Seems to me there was something sane about "Sage Advice" in the old print days. If you had a question and wanted an "official" answer it would take a month-and-a-half, minimum, if it got answered.
would have been better to say that Sage Advice is NOT official unless they've pulled out things they wanted to print as errata or published clarifications
A very well-intentioned and deserving-of-many-thanks volunteer built a site that'd scrape twitter for tweets by/about the D&D team and called that site "Sage Advice."
That site ends up creating a set of rulings/statements that overlaps some with the "Sage Advice" compendia that WotC releases. And makes hard to find.
@NautArch That's certainly my stance on them, but others reasonably differ.
"One exception: the game’s rules manager, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford), can make official rulings and usually does so in Sage Advice and on Twitter."
I downvoted that answer and it strikes me as patently absurd that 50+ upvoted it. In the test of the accepted answer is quoted the WotC statement "can make official rulings... on Twitter." Published SA articles have a bunch of "this is official" verbiage to them. The tweets don't. Yet that answer-author comes to the conclusion "all his Tweets are official."
I don't see any logic to extend the notion "some JC tweets might be official" to "all JC tweets are".
And if they are we're all SOL, since examples of them contradicting/reversing each other abound.
@nitsua60 I was thinking the same thing. I don't think WoTC really thought that through and they along with Crawford should have made some way to mark Official Answers from advice on how to rule.
Twitter's not a sane medium for half-assed "yeah, let's say it works that way.. oh, what? That's totally wrong. Shoot, you're right, it actually works this way" promulgation.
do any of the tweets have the "this is official" verbiage? If not, then it's kind of weird for them to say they're official and equate them to published Sage Advice.
@NautArch They should just say "twitter's volatile, just like UA. We don't guarantee anything but that we'll trawl back through them when sitting down to do a SA Compendium update."
@BESW =D
@NautArch None. Which, given the limitations, might make sense.
@nitsua60 sadly, they didn't and instead said the opposite. But ultimately, it goes to crawford's most useful tweet: "Reminder: The rules and my rulings are tools for the DM. The DM decides how to use those tools for a particular group of players"
In other nrews... I found my dice! I had a custom d6 printed, from the US; cost me $50. I lost it several months ago after leaving it at a friends place (they did find it, but they then placed it in "the safe place"). But, after moving, and the last box was cleared out, one guy pulled it out of his pocket saying "look what I found".
They had the good graces to return it, thankfully. They knew how important it was to me :)
The Wisp hero came second (or possibly won, depending who you believe) a contest for which hero would get a new skin.
Then the next time said contest was run, he wasn't included. People (including me) were worried that they didn't want to risk him winning, especially if he actually should have won the year before.
Then they surprised us all by releasing a new skin which turns him into a companion cube!
Enjoyable :) I mean, I really haven't been paying attention to the storyline for the most part (talk to that guy, kill stuff, get the thing, return for xp), but I am enjoying the gameplay a lot.
I can also understand why it is similar to 4e. I mean, both were made by Hasbro, but they also have a similar structure: Class > Subclass > Skillset
@Miniman pretty much. They do have areas that force multi-player, but that's handled by queueing, but if you really want to, you can play it mostly solo
My only complaint, as it would be with any game that has it: micro-transactions
How's the actual gameplay in it? I've been playing Secret World Legends with friends, now that it's FTP, and while I like the writing a lot, the actual gameplay is pretty "meh". Not to mention the overabundance of typical MMO elements that don't fit the theme.
So I'll play through the story, but won't hang around there. Guild Wars 2 all the way. Especially with the second expansion a month away.
@Magician Ok, so, some friends and I spent considerable time in the past trying various MMOs. At the end, the conclusion we came to was that they're all kinda the same, fundamentally, with skin-deep differences, and that we didn't really enjoy the core gameplay. I have heard a lot of good stuff about GW, though, and it sounds like you play a range of MMOs - is it worth giving it a go?
I'm a bit biased, seeing as I've been playing it since the release. But yes, absolutely, it's my favorite MMO ever.
The actual combat feels fluid and mobile. After many other games that were basically "stand in place doing your rotation until the enemy drops", it is great. Exploration is rewarded, the world is huge and keeps getting larger.
One of the big things that set it apart is lack gear grind. You hit max level in a month of two of leisurely play. You can get exotic gear more or less straight away. Ascendent, the highest tier, is only marginally better, and you don't need it for any of the open world PvE content. After that, you just explore the world. Which isn't to say there aren't things to strive for. There's plenty of horizontal progression:...
...from account-wide mastery system which unlocks buffs and non-essential but useful abilities like use of environmental stuff e.g. bouncing mushrooms, to ahievements forming collections which award cosmetic items which in turn form their own collections, to legendary weapons which are very shiny looking, but have same stats as ascended tier.
@Miniman Well. The core game has gone ftp at the release of the first expansion. You get the massive open world, no limits on levelling or the like. Expansions are paid for, giving you further story, more maps and more masteries. Gliding! And mounts in the upcoming expansion.
They do ongoing story updates, which usually add even more maps, and you just have to log in during the release period to unlock it. Otherwise, you can buy the previous episodes.
As for actual microtransactions, they are all vanity or convenience, like extra inventory space or unbreakable gathering tools. Those are a must.
My brother plays GW2, and recommends it. He's always had good taste
I also got into Neverwinter a few years back, and got off it because of the frustrating duo-currency economy (i don't know if that's still a thing now)
But I have been looking for something to play with a friend - we got sick of both the games we were playing together, but still want to have something to do together.
As far as I can tell, the primary currencies are Zen and Astral Diamonds, but there are plenty others. Seals, bars, shards, and a handful of others, as well as event currencies, on top of area-specific "bounty" items that are used as currency (thank god they don't take up space in your inventory)
I mean, handling it all isn't too much of an issue, it's just a matter of going up to vendors and saying "what money do you take"
Oh, and the obvious gold/silver/copper system for all your consumable needs
@daze413 I have started these, as they're only late-game as far as I'm aware (lvl 60+), and I am enjoying them
I think I remember a player-made quest there whose start was the end of LotR, where you have to destroy the macguffin by throwing it into a volcano, all the other "PC"s were intolerable, so you decided to use the macguffin to kill them and you bargained with a shady guy to get another artifact... Is this quest still there?
I'll let you know if I come across it haha. I've only just started one: an undead dwarf has taken control of vampire drow to fight the demons that stole his dead King's helm
But, somehow, I'm not entirely sure, it took a left turn and now I'm rescuing a living dwarf from a bunch of orcs. Either I missed a plot point, or I am confusing my quest lines
I wanna say the latter... but don't let me stop these drop dead hilarious puns
So in addition to a request to replace stars with elephants in this room, we also want to not just add a "groan" button, but shape it like a zombie, too.
> Reputation. When meeting a new person, roll 1dF. Minus: They've heard of you, and aren't happy to meet you. Blank: They haven't heard of you. Plus: They've heard of you, and are pleased to meet you. For any result other than blank, gain the aspect My reputation precedes me with one free invoke. (Note: being pleased to meet you doesn't necessarily imply they'll be helpful or friendly.)
@godskook 6400 Mages are very plenty: there are most likely less than 2000 nobles that can pay to hold a private mage, and the Empire and subsidiaries hold a staf of maybe another 3000 for the army and in the academues. Leaves about 1400 "free" mages inside the middle empire that work as alchemists or otherwise pay back their debts (ok, not all academiey give you debts, but a lot)
This meta is about:
How do you roleplay a suddenly-free slave?
It was asked yesterday, then answered (with a good answer), then closed, and now it's on 4 open votes (not including mine; I could reopen it myself).
There seems to be some disagreement on whether or not it's on topic, so I'd like t...
@Magician I'm really not sure to blame for this. The artist, for providing the visual stimuli, @BESW for implanting the idea in your head, or you for actually going through with it and writing up a stat block haha
But my calculation would go a bit different: ~10.000 people with raw magic potential. only about 75% are detected, so 7500. Mage training takes about 7 years, starting at worst around 12, so 'underage' or 'traineees' making up maybe ~23% of that. makes 5775 trained mages. Makes just about 775 free mages competing as alchemists and loan mages.
Crusader Kings II is a fun game. I spent yesterday's session trying to murder two ten year olds so I'd inherit their barony, then proceeded to become a drunkard within a few months and had to give the barony away because of too low Stewardship stat :)
Mostly I'm just thinking about how it would be really useful for a shonen battle manga game, in the vein of Dragon Ball. Scale, effect, and risk open up a ton of room for expressive powers that the vast majority of systems lack. Because most games model skill and such as a higher number compared to some other number, which lessens the room for expression or tactics.
But these sorts of rich but systemic descriptors of situation make it easy to talk about how powers work in these situations. "Punching Crocodile is no effect, he's sand... but what if I get him to clump together with water?"
I should take another look at DFA. What do you see that's particularly similar?
DFA has a tier system for determining power. If a high-tier character faces off against a low-tier character, there are mechanical limits on how much the lower-tier character can succeed and how much the higher-tier character can fail.
However, these limits are restricted to whatever the character's supernatural comfort zone is.
In the context of physical confrontation, a human can never succeed with style against a troll... unless the human is using an iron weapon, which ignores the troll's superior tier.
Similarly, a wizard is always just a normal squishy human for the purposes of tier effects unless the particular interaction is about the wizard wielding magic.
At really high imbalances of tier, you wind up with a situation where you're only ever rolling to find out if you fail, or fail by three or more. That means you need to run and come back when you've found a way to confront the enemy with more tier on your side, or a way to confront them that doesn't let them bring their tier against you.
In the final product of DFA it's less pronounced; power imbalances tend to grant a lot of bonuses and that's about it.
But for a shonen battle game... absolute tiers like the DFA beta used might be useful to consider.
@BESW That feels like a cop-out. "We failed to properly balance encounters, so now you automatically succeed/fail in the encounters we meant to have you succeed/fail".
I think that there is merit in showing the PCs their limits in this way. Fate can easily degrade into the PCs being demigods, if the compels aren't hard enough. With risk, effect, and scale, the conversation around that is a lot more grounded.
White room game balance is overrated, I think. The important thing is giving everybody something that tips the balance. That's how you design for players to do things and affect the situations in interesting ways.
This is the problem with the mundane/caster divide in D&D. Wizards get all the tools and fighters get none.
At lest in 5e it is not so bad as every class has some way of getting a bit of magic. Having the option of an easy class for children to play as has its merits, too.
"Every class" might have been an overstatement, but at least the Fighter does have the option to go Eldritch Knight.
Kids can handle complexity, and a lack of complexity doesn't have to equate to a lack of effectiveness. The Fighter would be a lot of fun with, say, abilities to shove people around the battlefield, heal others, and deliver multi-kills with ease. Those kinds of abilities don't need to be complex to maintain or to use, either.
They're heavy on flavor and have a pickup truck full of abilities, but they don't synergise well with themselves and most of their abilities are situational enough or limited enough that they're not particularly effective in any given situation.
This leads to monk effectiveness being very reliant on the GM's attitude toward them; the more a monk is given situations tailored to their grab-bag of abilities, or "you're a monk, you can do that" replaces dice rolls, the more a group feels monks are awesome or even overpowered.
But it's very much a case of "everything that would make a monk great is something someone else could do better."
Resistance to the point that we've had times in the chat history where this conversation would be whisked away to a private room immediately before it could turn into a flame war.
A good analogy about Fate balance was we had in the same group: a technodragon with a ferociously powerful bite and problematic temper, a girl with a malfunctioning time gun and jet boosters, an animalistic plant girl, a robot clockwork scientist robot, and a swamp man, and some other weirdos. Many of these characters couldn't fight very well. All of them contributed powerfully without undermining or overshadowing each other.
If anything the dragon probably had the most trouble because of his lack of social hooks.
@JuneShores They do comparable damage, have much higher AC and the option of a lot of tricks like making the opponent fall prone, disarmed and causing disadvantage to a monster when an ally gets attacked. Or they just go champion and get crits at 18+ and regenerate hit points. No caster can do that.
Fate cares less about your numbers, more about what meaningful complexity your character as an individual with a personality can bring to the storytelling. People like using the high numbers, so those say "this is how I'm more likely going to solve problems."
But solving problems that way can lead to more problems: I have a character who's just caused a terrible situation because he's great at shooting and he thinks sufficient power solves any problem. So he tried to defuse a situation with shooting, and people including himself got hurt. That's caused a character change to how he thinks.
Backing off the Fighter thing, because I have not the time nor energy for it. But yes, @doppelgreener has it right, that is how Fate works. There is no encounter, only characters and their conflicts.
@BESW Yeah, in fact we have explicit mechanics to reward players for something going badly for them. Losing is a way forward. It's also totally okay to rock up to face The Night Queen, against whom you cannot possibly succeed, and try to start a fight - and have bad things happen, fail for it, get captured, etc. The characters might come out of it with 3+ fate points each plus awesome story.
(I'm thinking: 1 fate point for a consequence, 1 for conceding a conflict, 1 for the compel from the GM that they should concede.)
@Szega Again, Fate is not a D&D-like game. It's big on drama and getting in over your head but probably succeeding in the long run anyway. Fate runs on a cycle of crisis and victory.
Fate's reward cycle isn't based around winning, it's based around exploring complexity, consequences, drama, and loss. It has mechanisms that are all about the player characters experience setbacks and complication, and they get rewarded for it.
@Szega ...hence our saying that you're starting from incorrect assumptions about Fate's narrative priorities. The fight isn't the point any more than the fights in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon or Steven Universe are the point.
What we've said is that violence and death are often the most boring outcome, and that players are willing to take more interesting risks if they know that losing isn't boring.
Danger is punished: players avoid it, and the DM feels pressured to create situations in which it isn't likely if the players work effectively, because killing the players is bad.
Danger and complication are rewarded: players can explore it freely, and the DM can beset them outright with considerable peril, and the players can trust them and work through it because it's unlikely to kill them and they have the tools to exploit the situation.
In Fate, losing can mean completely changing the status quo, redefining the context of the whole adventure, losing something important and starting a storyline to get it back or deal with its loss. The loss matters and lingers, coloring the future, even if it's just "now we get to sneak out of the enemy's prison and maybe learn something about their weaknesses!"
@Szega DMs trying to save their players from themselves is a semi regular thing. In Fate, players and GMs together can grin at how badly this is going to go, and the players might even understand it's a bad idea but everyone thinks something might be a fun bad idea to explore the consequences of. Like the time I had my character get into a shouting match during a stealth mission, and we had horrendous fun with it.
The argument is that apparently in fate just jumping into ridiculous danger is fine, but it feels wrong to players who want to have their actions have consequences.
Jumping into ridiculous danger is fun, in part because you can be reasonably confident you'll live to deal with its consequences--or if not, you know that's a choice you're making going in, and can make the choice when it'll really matter.
The only kind of death Fate avoids like the plague is random, unimportant, meaningless, petty death.
As somebody who has been bullied relentlessly and faced with the excuse of "they were just playing devil's advocate", I'm going to have to side with BESW here.
So here's the thing with devil's advocate: it implies you're taking up a position you don't agree with (justifiably one nobody present should agree with, you're advocating the devil here) because participants feel someone doing so is necessary allow them to explore a topic in a formal debate setting. It doesn't mean it's ok for us to make argument with someone in conversation, especially when they weren't aware that's what we were doing ahead of time.
@trogdor It is. In formal debate, people agree a side is going to play devil's advocate, and they do that additionally because there's visibly nobody who wants to represent that viewpoint, but people want to explore the reasoning arguing for something that they may already accept.
This meta is about:
How do you roleplay a suddenly-free slave?
It was asked yesterday, then answered (with a good answer), then closed, and now it's on 4 open votes (not including mine; I could reopen it myself).
There seems to be some disagreement on whether or not it's on topic, so I'd like t...
