Specifically this Q&A, but I believe this can also be applied in general.
In general:
It seems to me that if a question doesn't have an answer already in one Q&A, that it should be considered a valid question. Duplicates, in my understanding, are only for cases when the question is the same que...
@doppelgreener I was looking around for a long time before I went looking on MSE, but yeah. You can tell which questions were closed using custom off-topic reasons, but not what those reasons were.
OK, so I had an idea for a question, in addition to an answer (so, like a self-answered one). "Why should li give my PC a backstory, and how would it affect the game?"
What do people think of that, as q general concept? I'm not sure if I need to restrict it to a system at all, and the "answer" would be mostly along the lines of "it can help develop the character, how they react, etc, as well as giving the DM something to go off in a long-term campaign (personalised story arcs, etc)
@Ben It'd be cool if there was an rpg.se blog that we could all throw these kinds of things into. When I've got some time, I might look at setting something up.
Yeah. I'm thinking though, each one would have to be read individually, and blogs can be long and involved, so that might be some work. On the plus side, you wouldn't get a whole tonne of them very regularly.
While my DM's taking a break for ~6 months, one of the others in the group is going to run a Tunnels & Trolls game. I'll probably be playing a yeti wizard.
On the plus side though, they would be fun to read, and would even help with answering questions. I.e a lot of my questions about building my Diablo game are often met with "have you read The Angry DM?" Haha
@Miniman Basic T&T uses strength like "spell points" - each spell has a strength cost, that recharges slowly through the day. And has minimum int & dex requirements to cast spells of higher levels. Yetis have high strength (obviously) & int (don't know why), and average dex.
@Adeptus I always imagine wizards having stars in odd shapes and sizes printed all over their garments. Regardless of what I've actually seen wizards wear, the setting, or the character of the wizard themselves.
@ACuriousMind that makes sense then :)
@Adeptus good wizard? Deep blue robe with gold stars, or depending on their eccentricity, multicoloured stars. Bad wizard? Black robe, with white stars, and the stereotypical flames along the bottom hem
Aaand now that's canon. From now on, any wizard (or other spell caster) now immediately causes their garments to copy this standard. "You Don the cloak form the peddler, and with a faint pop, it changes color, followed by a fizzling sound as a trail of mismatched stars careen down the length of the cloak"
@Rubiksmoose just as a heads-up: I like to, when opening a meta that discusses a specific, current question, drop a comment on that mainsite question just to say "there's a meta discussing the closure [here](link)." It helps, I naively assume, gather the conversation in one place rather than having some happen on meta and some still in comments on mainsite.
I don't know--I've been offline the last eight hours or so, but I saw the two meta notifications about your specific-questions. You probably know their current status better than I.
Second thought, though, go ahead and post such a comment. Even if the mainsite question's been knocked into shape, it's good to have signposts like that around to help newer users discover site features and see the sort of moderating/norm-building the community does.
DM: Oh crumbs. Looks like you've taken your owner's favorite seat.
Tonka: Oh no. But I'm so comfy. Can I use my big squishy face to persuade them I can stay?
DM: For sure. You don't even have to roll. You're too cute. They're gonna sit somewhere else.
Spent the weekend in Chicago at ORD Camp. Decided to give a very truncated version of my "let's build a world" exercise. We ended up with sentient alien virus-infested people-eating bamboo, and a culture dedicated to the sacred panda. (Just go with it.)
Forget GM screens, I want a line of GM reference throw pillows. Our group pretty lounge games these days and these would be amazing.
"Hey Adam, what's +5 on the FATE ladder?"
"Check under your butt."
Lumbar support AND reference help? Yes, please. Do it @EvilHatOfficial. https://twitter.com/robdaviau/status/955223701703790593
She's also not wrong, and has put her money where her mouth is by writing multiple award-winning fantasy series that poke systemic magic with a sharp stick.
I think it's one reason I'm so attracted to Shadowcraft's magic mechanics.
Magic is satisfyingly thematic and deeply reasonable, but utterly unpredictable and can cut to the core of who the person is when it gets out of hand.
BESW, I mean, I see where she's coming from, it's just a lot of what she's saying isn't really founded or reasonable. Success doesn't mean good after all. What she's looking for is "Fairy Tail". That's a "systemless" system of magic.
Clarification: Some of it is founded but unreasonable. Some of it is reasonable but unfounded. She does also make a couple good points, but where she isn't making good points, she is truly whining. It's a shame, because I think she has some decent points.
Elves and dwarves or elves and dark elves are probably the best examples and the reasoning behind their dislike of each other is firmly rooted in how different they are from one another.
[counter eyebrow raise] Of course.
She goes on further to say "of course orcs are evil, because they're orcs" when the reason that the majority of orcs and goblins are evil are because they are the creations of evil deities. There is nothing wrong with saying this because by and large the entire race was made to serve an antagonistic purpose. It's an abstract creation to further player agency.
Well her cursory observations of magic really have nothing to do with fantasy racism anyway. Her own argument about magic has nothing to do with it at all.
She's attempting to make the argument that because rules exist for magic in Dungeons and dragons that you can't be creative with how you choose to portray magic in your own media
You could make a system of magic that takes effect by lightly but firmly slapping someone in specific points of their face and someone out there would probably eat it up and find it entertaining.
Mmm. She's specifically saying that it's not good to use systemic magic as a substitute for storytelling; that it's okay as a tool for storytelling, but too often it's become a replacement.
Of course systemic magic isn't a substitute for storytelling. Most writers are smart enough to know that. But just because it isn't a substitute doesn't mean there shouldn't be a system in place. For example, how is a wizard supposed to know what spell they are casting if anything can happen? It'd be like a world of nothing but wild mages taken to an extreme.
"Anything can happen" is not really what she's getting at either.
There's not just two extreme points on the spectrum. The space between contains faith, intuition, emotion, the inertia of plot....
Again, there are plenty of awesome, compelling stories that soak their toes in that spectrum in diverse ways--several of them by Jemisin herself, including one of my current favorite fantasy series which actually has an interesting intersection with common scifi approaches to psi powers. And there are plenty of RPGs which do it too, including some of my favorite RPGs.
Magic is not very systemic in Tolkien's works, for instance, but it is still very far from "anything can happen". It's a lot like shamanistic intuitive nature magic that operates on the principle that natural forces are persons that can be compelled and commanded, with some flashy bits thrown in.
There's a really cool scene in The Fellowship of the Ring (at least in the movie, can't recall if it's in the novel) where Saruman and Gandalf have a "duel" of sorts, yelling at each other from dozens of miles away, Saruman trying to cast a storm upon the Fellowship and Gandalf trying to ward it off.
(sorry for spoilers, in case anyone didn't know Saruman turns out to be the Emperor of the Sequel trilogy)
Bujold's Five Gods series is quick to talk about the rules people have figured out for magic--and almost as quick to break them, because magic is all derived from personal conversation between souls, whether they're mortals, chaos spirits, animals, or gods, so a lot of what's taken for absolutely true about magic is actually cultural or common.
I really want to model a game on that system some day.
I think it'd probably be a mashup of Shadowcraft and Bubblegumshoe.
The relationship grants you a Magic skill which is rolled like Shadowcraft, except that consequences suffered from success-at-cost are inflicted on your relationship with the patron and must be resolved through interaction with them. You can also spend fate points on the relationship for effects, and be compelled in the same way.
"Arcane" and "divine" as codified magical distinctions post-date Lord of the Rings by at least one year.
@Sandwich Except for all the people like Sparky Sparky Boom Man who don't need physical motions, and how it's a power directly granted by the spirits, and how it manifests spontaneously when the world sees need.
Again: the system doesn't substitute for story, the story uses the system as a tool to further itself.
The magic has a framework which reinforces the themes of the story, and the story challenges the framework where that reinforces its themes.
Again, the idea of "druidic magic" as a codified magic distinct from other kinds of magic is much more recent. The idea of carefully distinguishing between different kinds of magic in the D&D sense is itself mostly a conceit of fiction.
@Sandwich Druids in the ancient world were priests, healers, kings and leaders, influencers, keepers of knowledge, adjudicators, etc. That is mostly fairly mutually exclusive from "reclusive shapeshifter who summons plants and animals."
@Sandwich it may have been for the people around stonehenge, though that's not much different to people nowadays standing up and singing in a big room in a stone building.
well, it is actually different i guess: in the ancient world, dances and song were critical to preserving and passing on cultural knowledge. if that did happen, it would've been the equivalent to what we do nowadays by reading books, attending lectures, watching tutorials, etc.
though a lot of the time these people were just places they could just talk to each other, attend lectures and speeches, read about things if they were literate, etc.
@doppelgreener Also in many places in the modern world! There are Yapese dances which contain history and languages lost to every other form of knowledge.
@BESW That's true! Aboriginal Australians have the same going on. ... I realise I slipped into a mindset of this stuff being outdated in describing that, but it's still current practice that doesn't need replacement in many modern-day cultures.
In regards to this question:
Dice are a medium used in pretty much every tabletop role-playing game, which means that things that involve dice at least have some analogous connection to tabletop games, on a fundamental level. Being able to change the primary medium of agency between players and ...
So we played another Curse of Strahd session yesterday. Was a rather slow-paced session, with the bulk of it spent fighting a creature that was trying to escape and that we had scant means to damage effectively with.
We also got our butts kicked in a different encounter but that ended by plot.
From an IT security point of view it's good to have people upgrading, but the decision to force it upon people is not something I can support even then.
On the other hand though, (somewhat) forced updates might need to become a norm given the security climate we're dealing with nowadays.
Those users on Windows 7 will cease to receive security updates in 2020, meaning whatever critical vulnerabilities are discovered then, they will almost certainly be left out in the cold dealing with them.
Because Windows 7 will be dated at that point people will stop specifically coding to determine where the vulnerabilities in the OS are
And move on to more lucrative exploits of more recent operating systems
Since low-level end users buy more computers due to having less aptitude for technology, they'll be the ones more likely to use newer versions of windows
@Sandwich No idea why your question on loading dice was closed. Voted to reopen. My only guess would be some of the site veterans are worried about giving the wrong message on cheating, and potentially teach otherwise non-cheaters how they could. Pandora's Box if you would.
@JoelHarmon That's why I've refused to move to Windows 10. Never had that problem on any older version of Windows.. Including the oft-reviled 8(.1)
@Randomorph I don't think it's off-topic, but I do think it's a bad idea to have a question like that. It's the Anarchists Cookbook of Dice Manipulation.
Our near end to campaign continues tomorrow night. Jumping back into a a final battle and puzzle where I've currently got a broken arm (no cleric has cast greater restoration to fix it for me yet...and i think only one currently has a spell slot for it.) and my +3 halberd is broken (the cleric without spell slots also has Mending, so that at least can get fixed)
@Sandwich that's not at all the case. hackers don't target machines based on what's current and dated; they target machines based on what's most beneficial to target. You want to be able to have the most impact (profit, invasion, control, damage, etc) on the most machines for the least effort. Usually that means targeting old unpatched software that is still widely used.
That Windows XP received a security patch in 2016 (long past when support was dropped) is telling of the fact hackers were still happy to exploit and target Windows XP, or rather, they were happy to attempt exploits that would only work on old, outdated machines such as those running Windows XP. Those Windows 7 machines will be a treasure trove in 2021.
@NautArch also be warned regarding mending: "This spell can physically repair a magic item or construct, but the spell can’t restore magic to such an object." So if it's still magical, but broken, it's fine. But if it lost it's magic on being broken, you might be SOL
@Randomorph yeah, he's not ruling lost magic. Just broken shaft. (same thing has happened to my maul) We have harsh FUmble punishments, but unless you're rolling 97% or higher, they're fixable.
@Sandwich There are tons of low-end users who, due to their having less aptitude for technology, will keep their existing tech for as long as they possibly can. There are people still walking around with Android 2 phones because they don't want to upgrade because they're familiar with this phone. If this was a medical situation, their phones would be equivalent to black plague carriers.
@Randomorph If you fumble on an attack, you roll a d100. Lower numbers are more minor effects (always DM decision as to what it will be) including dropped weapon, thrown weapon, self inflicted damage, damage other nearly ally, etc. A 100% is an autodeath. 98-99 could be permanent ability damage.
We've run the gamut from broken arms/shoulders requiring greater restoration (one before we had access to it...that took awhile to fix) to me losing 2 CHA points ( as a paladin, ouch...locking me at 16 CHA) and 2 int/wis points (which I recovered via greater restoration)
@Randomorph yup, but the table likes it. so i deal.
@NautArch I used to run with Nat 1s as fumbles, until I read a few things on the statistics of it happening. Basically the more you are able to attack, regardless of your proficiency at attacking, you are much more likely to fumble
@Randomorph kinda is. but we roll with it. As i've said before, I really dislike my GM, but the caxmpaign is almost over. And I really like playing with the rest of the guys. If that means distancing myself a bit from my characters, then so be it.
@NautArch yeah that's fair. I have a player who gets under my skin a bit, but near the end of the campaign, so just going to tolerate them until it's over, and then take a break from DMing.
The good news is he makes really fun battle encounters. That makes up for a lot of it - we enjoy the time we have at the table for the vast majority. We're about to start fighting 3 ninja looking dudes wielding lightsabers.
just sucks that I'm hurt and am low on HP.
this whole sequence was on another plane - when we return, we still have our big boss encounter to go.
and one cleric is out of spell slots.
Part of me hopes we'll be able to rest, but i'll be pissed if we can, because I managed my resources thinking I'd have to keep going on return.
@NautArch A few sessions ago, I put my players through a siege on at their home city. They went 3 sessions I think without a rest. They really had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to make it through. It was pretty rewarding overall, though perhaps a little bit of a slog at times.
@Adam I'm definitely cool with that sort of activity. If we can't rest and our cleric has to go into the big fight without his big guns, then that was his call.
I wanted to save my big guns...and itmay have almost killed me (especially after that fumble.)
having disadvantage on all attacks is gonna suck. If our other cleric doesn't have a 5th level slot, that's going to make my final fight a bit unfun. But at leats I still have my Vow of Enmity to get regular attacks on the big boss.
@NautArch That sounds quite familiar. The party wizard used all 3 of his 3rd level spells in the first fight of the siege. Everyone at the table was flabbergasted. Then I dropped a dragon on them in the second encounter...
@Adam yep that sounds fun. I did a similar thing (on a much smaller scale) by making my party survive a horde of undead attacking a cabin in the woods, trying to get a little girl spellcaster
The Bard was blowing spells willy nilly.. Quickly realized he'd made a terrible mistake as the zombies and other undead kept coming
@Randomorph Yup - unless we end up getting a very unlikely an unexpected rest. We basically are breaking into a castle, but had to go to this plane to get some sort of tool we need. But when we left, the guards were on their way (the plane is at a faster time, so for every minute we're there, it's only 30 seconds back home.) We really shouldn't have an opportunity to rest before we start the final sequence.
@Randomorph part of me hopes so so that I'm guaranteed to be healed. But I also don't want to because I would have played that scenario very differently (and more successfully)
Because I ran from one encounter, I'm almost guaranteed not to get that XP.
unless it was successful completion (which I did do.) I"m already losing XP because I had to ask for a hint on a BS puzzle.
@NautArch Reasons like that are why I like Milestone or "Goal based XP" levelling
Basically get one to five xp based on whether you accomplished any goals or not. Eg, 1 xp is sitting around in a tavern just relaxing all session, 5 xp is you defeated the big bad. Lots of leeway in the middle. Then you spend Twice your next level in XP to level up.
Yeah, I really like the idea of milestone levelling. Especially for a long campaign. If you're planning the campaign, you also know what level you want people to be at at each stage. The flipside is, people like getting XP.
Works out really nicely. Combat encounters don't really matter much, unless they accomplish something. (Eg, picking a bar fight doesn't do much, slaying the zombies attacking a village would be a goal accomplished)
Also rewards clever thinking, social goals or accomplishments, etc
Players still get their XP too, but now it's easy to count and calculate
Most sessions end up being 2 xp, but then you can give a big boost at the end of an arc when they resolve a major issue or conflict
that sounds very Iron Kingdoms (which I also liked)
But again, same DM who felt he had to nerf XP and also regeneration of the extra die you can use (which was annoying, because the game really needs those for you to do anything interesting)
Never heard of it. Basically my DM used it as 1-3, spend your next level, which he learned from one of his DMs. But we felt it wasn't flexible enough, so we expanded it to 1-5, spend double
@Randomorph I don't really know. It wasn't going to replace our main D&D campaign, and we just kept going with our alternate D&D campaign (which then grew with new players.) But also, that same DM i dislike was running it and making it unfun.
His standard tactics are remove inventory items, remove resources.
it's a good rule. He doesn't necessarily rule against us, but he artificially creates hardship (fights at night not in armor, forces giving up of magic items, creates a scenario where we have to leave behidn mundane equipment, etc.)
I mean, I'm fine giving my players a hard time and all. If they forgot to pack extra arrows, or chose not to cause they have limited inventory, that's on them
But if I'm like "Mwehehehe! Lightning strikes your camp at night burning up all your supplies and spooking your horses away!" then I'm just being a dick
Yeah I mean, I only punish players when they deserve it
E.g. "I pickpocket the guard lololol"
The one thing I do, is throw unforgiving boss encounters at them. But I have a bit of leeway, given death isn't exactly permanent in my campaign for reasons.
The static 7 would make things a bit slower at first, and then it'd kind of level off later, however. I think I prefer the faster early progression, and it slowing down as they level
@nitsua60 hrmm interesting. Yeah the system I've been using doesn't really care about specific actions (although the difference between doing something yourself, and hiring mercenaries to do it is still there), just that you've accomplished your goals one way or another
It's definitely made things lean towards resolving things peacefully when it makes sense, since progression isn't tied directly to combat
@Randomorph What about xp progressions that don't follow a continuous trend? For example, it's actually less experience to go from 11th to 12th, than from 10th to 11th, and some levels are the same number of xp. 12th to 13th level is the same number of experience points as 13th to 14th in the vanilla 5e progression
@Adam our group largely ignores that in favour of the simplicity. Ever level takes 2 xp more than the last one did
So it costs (note you "trade in" the xp to level) 4 XP to hit level 2, 6 xp to hit level 3 (cumulative 10 xp), etc
It makes early game go by a bit quicker (only 1 or 2 sessions to hit level 2 if you start at level 1), and it slows down nicely around the level 6-8 mark
@kviiri yep, Milestones is a nice one too. I find how well it works in practice is highly DM dependant though. If the quest drags, you might go a long time without a level.
The only XP system I just plain don't like is "Kills = XP"
@Adam Oh and as one note, our sessions aren't terribly long. About 3-4 hours on average. The system would need an adjustment if you had extremely long sessions.
@Randomorph The first one was a long one, seven hours or so? But it had two hours of samepaging and character building. Usually we play four or five hours.
@Randomorph I'm under the impression it's a rather general thing for DnD but it's really more of an impression than knowledge.
Similarly, I felt double-bummered by an encounter yesterday - once because it was a lot harder than it seemed, twice because it turned out unimportant because of plot.
Our GM has found the module to be relaxingly simple, but it's by no means effortless.
@Randomorph Can't argue with that, but OTOH if the people agree to play a module I think it's reasonable to expect a degree of tolerance for rails from them ;)
Also, DnD isn't exactly the best system for improvisational playing. Apocalypse World works quite well by my experience, and I believe Fate does too although I never get around to actually trying x)
@Randomorph I'm willing to put in the work to deal with organizing the module to fit my game if it means I don't have to come up with things like towns, the world, the maps, the objectives for the players, and the majority of the encounter set-up.
@kviiri I find the one thing that's a bit hard to just improv on the spot is Combat Encounters. But beyond that it's not too bad. I have tables and random generators for that :D
@Adam personally.. I like all those things you described not wanting to do. I like the players to have their own objective though
@kviiri Yep. I certainly love the tactical combat aspect of D&D. I've gotten pretty good at ballparking and improvising encounters when my PCs go places I wasn't expecting them to
@Randomorph I find it's usually pretty easy to find an adventure close enough to what the players want to do and then tweak it a bit to match that goal.
Although I find asking the simple question at the end of the session "What are your plans for next session" gives you a lot of direction to plan towards
@GreySage ergo, the "gotten good at improving encounters"
I also like just plopping down encounters in the world, whether the players can handle it or not. If they explore the area rumoured to have an ancient dragon, when it flies overhead they might actually run screaming back out
It basically gates some areas based on the (appoximate) difficulty
They can poke their toes in, but they'll learn to avoid it for now, or potentially get killed or captured
Step 1: Ask PCs to roll initiative when they enter a room or someplace. Step 2: PCs will immediately panic because there is no obvious enemy. Step 3: While PCs are stuck in analysis paralysis, put together the encounter at your leisure.
@doppelgreener yep, I do this from time to time to my players, and I know my DM does this all the damn time, to the point we always joke about him sitting there scribbling in a notebook whenever we're chatting in a group messenger
@doppelgreener Yeah, D&D expects at least a little planning (particularly to keep combat balanced), but at the end of the day you're just describing imaginary stuff. Also I might plan out what NPCs are doing in the background, but I avoid having "THIS IS WHAT SHALL HAPPEN" written in stone, because players are too much of a variable factor
@ACuriousMind YES! I love it when PCs start doing my work for me and reading into things. And then I basically just hijack their ideas and roll with it. So fun.
the first is asking us to explain and re-judge the policy, but for no apparent reason -- and that's unnecessary if we're just trying to figure out whether that question should be closed or open, and if it means new precedent or evaluating the policy as making no sense, that can happen in the process of answers
@Rubiksmoose more importantly, concrete cases that are really happening tell us not just whether there is something broken or an opportunity for improvement, but what shape is necessary to properly resolve or improve things.
@NautArch right now i'm OK with on an ethical level because all our answers are "no, this doesn't work, either because the method does nothing or you've melted your dice into a blob and it's obviously been melted"
the problem with trying to melt the core of a die is the outside always gets hot first. so any melting you're doing is also happening to the outside face of the die.
And while i initially said it was a legit question - im' not so sure now. I also don't love with SSD is doing with closing it for multiple questions. We've let multiple related questions remain in questions.
It does seem very much like a question of how to modify plastics. The reason isn't as important as the question itself. I think I need to rewrite my answer.