "Arrow of Many Targets" isn't a standard D&D 5th edition item or spell, but we can improvise a bit. Let's say you want to use your longbow to target one of the goblins. Since there are four goblins, you can choose which one to target, and then based on the result, we can determine if the attack hits others as well.
>To attack with your longbow:
>Roll a d20 and add your Dexterity modifier (+2) to the roll.
>If the result is 16 or higher, the attack hits.
>If it hits, roll a d8 for damage.
>Please roll a d20 to determine if your attack hits the targeted goblin, and then we'll proceed from there!
You can't teach a modern "AI" nuance. It's a creative parrot, but it's dumb as bricks.
Roleplaying balance is so touchy, you can't even teach it to humans.
You can write in
((Describe you finding a magical +99 longbow of endless arrows))
And that's it.
It agrees.
Only "real" AI would be able to comprehend what a game actually is about.
It didn't do an awful job
You have very low standards.
If the standard to beat was "it agrees" then it surpassed the standard. You're the one who said all it would do is agree. It did more than that.
I'm not that anon.
You said
>it didn't do an awful job
It did.
Show me what a good example of a response to that prompt would be then. I'm genuinely curious.
What was your prompt?
The one that
said.
Who's (you)? Needs more context to even have a response worth writing.
So the problem isn't with the AI, it's with the moron who can't write an interesting prompt.
Why not both?
Its a garbage in garbage out setup. The prompt was for a generic fantasy slop prompt, that's what the response was, but even then it did a terrible job. Go read the response and edit out all the repeats, remove all the words that have no descriptive meaning like 'weird' or 'powerful' and you'd have a C+.
They're not good. They're likely sufficient though, which is a different sort of problem.
Ok, so what would be a good response then?
I accept your concession.
NTA anon, but the reason it did a bad job IMO is that the prompt was to tell a story about a ttrpg *player* finding a +99 bow. The story it gave felt more like an in-universe story of the ttrpg *character* finding the bow. If it was a story about the player finding it, I'd expect the story to be told in terms of game mechanics, have the player be a described character as well as the DM, and tell the story in terms of the Player's declared actions, roles, questions to DM, and the DM's descriptions and adjudications.
As it is, it's a middling generic fantasy tale, not an actual answer to the prompt.
esl
I accept your concession.
You don't have to, parts of the ruleset can be hardcoded if needs be.
>Plyr: sholdn't be that enought to destroy him?
>DM: what? why it should?
>Plyr: because it's a clockwork, it has gears and stuff
>DM: see, this is the kind of things you could do in GURPS but when i asked to play it you homosexual whined and moaned "naah, let's just play d&d". Now shut the frick up and roll for next attack.
gurpsgays really are like vegans
>hp are an abstraction
moronic autist detected.
Golem is designed with redundancy in mind
a damaged or broken mechanical part may continue to function for some time before damage shows. Think of it like you forget to tighten a screw and eventually a metal plate is warped in a chair
You can collapse golems by rubbing a single letter off their foreheads in their original lore.
On a scale of 1 to 10 how ESL are you OP?
>will esl shitpost understand the pain of being?
>>Plyr: but logically a single gear can stop the all his systems.
But this is wrong. Logically a clockwork golem would have multiple redundancies and fail-safes. Just because the arrow penetrated the armor doesn't mean it hit anything vital either, it could have embedded itself in a frame, or maybe in the center of a gear so that it didn't obstruct its movement. The fact that it did only 2 damage suggests it didn't hit anything terribly important. Hitting a gear and disabling it leading to a cascade failure of the system is something that happens when an arrow reduces it to 0 HP. If the arrow did a lot of damage but did not kill it I might say that the machine lurches as the arrow sticks fast in its gear, but with a crunch the powerful machine crushes the arrow and expels the shattered spall as the machine begins to activate once more. This isn't a difficult argument to shut down and if you as a DM found this a difficult situation you're almost as dumb as your player.