TRPG General Chat

NautArch

3:00 PM

@goodguy5 yeah, extractions, deletions, etc. are often the purview of paid software.

goodguy5

@SirCinnamon "should", if you prefer. More as an exercise to keep problem players focused.

NautArch

Are players not currently actve in a turn paying attention? Or are their phones out, etc?

goodguy5

@NautArch Well, I had this app on my old phone, but I can't find how to redownload it. PDFMAX Pro or something

Sir Cinnamon

@goodguy5 Maybe I can try and work my players there

@NautArch Yeah we do occasionally have phone issues

I dont know if thats the entire cause of the problem though

It my be something of a symptom - "turns taking too long, i'm bored, lets check my phone"

NautArch

@SirCinnamon Unless someone is accessing their phones for emergencies and/or reference (Dndb, etc.), then I'd ask folks to put their devices down. When it's not your turn, you should be paying attention and/or figuring out what you will do on your own turn.

kviiri

3:02 PM

@SirCinnamon This is also something that might be partially caused by encounter design.

Sir Cinnamon

@NautArch Yeah i ought to start doing that. That particular problem is mostly one player

kviiri

Encounters with lots of mooks to kill have a sense of progress, but encounters with a single powerful monster or such often degenerate into a slog.

goodguy5

@SirCinnamon The first thing I think is to make sure you've spoken to them about it before.

NautArch

@SirCinnamon generally is :)

Sir Cinnamon

Step one: Tell them to plan their turns ahead of time (preferably mentally and not out loud). Encourage them to not be on their phones.

Thanks for the advice!

SPavel

3:05 PM

Yeah, single powerful monsters don't work well for several reasons:
-Action economy: Unless the monster is very strong, it dies
-Concentrated firepower: If the monster is very strong, it usually hits hard and PCs start dying
-High defenses: If the monster is strong, it typically also has a lot of health and armor, so it takes a long time to whittle him down

The ideal powerful monster has a lot of HP but is relatively easy to hit and doesn't hit that hard but can target multiple PCs

Sir Cinnamon

@SPavel This is why i find "single enemy" encounters so hard to balance - at least RAW

NautArch

@SirCinnamon Single enemies will almost always lose. The Action Economy is not in their favor. Hence mooks.

Sir Cinnamon

the CR system doesnt lend itself to that. Higher CR hits harder (often too hard, especially in the lower levels)

SPavel

@SirCinnamon There are definitely monsters that work fine, if you look for ones with AoE or multiple target attacks.

If it can threaten many PCs at once, you don't need the bulk, and can use a lower CR one with less HP and AC

Sir Cinnamon

Yeah, I guess maybe I'm using the XP encounter values too literally in those cases

SPavel

3:08 PM

For example, hydras aren't bad for this.

Just don't focus all the heads on one PC.

goodguy5

don't forget that you can throw in mooks.

SPavel

@goodguy5 Hydras can't throw mooks, they don't have arms

Sir Cinnamon

I always throw in mooks

SPavel

Giants could throw mooks, though

goodguy5

>.>

SPavel

3:09 PM

A giant throwing stones but the stones are Small Earth Elementals, roll initiative

goodguy5

Several goblins and a bugbear is much more interesting and difficult than just two bugbears

@SPavel noted, stolen, and planning

SPavel

@goodguy5 Two bugbears, but the bugbears are just three goblins in a trenchcoat

goodguy5

+1 ^

Sir Cinnamon

@SPavel And the goblins are just 3 imps in a small tenchcoat

goodguy5

I'm 100% doing that as well.

Well... maybe not the imps

Sir Cinnamon

3:10 PM

And those imps? Bug swarms in a tenchcoat

GreySage

@SirCinnamon That's a lot of trenchcoats. Where did they get them all?

goodguy5

So, let me get this straight.

SPavel

@GreySage Burlington Coat Factory

Sir Cinnamon

@GreySage High CHA Bard came through with some merch

goodguy5

We have some number of bugs filling up a trenchcoat to look like an imp.
Then, we have three "imps" in a trenchcoat to look like a goblin
Then we have three "goblins" in a trenchcoat to look like a bugbear.
Then we have two "bugbears"

So. that's 18 trenchcoats, right?

Weirdest math word problem ever

well except for all that shit about "how many bananas does Johnny have after selling 3 apples to Susie for crack", or whatever

kviiri

3:13 PM

@SPavel How about a bug and a bear in a trenchcoat.

goodguy5

@kviiri Well, there's already bugs in the "imps"

SPavel

@goodguy5 "A train is heading towards Berlin from Paris at 50 miles an hour. At the same time, an adventuring party is heading towards disaster from Waterdeep at 30 feet per round..."

goodguy5

@SPavel I had to try really hard not just just laugh out loud at my desk.

kviiri

3:30 PM

rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/118734/… So Xanathar really has rules for players getting jailed without offering any idea on how that should play out without being unfun?

Szega

@kviiri Well, we also have rules for PCs dying without ideas for making it fun...

NautArch

@kviiri I think they're just trying to simplify the experience. Jail as encounter/RP would still use the base time/cost option but could let the DM do more as with any storyline.

kviiri

@Szega Yeah, but that enjoys an unfortunate grandfather position I guess.

@NautArch It's not like they give good ideas about time management either

Sir Cinnamon

@kviiri I mean there's lots of downtime options for a party to breeze through a few days if they have nothing else to do - depending on the exact punishment

goodguy5

I'm going through and trying to make sure I don't have any/many house rules I want to implement in my 5e game.
Mainly just a minor tweak to beastmasters,
Something with critical hits (min damage of 8 on a crit d8, for example)
and Inspiration can be used after the roll.

kviiri

3:43 PM

@SirCinnamon I'm not really a fond of downtime activities as a solution either without some time tracking scheme to back that up

Time is basically free in most tables, or if not free, tracked without enough rigor to make informed choices about when to spend it and when not.

goodguy5

afk

GreySage

@kviiri I have literally never played a campaign with downtime in it. In my experience you are either actively trying to resolve the plot, or you're just not playing and you skip ahead 3 months to when something interesting happens.

SPavel

Downtime tends to be when the prepared casters go "ok time to mint gold" and the non-casters take 90 days to make 1 wooden stick

kviiri

@GreySage We only had downtime in one campaign using Deadlands:Reloaded where wounds take weeks to heal

Mike Q

@GreySage There are good ways and bad ways to implement downtime in a campaign. Sometimes the adventure needs a breather period, so the players don't get burnt out from constant challenge. But if there's too much downtime, it makes the setting seem too static, and only responsive to player actions (e.g. the evil overlord is about to invade... eventually... when the players are ready for it).

kviiri

3:54 PM

I guess I never really got the point of downtime activities

To me, downtime is best gotten over with quickly. I have to give credit to WotC including some rules regarding though, lest novice GMs assume it's their duty to fill a researcher's day in the city library with random skill checks.

Mike Q

@SPavel In some systems, the casters will spend the first X days (which they will calculate using math) to make magic woodcrafting items for the non-casters. Then the non-casters can complete their wooden stick more efficiently!

doppelgreener

@kviiri GM fixes it

SPavel

@MikeQ Downtime should be between adventures, the evil overlord should invade on his own time schedule

Mike Q

@SPavel But what if the evil overlord also needs downtime, so he/she/they can make their own wooden stick?

GreySage

@SPavel "After dealing with that nest of zombies, you all take a few weeks downtime. While you are relaxing, the evil overlord that you knew nothing about because you're all level 3 invades the kingdom and kills everyone. Everyone roll a new character."

SPavel

4:03 PM

@MikeQ The overlord has elite blacksmiths who can make sticks out of metal

kviiri

4:34 PM

A friend who owns Xanathar's checked, the jail time is one week per 25gp of attempted damages. That's a lot.

But to be fair, 200gp is enough money that any medieval person actually trying to steal something that valuable would probably be facing the chopping block.

Yuuki

The gap in average wealth between the average adventurer and literally any non-adventurer person is astounding.

To the point where every 1st-level adventurer should probably also have a title.

kviiri

Well, they did have those flavor titles in earlier editions. Not that I remember any of them

Apart from level 1 fighter being "veteran" - that's a good illustration that level 1 adventurers are, by intent, already quite a lot beyond normos.

Yuuki

4:49 PM

By "title", I meant "nobility".

Mike Q

Historically, noble status didn't necessarily come from wealth - It's more likely that an NPC would have access than a player to political power, military power, or land entitlement. And finding lots of gold in a dungeon doesn't make you a successful merchant. So a level 1 fighter with a lot of gold is just a wealthy fighter.

kviiri

Sid Meier's Pirates! gave us this jewel:

> You attained the rank of a DUTCH ADMIRAL, making you an AVERAGE member of the society.

SPavel

@kviiri The way I view level 1s is that a level 1 fighter is a grizzled veteran, your Master Sergeant or perhaps Captain if he is an officer. Meanwhile, the wizard at level 1 is a bumbling apprentice barely keeping a handle on his cantrips.

This helps with the "guy at the gym" fallacy

The guy at the gym is a level 0 peasant with 12 Strength

Mike Q

Then again, we're talking about settings with gelatinous cubes and owlbears and catperson wizards, so we can't really draw comparisons based on historical realism...

GreySage

@MikeQ Gelatinous catowl wizards!

Mike Q

4:57 PM

@SPavel What's the guy at the gym fallacy?

NautArch

@MikeQ guys go to the gym?

nitsua60

@GreySage Oh, I think you're missing out. I have a group where we've got the site- and floor-plans for our castle shared, we've got noted in there which treasures from which of our adventures are decorating which rooms, we've even got decent sketches of lots of it. Largely constructed during downtime and paid for by the mining concern we run as a hobby business.

SPavel

@MikeQ It's a common mistake related to D&D, where what is reasonable for non-magical characters is essentially defined by "what can a guy at the gym do" and what is reasonable for magical characters is thrown out of the window because it's magic.

So you have DMs houseruling penalties on fighters to make them "more realistic" and banning content like Tome of Battle because it's "not realistic"

Yuuki

@SPavel I determine what is reasonable for magic characters with "is there an app for that?".

SPavel

Meanwhile, the wizard casts end the universe out of 1st level slots

kviiri

5:01 PM

@SPavel I'm a proponent of the view that Fighters represent legendary warriors whose powers may or may not be completely natural in origin

SPavel

@kviiri This is a good view. Consider that the meekest (Ex) ability - Darkvision - picks physics up by the scruff of its neck and spanks it like a small child.

Mike Q

I don't understand this fallacy. Does it assume that each gym has a fixed level of strength, i.e. "You must be exactly this strong to be a member." ?

Yuuki

> Wizard: "I use Firebolt to build a campfire."
> DM: "Is there an app for that?"
> Wizard: "... Tinder?"
> DM: Close enough.

SPavel

@MikeQ It has nothing to do with any particular gym.

Mike Q

Ah, are you referring to the issue of trying to apply the restrictions of real life onto abstractions and game mechanics?

SPavel

5:03 PM

Consider this example: the Rogue uses Evasion when inside a locked room to dodge a fireball that engulfs the entire room. "How did he dodge that? He should have taken damage!" some people will argue, and demand the rogue explain how he did it.

Meanwhile the wizard just violated conservation of energy, but nobody asks him how, because magic, full stop.

kviiri

"'Tis simple! I wet myself at the first moment, protecting me from the worst burns!"

GreySage

@MikeQ That is only the case in Pokemon

Mike Q

@SPavel Is it not assumed that the rogue was able to duck out of the way, or was able to quickly hide behind a small rock, or something like that?

kviiri

@GreySage "You must be this strong AND have an advanced lack of understanding of the Rock-Paper-Scissors mechanic woven into the fabric of the very cosmos to be a member."

SPavel

@MikeQ See, you are trying to explain it already.

It doesn't matter what he did.

Sir Cinnamon

5:06 PM

I think it matters to the player

They want to feel badass

SPavel

@SirCinnamon They can feel badass for dodging the fireball, they don't need to justify how they did it.

Sir Cinnamon

They want "You deftly weave between the waves of fire avoiding the brunt of the flames" not "you take less dmg"

SPavel

@SirCinnamon Again, missing the point.

Mike Q

@SPavel Right, their ability to evade doesn't need a specific explanation. But the assumption is that they somehow used some (non-magical) way to avoid the effect.

Sir Cinnamon

@SPavel The game doesn't NEED roleplay at all - but it is vastly improved by it

SPavel

5:09 PM

@SirCinnamon Continuing to miss the point. Rerouting. In four hundred meters, bear left.

Mike Q

@SirCinnamon Look out for the bear!

Sir Cinnamon

@SPavel Then what is the point? Rules obviously determine what happens but flavouring that is the heart of the game

Yuuki

@SirCinnamon The point is that everyone asks how Evasion lets you dodge fireballs but no one asks how a wizard can cast Fireball in the first place.

SPavel

@SirCinnamon The point is that a character using an ability should never have to justify how the ability works.

Sir Cinnamon

@SPavel I'm agreeing - the DM has to justify it. The player can choose to if they want to describe their actions

NautArch

5:12 PM

@SPavel Or have the effects of their ability turned off because DM Fiat.

Mike Q

I'm going to side with Sir Cinnamon here. It's true that the player doesn't need to justify it, but the flavor really does help. It can feel jarring when people are trying to get invested in the narrative, and people make references to the mechanics.

Yuuki

There's no sides here. They're arguing across each other, not with each other.

Mike Q

For example, if a player tries to persuade an NPC into doing something unusual, and they roll well, it seems a bit... jarring? unnatural? if they dismiss the entire social encounter in terms of the mechanics. If the GM asks "How do you persuade the guard into letting you pass?", the answer "I rolled a 20" will seem lazy.

Yuuki

@SPavel's point is completely orthogonal to @SirCinnamon's point.

SPavel

@Yuuki yes thank you

Yuuki

5:14 PM

Or vice-versa, I guess.

Sir Cinnamon

I'm not arguing @SPavel's main point, but I am arguing the "It doesn't matter what the rogue did to dodge"

It matters to the players and it matters to the story

SPavel

@SirCinnamon You are confusing "it doesn't matter what the rogue did" and "it doesn't matter how the rogue dodged"

WHAT matters to the story and the world. HOW doesn't.

Sir Cinnamon

It does not matter to the rules - the rogue takes less damage, full stop

@SPavel I absolutely disagree

SPavel

Just as it doesn't matter HOW the wizard turned bat poop and hand waving into flesh-consuming flame

Sir Cinnamon

If the players were fighting a rogue and he evades the damage and they shout "How?!" i'm going to describe what actions he took, not "the rules say so"

kviiri

5:17 PM

@MikeQ Wouldn't seem lazy to me. I generally don't expect my players to be quick of wit just because they play a character who is

SPavel

@SirCinnamon What actions he took are WHAT he did. Not HOW.

Yuuki

@SirCinnamon What if the players get hit by a fireball and shout "how?!"

kviiri

Likewise, I don't consider it lazy that I don't get smitten by an actual sword when GM'ing a fight scene. Quite the contrary, the lack of bodily injury is a welcome part of the hobby for me!

NautArch

@SirCinnamon Right, but if they have a pretty awful description, then it still happens.

SPavel

Let's say my character is Super Mario. He has the power to double-jump - push off thin air as though it were flat ground? How does he do that? Doesn't matter. Double jump is his ability.

Sir Cinnamon

5:18 PM

@SPavel The actions he took are HOW he dodged

SPavel

@SirCinnamon Wrong.

Sir Cinnamon

@SPavel Yes but saying "That is his ability" is bad storytelling

SPavel

What does my car do? It runs. How does my car run? Complicated stuff with internal combustion engines.

Unless your story is the hardest hard sci-fi, the how is not important.

NautArch

The mechanic "just happens". How someone describes it is the 'fluff'. It's nice to have fluff and it makes it more interesting/engaging - but it's not a requirement for the mechanics.

Yuuki

@SirCinnamon Then "the wizard cast Fireball" is bad storytelling is what they're saying.

SPavel

5:19 PM

If you think it is important, you are confusing how with what.

Sir Cinnamon

@SPavel Unless the players enjoy the description and the detail

Mike Q

Well, to turn this around @SirCinnamon - What happens / should happen if the rogue doesn't provide any narrative detail when they successfully evade?

Sir Cinnamon

@Yuuki The wizard taps into the weave of magic and using his magic rod conjures a massive ball of flame

SPavel

@SirCinnamon Not an argument. If the players enjoy something, they will do it.

Sir Cinnamon

@MikeQ The DM provides it

GreySage

5:20 PM

@kviiri As a person who is uncomfortable with seducing random guards and who plays a sorcerer, I thank you

NautArch

Just like a player doesn't actually have to make a persuasive speech to use Persuasion. We're roleplaying here. The dice do their work, and then we try narrate the effects. But it's also possible that someone wants to narrate it and do it - and a DM may give inspiration/advantage, etc. for their explanation and roleplaying effort.

Yuuki

@SirCinnamon How does he tap in the weave of magic? What empowers his magic rod to conjure a massive ball of flame?

What is "the weave of magic"?

SPavel

@GreySage Playing a charismatic character is the best time to practice seducing random guards.

Sir Cinnamon

@Yuuki Suspension of disbelief

SPavel

"You, me, bunga bunga." rolls 35

Yuuki

5:21 PM

The point is that whenever there is a nonmagical ability, there's a tendency to try to enforce real-world physics on it.

SPavel

Would you look at that, me and he bunga bunga.

Yuuki

@SirCinnamon Then the rogue's Evasion functions off the same suspension of disbelief.

NautArch

@SirCinnamon Exactly. But that works for other abilities (like uncanny dodge, etc.) as well.

Sir Cinnamon

Just because magic exists nothing should be justified ever? No storytelling effort should be made because there is magic therefore i guess magic did everything?

Mike Q

@Yuuki Maybe, but again, that's up to the players' expectations of the narrative. If the rules say it happens, then it happens, even if it happens without an interesting description.

GreySage

5:22 PM

@SPavel Sounds good to me.

SPavel

@SirCinnamon That is a preposterous exaggeration of what is being said.

@GreySage Of course it does, I got a 35

Sir Cinnamon

@SPavel You're saying why its pointless to describe how anything happens because magic isnt real so non-real things happen so why even pretend anything happening could possibly be real

SPavel

@SirCinnamon That's not even close to what I'm saying.

GreySage

@SPavel Now I'm imagining pickup lines where someone just references their +10 to persuasion or something

Yuuki

@SirCinnamon Just because you might not have ever encountered this, there do exist occasions where a DM has said "Evasion? You're in an enclosed room and the Fireball engulfs it, there's nowhere for you dodge, you can't Evade."

SPavel

5:24 PM

@GreySage hey baby, I have a 10... modifier to charisma.

Mike Q

@GreySage Perhaps a tinder profile that's just a character sheet?

Sir Cinnamon

@Yuuki Then that DM is wrong - I'm not at all arguing that

goodguy5

@SPavel I've read about wizards casting Conjure Object, selling said object, and then skipping town.

Yuuki

@SirCinnamon That's my point. You guys are not even talking about the same thing.

NautArch

Let's take a step back everyone. I think we're all mostly talking past each other.

kviiri

5:25 PM

@Yuuki I agree in principle, but there's also GMs who say stuff like "Cast fireball? UNDERWATER? Hahahaha enjoy your wasted spell slot".

SPavel

@kviiri Actually that's in the rules, it becomes a steam ball

Same damage and everything, only steamier (so it gives a bonus on the seduction check from earlier)

goodguy5

@SPavel I remember seeing that, but I don't recall what the book did.

kviiri

@SPavel Not in 5e, in 5e you still get fire (but the target, if immersed, has automatical fire resistance).

Yuuki

@SPavel Is it super-effective against valves and their production capabilities?

SPavel

@Yuuki Of course it's super-effective against Valve, it's a 3rd level spell

Mike Q

5:26 PM

@SPavel And as we all know, Valve is weak to anything with a 3 in it

goodguy5

Also, I'd 100% be willing to work with a player to change spell mechanics based on things like water. If anyone knows what a pistol shrimp is, fireball underwater? You create a thermobaric explosion that immediately collapses on itself, allowing you to send a shockwave forward.

Yuuki

@MikeQ At this point, I want them to release a Half-Life 4 and have a completely noticeable gap in the story.

And everyone just has to imagine a Half-Life 3 that bridges the gap.

Mike Q

@Yuuki The plot of HL4 is that the Combine stole all copies of HL3, and now Gordon Freeman has to get them back

SPavel

@Yuuki valve is no longer a video game company, it's a platform company

Yuuki

It’s no longer a video game company. With the availability of movies on Steam, it is now a video/game company.

Mike Q

5:31 PM

Anyway, I still think that asking players to give some form of narrative description is beneficial. Imagine a James Bond movie where he's put in a trap, about to die, then cut to the next scene and Bond is doing something else. Yes, we assume that he escaped somehow, but the narrative suffers a bit if the only explanation given is "Well he's James Bond, he always escapes."

NautArch

@MikeQ Agreed. Narrative makes it fun and engages the players and the table into the scene. It should be to help bring it together, but should not be a requirement of making something work.

Mike Q

@NautArch Right. Nobody here is arguing that.

Sir Cinnamon

@MikeQ @NautArch Exactly - If anything the reverse - Narrative is required by the fact that it works

NautArch

@MikeQ Just stating the obvious :) It's what I do.

Sir Cinnamon

It worked, the rogue did it because the rules say so. narratively, describe how he did it.

Mike Q

5:34 PM

And if the rogue's player doesn't explain, then someone else (presumably the DM) should provide that detail.

NautArch

My timing, however, is usually not good. Sort of like suggesting to my wife that she wear slippers after she slips down the stairs.

Sir Cinnamon

@NautArch Fall damage?

Yuuki

@NautArch Wouldn’t slippers make her slip down the stairs though?

They’re for slipping after all.

NautArch

@SirCinnamon Thankfully it was less than 10'. No damage.

@Yuuki hehe.

*was not something my wife said after I made that suggestion.

Transcript for