@BESW The thing about deadly dungeons was that making it through them was a heck of an accomplishment, and usually took a lot of wit, innovation, and sometimes luck. Lateral thinking was rewarded a lot when there were not as many rules. We use "rule of cool" before it had a name.
Strange women, distributing swords in aquatic ceremonies, is no basis for a system of government I still toss that around in our D&D games when I can fit it in during a quest.
@Erik This is already a step past what D&D started as. THe notion of GM as playing the antagonist is not central to the creation of D&D, though it is certainly central to all incarnations past 0e.
It might. I do notice that how you refer to "that one guy who isn't a player" has a big impact on perception. (And I usually refer to myself as Game Master within D&D as well, because I don't run dungeons all that much)
I also really love that in the * World games it's called "Master of Ceremonies", which gives a completely different vibe than that in other games.
I am sorry, that "what is an NPC" is a "read the book to me question" and while it has been answered, IMO it's the kind of question that needs "we don't prefer to handle read the book to me" questions.
@NautArch I think the +3 is that is a useful rationalization for some folks who think that's a good idea at their table. I don't particularly like the logic from a rules text analysis perspective, but I can see either interpretation (it isn't, since "improvised weapon is a particular thing) but I do like the rule of cool/rule of fun aspect of it. The next point is what is the DC / save for that jug to break when you use it as an improvised weapon?
@KorvinStarmast That's a very good point! If you do allow the use of improvised magical items to be magical then the flipside should be a risk of breakage. But it does seem that having to pile rules on rules to make something work suggests that maybe you shouldn't? :)
i'm still waiting for mine to get me started. On 2nd cup.
@NautArch That's really "philosophy" dependent. This is a "if the rules don't say you can'tthen you can" deal. I am not that keen on "unless the rules say you can, you can't" approach.
@Erik I agree, tough to break, but it still might. A bad roll is still a thing ...
@KorvinStarmast very true. If you haven't been able to tell so far, I tend to be a literalist :) But I also a lot of leeway during games to make them fun. It's a weird dichotomy.
@KorvinStarmast why would a jug that's magic be harder to break than a jug that isn't magic? Isn't a jug a jug? Would you say that a sword becomes more durable once Magic Weapon has been cast on it?
Try applying that to a real world profession. The old joke we had about the difference between the Air Force and the Navy was that in the Navy, if the regs didn't say you could not, then go ahead. And the USAF was more "unless the book says you can, then you can't." A bit of an oversimplification, but also some truth therein.
I am a firm believer in "tis better to ask forgiveness than permission" when confronted with a decision of uncertain provenance. Nowadays, as micro management grows, that attitude is getting slammed.
Why?
RSConley's answer comes close, but misses an important detail that, in my opinion, answers historically the central question: "why?"
When Dave Arneson was invited to demonstrate Blackmoor to the Lake Geneva group, only Dave could make the trip from the Twin Cities. In the Twin Cities Dave'...
@Erik I am a terrible micromanager. Worst thing is i've had to do some of it recently and I hate it. But it's really because i've got a couple of people who simply can't manage themselves (although It hink one is dragging the other down)
if antyhing though, i tend to err on "not managing enough" which has it's own issues.
@Erik I've been playing since BECMI; older brothers had 0e stuff around, and their experience certainly colored my formative years. I, however, did not come to it through wargaming like @KorvinStarmast. That's a perspective that I believe is supremely-useful for context.
My notional five dollars was a win. I bought two copies (overpriced for the length) and there is no question that Kuntz would agree with you. However, his monograph is a lot about systems design philosophy, systems theory, and game design paradigms. He seems to only cite history as a support for that.
I ordered direct from three line, which is located in Corsica France and the shipping was through a place in Nebraska. I am not sure I'd recommend it, but his full length book, for which this is a table setter, I am for sure going to get.
@nitsua60 I am still digesting what I read last night and this morning. Maybe later tonight I'll look at your answer again and edit in a few bits from Kuntz to support your points.
@doppelgreener no, it's a weird issue. I provided the tools and processes for the team, but they can't seem to figure out how to use them individually or together to help prioritize their work. So I had to step in and assign tickets and priorities. Not a good use of my time or theirs. But i'm hoping that they first see how I'm doing it, then i'll explain how i've done it in hopes of transitioning them to managing themselves more.
@Skathix as far as I understand it, if something in the SRD, you can distribute it freely, base your own materials off of it, and in general use it for your own stuff. If it's not in the SRD, then it's a property of WoTC/D&D and you can't distribute it.
We're going to be rebuiilding the Amaterasu campaign, and that can/should include wishlists for the kind of things we can expect from future adventures.
And it's not like we haven't already blown up Elon Musk's android drone because he hung up on our Skype call and helped William Shatner fly an imaginary spaceship to the stars.
@KorvinStarmast Cool. I'll look forward to hearing about it. Maybe I'll wait for the full-on published version. I'm still only about halfway through Peterson =\
@doppelgreener As I spent a few years in a running club called the hash house Harriers, there are layers of meaning there.
@nitsua60 Peterson is next on my list of "must have" books. BUt right now, I am reading one about Crude Petroleum price volatility. It's a very interesting look at how petrol prices are likely to go wild again, which is likely not a good thing.
@NautArch Naut, 5e doesn't do weapon fatigue and repair, the way Diablo I, II, and III do it. Would you say that a sword becomes more durable once Magic Weapon has been cast on it? Once a weapons is magical for x purposes, it gets the benefit. So yeah, MAGIC does stuff like that.
Let's say someone is wondering about something, do a quick search and find nothing relevant, so post his question. Then some people point out that the answer already exists on some other question (and they are right!), like in this question the OP wants to know about whether magic items count as ...
@KorvinStarmast Yeah, it's a weird thing about 5e. I tend to look at magical items as indestructible, otherwise they do crossover into the no-fun-zone. I'm just not sure I"d do the same with an item that was magic-ized via Magic Weapon (or elemental weapon, etc.)
@DForck42 Sure, and it's not like we've exactly coalesced around a position like "let's be really intentional about calling them 'hold-votes' rather than 'close-votes' when we're thinking something's on-topic but needs clarification."
If that consensus ever emerged, then we could helpfully point each other to it to remind ourselves, and to publicize to the broader readership.
Another Problem is that the term "VTC" is usually also accurate. You vote using the "close" button and the review queue is the "close votes" queue, even though more often then not the result is a hold.
@nitsua60 I think, what I'd like to see, is a VTC option, and a "put on hold" option. the VTC option would close the question, which could then be reopened at a later date. the "put on hold" option would put the question on hold, and if the question gets a good edit (ie, some sort of metric to indicate that the question was actually edited), it could be open again.
if the question doesn't get an edit, then it ages into being closed
do we keep commenting on answers to help 'improve' them even though the question is closed?
I mean, if it's closed (especially as a dupe), should the answers be removed? Otherwise, now there are possibly incomplete answers to a question that's been answered.
i don't see the difference between them. in that system, we get: a closed question can be reopened at a later date (if it earns being reopened) an on hold question could be reopened at a later date (if it earns being reopened) an on hold question eventually becomes closed
that's all the same as the current system
except that a question could start off closed under that new one
@DForck42 That's largely what exists, except we (hoi polloi) don't have the authority to insta-close. Right now we do vote to hold (even though the clickable link says "close"), and a good edit puts it into the reopen queue.
@mxyzplk Agree with the "ideally" but I also think that "can be saved" is dependent upon question asker decision to stay engaged and keep improving/trying.
As of now, "hold" and "close" are a purely semantic difference. I'm assuming that if you're instituting a new mechanic to apply one label or the other, you're giving each label a different mechanical purpose as well.
What does it mean for a question to be closed?
When a question is closed, no additional answers may be posted to it, although the question and existing answers can still be edited (by users with edit privileges or by suggested edit) and voted upon, and will continue to count for badges. The aske...
It's actually a little problematic, IMO, since any edit enqueues it, but only the first one. So when there's a question that needs real work and someone comes along to do a small typos-cleanup or retag, it gets enqueued for reopening. And since the changes were minor people (correctly) vote to keep it closed. Then OP comes along and makes fixes, but it doesn't get auto-enqueued.
@DForck42 Specifically, the OP doesn't nominate it for reopening -- anyone capable of casting reopen votes can cast one, which puts it in the reopen queue. If the OP can cast reopen votes, they can do this with their own question. If they cannot cast reopen votes, they cannot do this.
> Users with reputation ≥ 20k (more precisely, the trusted-user privilege; 4k on beta sites) are not subject to the 48-hour waiting period for deleting closed questions with a score of −3 or lower. They may also delete answers of score −1 or lower. It takes three votes to delete an answer. (source)
hey so Im thinking of running a Dungeon World game taking place in Ravenloft, anyone have any suggestions for materials/resources I should refer to? (obviously I guess the most recent ravenloft rework or the original book)
@KorvinStarmast I haven't really fleshed it out with the DM, but I'm going to argue that contracts are handed out by the organization but employees are allowed to refuse contracts.
Well, not refuse per say since contracts wouldn't be assigned.
@Yuuki @Adam fun fact: If you keep the disadvantage and have lucky, you can turn those long range shots into SuperLucky shots where you get your choice of 3 dice.
@NautArch If you have disadvantage and use lucky, wouldn't your choices be limited to the die you roll for the feat, or the lower of the two you rolled for disadvantage
It doesn't negate disadvantage. The result of the first roll was the lower of the two dice.
> How does the Lucky feat interact with advantage and disadvantage? The Lucky feat lets you spend a luck point; roll an extra d20 for an attack roll, ability check, or saving throw; and then choose which d20 to use. This is true no matter how many d20s are in the mix. > For example, if you have disadvantage on your attack roll, you could spend a luck point, roll a third d20, and then decide which of the three dice to use. You still have disadvantage, since the feat doesn’t say it gets rid of it, but you do get to pick the die.
@nitsua60 I don't mind it working on that, because that's plenty lucky. It turns a crap roll into a better roll. It makes a bad situation, even the worst of situations, passable. I don't feel it should turn a bad situation into a crit fisher.
@Adam I don't mind that interpretation. It's just that it's such a counterintuitive reading of the rules that it seems to always slow down play. (I GM a bunch of AL where I can't rule that away, but have to explain it and pull out references probably every other week.)
@NautArch My interpretation does the same thing. I just don't feel it proper to say "You are blind, deaf, grappled, covered in mayonnaise, and terrified...so you get 3 chances to succeed because derp"
My point is that if that situation came up, it doesn't sound fun to me. It sounds like just a crack in the rules that the devs are okay with people exploiting to the DM's chagrin.
And then the players look at me with puppy dog eyes and sadness about not being able to use their feats the way they thought, so I crack and let them do it anyway, even though I hate it. If I ever have kids, they're going to walk all over me...
Today (elsewhere) in the Stack: a brief and minor edit war is occurring over whether or not to omit the s from the possessive 's for a particular name, and whether to link to something one way or another way.
(I accidentally started it being the first editor. Oops.)
(I'd just like to make it very clear there is no Secret Editarchy. Of the many secret and nefarious organisations I cannot be proven to be a member of, this is not one of them.)
@Yuuki That sounds like a perfectly reasonable thing to do when starting out. My group is currently going through Storm King's Thunder, and it has been pretty fun so far, so I would recommend that one. (We haven't done any of the other 5e adventure paths so I don't know how it compares to them)
@Yuuki @BESW got his start in D&D by DMing a game, and then many other games, and almost totally just DMed for the next decade. He's still our group's default GM in fact.
GMing is always tricky the first time. You are going to get a few things wrong, just accept it. You will discover that you probably do a few things particularly well. It takes time and practice to hone your skills and present an effective, enjoyable story for your table.
@MadMAxJr The thing that's hardest to understand (and I'm not even sure I'm doing this right) is that you're not making a campaign for you. YOu're making a campaign for the players. And understanding what the players like takes time.
That's a little bit social anxiety, a little bit 'Oh god am I doing it right?'
@NautArch At my table I make it clear it's a shared experience. I have a story laid out. Your characters have a place in it. If at any point in the story you feel completely handcuffed to my story, it's not going well. If the entire campaign derails because you have a personal story that pulls us off the main focus for too long, that's also not going well.
There's a fine balance to follow. Like a video game RPG where you have your overall quest and a blinking marker on the other side of the map, 'Eventually deal with the big bad. Maybe find help first'
Your players should be free to stir up their own side quest affairs. 'That alchemist vendor is fishy, I'm going to look into his connections'
I usually run pre-written adventures as they give a solid foundation to work with. But knowing when and how to improvise is an important skill that takes time to develop.
@MadMAxJr I guess I really mean to say, your story shouldn't necessarily be on a rail. The players are gonig to do things you don't expect - and if you can't integrate that into the story, then it takes some fun out of it for the players.
And if they continue to pursue their tangent across several sessions, once I have resorted to, "Look, I'm not interested in playing referee to what is now your own improv adventure, this table is now more in your control than mine." Ideally I consider my table functional when the GM and players are working together toward a common story goal and prevent skew from being too much in one or the others favor.
This is also why I am looking forward to running Tales From the Loop. It specifically allows GMs to setup some scenes and players have to setup others.
@MadMAxJr I love playing referee to others' wild wanderings. Ironically, I have a group that has straight-up told me that I need to give them more direct quests to follow.
I am all for creativity, but when you rob the rest of the table of any significant input other than your own, I draw the line.
Also if your party just decides to randomly fork in the road and go to middle of nowhere town, don't expect full rich descriptions from me. --;
I did pick up a neat little deck of cards to help with my NPC improv skills. 'Short Order Heroes'. Flip over a few cards and they're all random personality quirks/features.
@MadMAxJr Yeah. “You have a wild, madcap plan — as a group — to take this in a completely unexpected direction? Great, I can referee that. Oh wait, you just decided to wander into Mapblank Blanktown, and now you're here you have no plan and demand to be entertained? I'll get back to you on that…”
@Adam I honestly don't know much about the history of the tarrasque, but their answer does seem legit in terms of making it not a problem. That, and i always think of SCP-682 (for those that read SCP)
@Adam or just have it take longer with fewer magic longbows. But given that a +1 magic bow simply an uncommon item, that doesn't seem totally far-fetched.
@Adam or enough magical arrows from regular longbows. But again, fewer men/weapons and more time is still an option here. And if those are sharpshooters, you've got a potential +10 on each attack to further quicken the pace.
although thtat AC 25 is going to be tough to hit. That may be the greatest factor.
@NautArch the point I'm trying to make is that your setting matters. If your world is high magic and every guy in the city guard is a hero, then the tarrasque is nothing. If magic is extraordinarily rare, or everyone besides the PCs is an idiot, then a tarrasque is a huge problem.
@Adam Very true. But even if it's just a few PCs, the issue of flying out of it's range and just pelting it seems like a legit option. ALl it takes is time.
@NautArch Indeed. It's a concern that I've read about before. I haven't looked into this, but I imagine that tarrasques used to have some ridiculous damage threshold, so even that strategy could take forever to work
700 HP :) but again, that's a time issue, not a threat issue. I keep trying to come up wtih something...and failing. It doesn't help that the tarrasque has an INT of 3.
@Yuuki A scaly biped, the tarra sq ue is fifty f ee t tall and seventy feet long, weighing hundr eds of tons . It ca r ries itself like a bird of pr ey, l eaning forward a nd using its powerful lashing tail for balanc e
Put it this way, if you stick the tarrasque against the party such that the party is well rested and has the environment to exploit all of the weaknesses of the monster, then they are going to kill it easily. Every monster works that way
@NautArch You raise some good points on the question. Perhaps people are blinded because they don't want something as awesome as "a living engine of destruction" to be no more threatening than a goblin. I know I have that feeling
Like I remember trying to get flying, a hat of disguise, and numerous illusion spells on my dwarven cleric of Sarenrae so I could make an anime-style magical girl who defeats his enemies with the power of friendship.
Why?
RSConley's answer comes close, but misses an important detail that, in my opinion, answers historically the central question: "why?"
When Dave Arneson was invited to demonstrate Blackmoor to the Lake Geneva group, only Dave could make the trip from the Twin Cities. In the Twin Cities Dave'...
