TRPG General Chat

John Craven

00:12

Words are very unecessary

They can only do harm

Metool

@JohnCraven ... What's wrong with you?

John Craven

All I ever wanted, all I ever needed is here in my arms

Alex P

Depeche Mode quote double-down.

John Craven

I would have done this with Rick Astley but a. that is sooooo played out now and b. Depeche Mode RAWKS

BESW

02:22

So, the new Doctor will be a thin, oddly attractive older white guy.

wax eagle

@BESW yep, who's played no less than 2 in universe characters already

BESW

Which is also an established tradition.

Even Tennant managed to beg his way into an uncredited Scream of the Shalka role just before New Who was started up.

wax eagle

I have no personal beef with it, but the internet seems to have issues :)

Alex P

Caecilius!

trogdor

I have issues everywhere

it's not that hard

lol

BESW

02:26

Gillian had a pre-Amy-Pond role in the same episode Capaldi did.

wax eagle

@BESW yep

tbh I'd see more of an issue with the Torchwood appearance if I had any at all

BESW

But yes, I get the impression that the fandom is conflicted.

Alex P

@BESW Isn't that, like, the nature of the fandom by definition?

BESW

And doctorwhogifs felt the need to comment.

wax eagle

@BESW it's the first day of the New Doctor Cycle so it seems perfectly normal

BESW

02:30

I'm glad they got a solid older actor.

And I'm glad they didn't cast a woman or a POC, because the writers have a history of handling that poorly; they are so careful not to be offensive that they usually forget to give the person any character.

We do not need the first non-white-male Doctor to be a gimmick the writers have to tiptoe around.

wax eagle

@BESW yeah that would have been bad

BESW

So my only disappoint as yet is that they're keeping the body types so similar, but that's petty.

wax eagle

@BESW David Tennant is now the exception in the new who era because he had smallish ears.

BESW

Heheh.

I hope they give him something outlandish to wear.

wax eagle

Matt's don't stand out, until you see him without the hair

BESW

02:35

Not Six outlandish, but Third or Fifth maybe.

wax eagle

@BESW two to one they have him in Roman garb at least once in the first 3 episodes

BESW

Urrggggh.

wax eagle

won't be his actual outfit, but I bet they make a subtle reference to the previous appearance

BESW

Way to goad the fandom.

Alex P

Useful "I want my fantasy to be medieval, dammit" tidbit: in most pre-modern societies, prison isn't for punishment. It's holding, like the modern-day county jail or whatever. Keeping people incarcerated long term isn't resource-effective.

Punishments are more like execution, mutilation (makes it easy to spot you as a criminal later), monetary fines, or servitude/slavery.

BESW

02:42

I mention that a bit in this answer.

Alex P

You forgot facial disfigurement. ;)

Err, I guess "brands" covers that, sorta.

BESW

Yeah, it's just an aside as part of a different issue.

Alex P

I'm perpetually surprised by how much more I enjoy gaming when I take away the "let's make this society match a modern one" elements.

I mean, we do make some allowances for modern thought in our games.

Magician

Morning!

Alex P

@Magician Evening!

BESW

02:46

Afternoon.

Magician

Close enough!

Alex P

All of these are correct.

Because Earth has a 4-corner 4-day simultaneous time cube in only 24 hour rotation.

BESW

...that sounds like 4e talk, buster.

Alex P

It's the secret 4e cheat code, actually.

Thanks to Time Cube, you can get quadruple the dailies.

Magician

So I assume you've already discussed the riveting news that Next's Wizard is now called Mage, and how that changes everything.

BESW

02:54

My group never got over the fact that if you draw a circle on a grid, 4e reads it as a square, and vice versa.

@Magician I think you're the main catalyst for Next talk here.

Alex P

@Magician We don't know anything that you and Wax don't tell us first.

Magician

@BESW Hah. I've starred your headbanging quote, don't be modest :P

Alex P

@BESW 4e did actually Square the Circle, technically.

BESW

@AlexP It also circled the square.

@Magician I'll happily join in, but I don't start the conversations.

Alex P

But, yeah, I'd love to hear more about Next. Particularly if it's a little bit snarky.

BESW

02:56

Or a lot snarky.

Alex P

Yes.

Magician

It's in the same package you've discussed then. It's full of strange things. Not all bad, but some of them are major turn-arounds, and it's kinda late for that...

Alex P

Though if I want to get super-snarky there's Numenera. Some people are ripping on it hard.

Magician

You want snark? Fine. 1st level characters are now extremely boring. They don't get feats or choices until level 3 or so. 1st level fighter can second wind 1/day. end of list. 2nd level fighter also can do 2 actions in a round, 1/encounter.

Alex P

What is second wind?

Just more hp?

Magician

02:59

Yeah, heal half hp or something like that.

Alex P

Meh.

That's not even a real ability.

wax eagle

@Magician that's just...ew

BESW

That is beautiful.

Alex P

It's just an extra bucket of hp that's harder to use.

wax eagle

the char op folks are going to fall asleep

Magician

03:00

Paired with nuking of skills, it's taking "I hit things" to the next level.

I understand desire for simple system and quick character generation. But when I want that, I'll play DW, which is by far easier and better at it.

BESW

Okay, there is one way this works.

Alex P

@Magician I feel like that's awful when combined with a very task-focused system.

BESW

If they actually leverage modules aggressively.

Because the only way this system works at all is if the core rules are so generic and vanilla that you can snap any module you want onto them, and you want to.

wax eagle

@BESW yes, I've seen some twitter spec that everything we've seen released in teh past couple of packets are actually just module tests.

Alex P

I feel like I would be very, very frustrated actually playing with "modules," though.

Like in the intended make-your-own-D&D way.

Magician

03:02

Feats are sort of a module. So at some levels, characters gain ability increase. Instead, if GM allows it, players can take feats. Feats are huge, some basically replace a whole prestige class, or combine several older feats in them.

Alex P

Because, for example, if I am playing in a challenge-focused way... I will pick the optimal options even if they are not the most pleasing in a tactile aesthetic sense.

wax eagle

@AlexP the only way I see this working well is if htey change their distribution model to all digital subscription service and basically provide build your own rules manual as a tool.

Alex P

And it will annoy me just as much as "Don't play a fighter if you want to actually be worthwhile" did in D&D3.

Magician

Characters get 4-7 of them (so far). Why? Because *drumroll* different classes get them at different levels and in different quantities.

There's no way that won't explode.

@AlexP The only actual option a 1st level fighter gets is to hit things. It could almost be a narrative system: "roll attack, describe being awesome", except D&D is adamantly not.

Alex P

@waxeagle The problem is, even then, it'll never be as good as just having my pick of 30 systems that have D&D-like features with clear focus on one thing or another.

@Magician Well, that's sans modules.

Magician

03:06

True. But feats are a module. You get the first one around level 3.

Alex P

Are they still doing that two-dice thing?

Magician

Nope!*

Skills are dead. Skill dice have morphed into expertise dice. Some classes have expertise in an ability, that grows with level. Rogues have Dex, monks and rangers have Wis or Dex. That's it.

Some class path features give other expertise. Fighters can be knights, for instance, granting them 1d4 Cha expertise.

But stats other than Wis or Dex basically get buggered.

Because skill system was too complex.

BESW

It sounds like they can't decide how much granularity to put in the basal system.

Magician

But someone in dev is really concerned characters won't know what they should know, so instead there's fields of lore. Nobility, hobbyist, forbidden, something like that. Each character gets 2, classes can grant more.

Alex P

what does 1d4 Cha expertise do?

Add to rolls?

Roll both and take the better one?

Magician

03:09

@AlexP Yup, any time you make a Cha check you roll 1d20+1d4

Alex P

so the "roll a bunch, pick one" mechanic is gone?

Magician

@AlexP I'm not sure it was there?..

There was fighter supremacy, dice fighters get each round to spend on stuff. It's now a sub-class, but at least its there.

Alex P

So, here is the problem with D&D Next, in my opinion: I've heard maybe one third of a good idea out of it.

BESW

I remember advantage/disadvantage being interesting.

Alex P

And, despite how much I crap on D&D, I feel like most of the D&Ds have a lot of fun stuff in them.

Magician

03:11

Ah, that. Yes, sorry, it's still there.

BESW

(Roll two d20s, pick the highest or lowest depending on if you have advantage or disadvantage.)

Alex P

The Basic/Expert/.../Immortals progression? Totally cool!

For instance.

Just, like, WHERE IS THE COOL STUFF?

Magician

@AlexP We're testing the basic, bare-bones rules. For a year.

BESW

@AlexP In the modules!

Magician

There's more, though! Wizards, er, sorry, mages get potion brewing as a class feature. Not even optional. Starting at level 10 (or was it 8?) they can make potions out of a very small list. They can only have half their level of potions at any time. Some potions count as several potions for this. Potions that've existed for a year and a day become exempt.

BESW

03:15

See, the thing is, you've always been able to pick the modules that are most beneficial, just by ignoring the others.

Alex P

Level 10 out of... 20?

Magician

Because wiz-er-mages needed more points to keep track of, and now dates, while fighters hit things.

@AlexP Yup

Alex P

Are they TRYING to make the most boring game ever?

Compare to level 10 in O-ish D&D: Stronghold! Followers! Entering onto this new weird tier of adventure!

wax eagle

@Magician just yikes

Alex P

So potions don't expire, they become, like, vintage?

But then what if you find someone else's potions?

Or what happens if you brew another potion?

Does one go bad?

wax eagle

03:20

@AlexP i guess you better pray they've been cellared

Magician

The sum total of my knowledge has been presented to you. The rules are about 3 paragraphs long, counting the potion list.

trogdor

lol

BESW

"Ah, the Year of the Half-breed. A good vintage overall, but the hens' teeth were a little bitter."

trogdor

"brew potion, you have too many potions, a random one blows up damaging you"

Alex P

Okay, now I have a scheme to use potions like qbits.

Magician

03:24

So basically, it's a third-ish spellcasting system the same class gets. There's regular vancian casting, there's ritual casting which only works on some spells and takes longer but doesn't require preparation, and now there're potions. Why they don't use spell slots is anyone's guess, really.

BESW

Because that would nerf mages?

trogdor

lol

BESW

[re-uses gif]

wax eagle

@BESW nerf mages? you wouldn't

trogdor

you really like that glass case of emotion

Alex P

03:27

Here's what I really like about the potion subsystem idea.

It actually makes wizards lamer.

Like, conceptually, if you bolt on a subsystem but it's boring, the class is less interesting even if you never use it.

BESW

@trogdor Yes.

trogdor

lol

Alex P

So, speaking of Monte Cook, as we were indirectly, here is a really brutal kinda-review of Numenera.

I think the overarching point here also applies to D&D5.

  > Earlier I described Numenera as Book of the New Sun meets How People Actually Play Roleplaying Games. Here's what people do when they play roleplaying games, as nearly as I have been able to tell:
1) They fight weird monsters.
2) They conceive, and enact, very stupid plans, which work because everything is running on GM fiat and constantly making PC plans not work just because they're very stupid and unworkable is no fun for anyone.
3) They quote pop culture.

Magician

If I may... You can sacrifice a spell slot to brew up to 3 potions of the same level or lower. You get the spell slot back once the potions are used up. The potions either come from a list or some spells are marked as potionable.

There, done. Better system. Except you could fuck a wiz-er-mage (I'm not being facetious, I really go to type 'wizard' first) over by stealing some of his potions... But that goes for the book as well.

Alex P

Argh quoting is hard.

> As a game designer I believe it is bad practice to write your game specifically, and exclusively, to cater to that style of gameplay, for exactly the same reason it's bad practice to set out to write a list of plot hooks and include only very obvious ones. That style of play will happen no matter what game you write.

i give up.

Whatever. The above thing above was a quote.

Magician

03:34

Actually, 3 seems like too much. Make it 2, wiz-er-mage (again!) nerf incoming, commence whining!

@AlexP The autoformatting has claimed another victim!

BESW

@AlexP Players R Dumb?

Alex P

@BESW There's a whiff of that, but more that, fundamentally, it is not hard to make a system that supports goofing around.

trogdor

@BESW they are sometimes

but yeah, still not just all players all the time

Magician

03:54

@AlexP ...page 38 of 53? Sheesh.

I must be getting old in my internet age. I just don't have the interest or the stamina to read through 53 pages of forum posts on a single topic.

BESW

It seems like he's saying "Okay, look. Players are stupid, and the only reason RPGs function is that the GM is constantly dumbing things down to compensate for their colossal idiocy."

shatterspike1

That sort of player will probably not play outside the game they're familiar with

At least, I couldn't see why

doppelgreener

04:18

@BESW It's because they don't know what to identify as a base for any game ever.

I wouldn't know what to identify the base either.

BESW

You haven't been working on a world-famous RPG franchise for ten years.

doppelgreener

Where is the base between a game like Fate and a game like D&D 4e?

BESW

Not sure what you mean, "between."

doppelgreener

That's if playing narrative-style games is within their goal of making every kind of game possible in D&D Next.

Well, if they wanted to make an RPG system where you could add on a module or two to make it play as a narrative game with flexibility and world influence, or other modules to make it like D&D 4e, what would you make that RPG system be?

BESW

If I were going to do it, I'd identify what is basal to D&D; what actually IS the common denominator between all the things that people consider D&D?

doppelgreener

04:24

I guess it is outside their thing.

BESW

That would be the base system, and modules would consist of adding the bits which aren't the lowest common denominator.

shatterspike1

Clumsy, unwieldy mechanics? I think that leaves 4th out of the picture though.

BESW

Let's see. A combat-focused system in which class and race are the foundation definitions of character.

doppelgreener

Skills which grant my character capacity to perform a variety of actions interacting with the world (but hopefully are more complex than just 3 skills for social interaction)

shatterspike1

What about the Hackmaster/Rolemaster/Anima: Beyond Fantasy style games?

BESW

04:26

@shatterspike1 Are they considered part of the D&D oeuvre?

shatterspike1

A wizard doesn't feel like a wizard unless he has spell slots

clerics turn undead, paladins with the alignment/honor code restriction, etc.

Not to mention that the gulf between certain editions is huge

I think it would be very difficult to call D&D 3.x and D&D 4 the same game, or even siblings

BESW

@shatterspike1 But they share common elements.

Magician

Eeeh. Turn Undead is not at all a huge thing, and I hate vancian spellcasting :)

BESW

It's those things which are basal to D&D, definitional, which should define the core of DDN.

Magician

"Wizards benefit from advance planning" is better, I think, as it captures the essence of vancian magic without necessarily using it.

shatterspike1

04:30

Actually... not bad

doppelgreener

I wonder what it was that made them decide skills shouldn't be a thing.

Was it that people would want to have different skill lists available?

shatterspike1

I'm just trying to think of common elements d&d has between editions that other games don't share

doppelgreener

(Wouldn't that suggest having a core skill list that gets replaced or amended would be better? Maybe they already went through that consideration though)

shatterspike1

or don't share in that unique fashion

BESW

Before we hit class features like wizards and their advance planning, I'd focus on the scope of things.

Magician

04:36

/*test/*

nope :(

BESW

The focus is on individual characters with extraordinary capacity who place themselves in danger. They are defined by their race and class, with subsystem choices (feats, spells, powers, etc) that further define their role and specialties.

Advancement is based on experience, which is gained through triumph over obstacles--often through violence.

Advancement consists of increased subsystem choice and incrementally higher numbers.

shatterspike1

The game is about as close as you can get to "standard heroic fantasy" as there is

BESW

@shatterspike1 M'rr. That's a mirror definition, I'm afraid.

Magician

@shatterspike1 D&D is heroic fantasy is D&D

BESW

Another important element of character definition and advancement is the acquisition of magical items. These serve as another subsystem, and advancement in it also consists of increased choice and higher numbers.

doppelgreener

04:40

@BESW But not always, since there may be those people who have campaigns that take place entirely in civilised upper-class society via diplomacy, or involve steamier content and very little fighting (except when [redacted for work safety]).

Magician

Also, /ahem/ No Such Thing as D&D /ahem/

BESW

D&D was inspired by a wide selection of heroic fantasy media, and in turn subsequent heroic fantasy media was inspired by D&D.

@Magician Yeah, I'm trying to see if it's possibly to meaningly define what is D&D, in a way that a core set of D&DN rules might rise from them.

@JonathanHobbs Hence "triumph over obstacles--often through violence."

shatterspike1

Which D&D?

Magician

@JonathanHobbs I know people do that, and I think they're doing it wrong. Which is to say, they shouldn't use a system designed for dungeon crawling for courtly intrigue, it just doesn't work as well as a system designed for courtly intrigue, even if they manage to have fun with it.

BESW

@shatterspike1 That's the crux of the problem; the fundamental goal of D&D Next is to provide a D&D experience that can mimic any D&D experience.

I'm speculating on whether there's enough common ground, a large enough lowest common denominator, that this is even theoretically possible.

shatterspike1

04:43

If people wanted a specific D&D experience from a certain edition, they would play that edition, wouldn't they?

BESW

@shatterspike1 You'd think. But that doesn't hold water for Wizards of the Coast, for two reasons.

doppelgreener

@Magician Oh, yes, definitely, but we're not talking about "what D&D is made for". We're talking about "what D&D means to people and what they use it for"

BESW

First and foremost, they need to sell games.

shatterspike1

Not trying to shut down your speculation, sorry

BESW

Hasbro is breathing down their neck to make the franchise hit some very high income goals.

This is why they're trying to make a game that appeals to everyone: to get everyone to buy it.

shatterspike1

04:46

They have been handed an impossible task and I'm sorry for anyone in such a position

Magician

@BESW Speaking of which, does anyone know if their luxury re-releases of old manuals actually sell?

BESW

Second, people moved to Pathfinder when 3.5 stopped being supported. This isn't, for many, because Pathfinder is better; it's because Pathfinder was still supported. Many (perhaps even most, though that's speculation) gamers want a system that is "alive."

If D&DN can provide an AD&D experience, then AD&D gamers might actually start playing D&DN! Because it's alive, it'll have support, a community, new material...

@Magician No idea.

Magician

I suspect they'd mostly be bought by nostalgic people who don't actually play the game anymore. I have all of generic (non-setting) 3ed books, and I barely look at them. I can't imagine buying one now even if it was missing from my collection.

shatterspike1

@BESW It seems odd that they wouldn't still be supporting 4E then, if it still sells. Another question to ask might be why 3.x was so much better selling than 4e

BESW

@shatterspike1 Again, I see two factors there.

But first, why wouldn't they be supporting 4e? Because D&DN would in theory be providing a 4e experience, and it's cheaper to have your team working on just one project.

Now, why did 3.5 sell better than 4e? First, because 3.5 didn't have as split a fanbase. Although 3.5 made people unhappy, it did its absolute best to at least pretend like it was trying to cater to old-school ideas while introducing new concepts.

Magician

04:49

@BESW Ugh. How many people does it take to put out a rulebook? A couple of designers, an editor, an artist. That's not a lot of investment, honestly.

BESW

@Magician Updating the online tools, playtesting (such as it is), erratas, marketing, merchandising...

3.5 made a lot of claims that it ultimately can't support, but which it looks like it can enough that a group can jigger the system into something approaching the experience they want.

Metool

Some people don't want to have to do more work than it takes to get a law degree to make an 'effective' character. Wargh.

BESW

4e is unapologetic about having a single goal and sticking to it. The system sacrifices many of the notions and tangents that 3.5 held onto, in order to do one thing really well: balanced tactical combat.

So anyone who didn't want to do what 4e was offering, didn't buy it.

And anyone who bought the community propaganda about 4e's being like an MMO, or any of the other demonstrably-wrong junk that people say about it, didn't buy it.

Instead they stuck to 3.5 or moved to Pathfinder.

shatterspike1

D&DN is somehow going to give us both the beautiful abomination that was 3 and the balance of 4, even if the game is modular?

BESW

@shatterspike1 That's the goal.

It's a lovely, lofty, admirable, utterly insane goal.

shatterspike1

04:54

Those poor designers.

BESW

D&D has been forced into a corner by economic concerns: it cannot be content with filling a small niche well, because it won't make enough money that way.

So they're compelled to try making the game that people once thought D&D actually was: the game in which you could do anything.

shatterspike1

You know, hasbro could just ask them to make an RPG that uses cards from Magic: The Gathering. That would probably sell absurdly well.

Metool

Hah.

BESW

Because the only way they can meet their income goals is if D&D remains the flagship system that everyone wants to play. Meanwhile they're facing an increasingly granular RPG community that has discovered there are thousands of games, each tailored to a particular gameplay experience.

shatterspike1

There are so many wiser decisions they could make

doppelgreener

04:57

@Magician There are still gaming groups that play prior editions of D&D. If I became a serious member of such a campaign, I'd probably consider buying one of those old core manuals.

BESW

By choosing a modular approach, Wizards can try to match the "tailored gameplay experience" ethos of modern RPGs, without losing their position as The One Game to Rule Them All.

doppelgreener

e.g. I played a game of Basic D&D (not sure which version) and AD&D 2e at my local gaming meetup.

BESW

It's a very cool idea, but one that's ultimately futile... especially given WotC's track record on quality and playtesting.

doppelgreener

They play the original editions because it provides them with everything they want and they don't see a need to move on to 3.5e, 4e, or even in some cases, 2e.

Transcript for