TRPG General Chat

1:08 AM

1

Q: What caster level do you need to craft a Ring of Protection +5?

I had always assumed that there was a similar requirement to creating higher tiers of rings of protection (and magic items in general), just like you need to be at least three times the enhancement bonus in caster level for magic weapon- and armor enhancement. However, a player pointed out that t...

KorvinStarmast

2:29 AM

@Shalvenay hey, just dropped in, hope all is well at your end of the multiverse. Madness takes its toll 'round here at the moment.

Shalvenay

@KorvinStarmast clouds should start lifting here in the near future, so that's good

Adeptus

3:48 AM

@BESW the video you linked the other day about coloured light affecting how we see things, led me to one about CED (the first videodisc system), that I'd never heard of before!

BESW

4:08 AM

He’s got some very interesting videos on a variety of subjects! The technical explanations are sometimes a bit clumsy but he’s getting a lot better at that part.

A. B.

4:25 AM

If there's anyone here who knows GURPS, can somebody explain to me how techniques are supposed to work? I've read the section about them in the rulebook repeatedly and I still don't understand it.

Hot RPG Questions

4:55 AM

6

Q: Sneak attack when an ally has been swallowed?

Our delightful barbarian decided to get swallowed by a Behir, Our scout rogue decided to stick an arrow in the unfortunate beast and claimed sneak attack as the barbarian was restrained but not incapacitated and technically inside the behir's stomach is within 5 feet of it. Our DM said no chance ...

dnd-5e monsters rogue sneak-attack

Adeptus

5:49 AM

@A.B. forums.giantitp.com/…

Carcer

8:11 AM

@KorvinStarmast I have a soft spot for it because the Baldur's Gate games were my personal introduction to D&D but I'm certainly not going to pretend it's the platonic ideal of campaign settings

vicky_molokh- unsilence Monica

In simplified terms:
- A Technique usually mitigates a penalty to some specific action, removing one level of penalty per level of technique bought.
- Average techniques cost a flat [1/level]. Hard Techniques cost [2] for the first level and [1] per each subsequent level.
- Many Techniques are or need to be tied to specific skill, but some are not. Some Techniques not only allow mitigating penalties, but allow getting a net bonus to an action (relative to the skill level) - such as Arm Lock which starts at Skill+0 and can increase up to Skill+4 (i.e. you can buy four levels of it).

A. B.

8:56 AM

@vicky_molokh-unsilenceMonica Thanks very much! That actually makes sense!

Unrelated question. Has anyone ever heard the expression "hurting wrong fun" before? Not "badwrongfun", "hurting wrong fun". I had never seen it before until the last few days or so, and now I'm seeing it all over the place, even in old threads.

Which is understandably starting to give me the creeps.

vicky_molokh- unsilence Monica

@A.B. Heard no, read yeah but rarely. Usually in context like 'Oh no, you used GURPS as a narrativist system, that hurts me even though I am not even playing with you' (not an actual quote, but the general example of what it was like).

BESW

PanzerLion wrote a twitter thread about how his contribution to WotC's "Candlekeep Mysteries" was edited without his input. Update and more details here. Matt Hayles wrote on twitter about how the official WotC D&D account responded.

"Physical Game Jams," a carrd maintained by MV.

Sister Escape - A Blades in the Dark Score by KTPie. A Blades in the Dark score about "rescuing" a girl from a convent to be reunited with her lover

MatzoJam Passover Jam hosted by manishtana. Welcome to the table! This is a Jam about celebrating Passover as a community.

Origin Story by Meghan Cross. A (Not So) Wretched and Alone game about the rise of a superhero

Upcoming Kickstarter: Goblin Country by Biscuit Fund Games. An GM-less RPG zine about goblins going on adventures, and the trouble that follows.

A. B.

9:16 AM

hmm, thanks. That makes a kind of sense. (Otherwise it seemed to be a contradiction in terms, if it's fun, it's not hurting anyone).

BESW

@A.B. What some consider fun, may be harmful to others.

A. B.

Doesn't account for why I'm suddenly seeing it everywhere, maybe it's just a case of once you're looking for red cars you see them everywhere. But at least I know what it's supposed to mean now!

BESW

(It's not a term I'm familiar with, so I don't know what it's supposed to invoke. But absolutely I can think off the top of my head of multiple instances of "but it's just a game we're having fun" being used as an attempt to silence people who are speaking out about actual harm.)

A. B.

I think in this case (putting vicky_molokh's comment together with the contexts) it's more a case of similar to "badwrongfun" - doesn't hurt anyone but the feelings of onlookers who don't think that's how you should play it.

Game snobbery.

You'd need to think of a different name to refer to the thing you're talking about there!

vicky_molokh- unsilence Monica

@A.B. I think it can be much wider than mere snobbery.

Or at least, non-snobbery examples seem to be sufficiently connected to at least touch the phrasing.

AncientSwordRage

10:36 AM

> Back in the mists of time (i.e. the very late 90s or the very early 00s), somebody on the Pyramid message boards made a post to the effect that if everybody's having fun then you're not playing the game "wrong" and nobody who's not part of your game has any reason to tell you otherwise -- you're not doing them any harm by playing the game differently than they would.

> In response, another poster (I want to say it was Chad Underkoffler, but it might have been somebody else) posted a mock-argument against this idea. Something along the lines of "No! Your wrong fun hurts me. You must be some kind of crazy, bad person with your hurting wrong fun."

> This was widely regarded as hilarious and for a while "hurting wrong fun" was used pretty much the same way rpg.net now uses "BadWrongFun" -- to mock the overly serious "one true way"-ism that can creep into gaming discussions. There was a lot of overlap in posters between Pyramid and rpg.net in those days, so I always figured that "BadWrongFun" was a memetic mutation of "hurting wrong fun." But for all I know it could be parallel evolution.

forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/what-is-badwrongfun.535974/…

(Emphasis mine)

BESW

10:48 AM

....I think that if more TRPG consumers understood the nature of work-for-hire writing and how especially companies like WotC treat edits, there'd be a lot less tendency to do word-by-word readings of their game texts.

AncientSwordRage

@BESW thats one important change

I saw non-rpg publishers saying "Aww hell naw!" about what happened, and other RPG writers saying "Yup, thats about right for what I expected from the industry"

BESW

When somebody writes an adventure for a D&D book, they're doing work-for-hire. Legally this means that the company, not the author, has total ownership of the text. Practically speaking, this means that any vision you've ever had of writers getting notes from editors and making revisions? doesn't happen. it's not a thing. The company's in-house editors make any and all changes they see fit and publish it. The author doesn't even see the changes unless they buy a copy of the book.

Editors making notes for writers to make changes based on is part of a completely different industry model, in places that publish short stories and novels, where the author retains ownership of the text. In that world, the publisher is providing editing as a service to the author and renting the right to publish the author's text in specific ways.

So any notion that a particular author's vision is being expressed, or that creative control is being exercised, is an illusion. It only applies to people in positions of authority in the editing and development rooms.

Even setting aside the truly disgusting details about what happened to PanzerLion's Candlekeep content, and how WotC tried to pit different POC against each other in a clout contest to avoid taking responsibility, this is an opportunity for more casual consumers to realize how silly it is to interpret intent via line-for-line literalism.

AncientSwordRage

@BESW Maybe that could change a smidge

BESW

That would be nice.

Some small press publishers operate differently, to a greater or lesser extent.

Carcer

incidentally I did learn recently that copyright law in most european countries forbids the waiver of an author's moral rights to a work

BESW

11:00 AM

But it exposes them to more legal liabilities and practical complications, to have the copyright spread around like that instead of consolidated in themselves.

Carcer

which includes the right to prohibit to alteration of their work in such a way as to be prejudicial to their interests or reputation

BESW

lit.se and sff.se gave me a lot of salt for approaches to text that ignore the reality of the author.

vicky_molokh- unsilence Monica

Moral rights seem pointless unless they're inalienable, so yeah.

Hot RPG Questions

7

Q: Are purchasable animals OP?

I have recently discovered that you can buy a large variety of rather strong creatures for very cheap amounts. A character that is moderately specialized in handle animal can easily get a +15 by level 3. And for the price of a +1 weapon, they can instead get a Mastodon. This monster of a creature...

pathfinder-1e balance equipment animals economy

AncientSwordRage

11:19 AM

@BESW Well that's not nice

Thomas Markov

12:07 PM

So this answer is super wrong, and was still super wrong when it was posted.

RevenantBacon

When was the sage advice compendium originally released?

Thomas Markov

2018 I think.

JC's tweets have never been considered "errata".

They have been considered official rulings, but that's not the same as an errata.

RevenantBacon

The only thing I could have potentially seen as wrong with that answer is when the compendium was slated for release.

Thomas

Thomas my friend

What do you think errata means?

Thomas Markov

"Errata" is the published document correcting errors within the texts of the sourcebooks.

JC's tweets have never been considered official corrections to the texts.

RevenantBacon

OK, fair enough. Errata is a literal document.

But that answer is still correct at time of posting

Because it says specifically that at time of writing, a rules column is slated for release in the near future.

Saying that JC is the source for official rulings and errata is and was 100% correct

Thomas Markov

12:21 PM

JC is not the source of official rulings or errata.

He was the source of official rulings.

But not errata.

KorvinStarmast

@ThomasMarkov 2015/2016 is the first year I have a version of it, not 2018.

Thomas Markov

@KorvinStarmast Ah, okay. It was the January 2019 release that made his tweets unofficial.

KorvinStarmast

@ThomasMarkov correct, they were intended as "clarifications" or "RAI" when the first SAC came out. But it wasn't until later that the official line as "his tweets" are unofficial ... which was greeted with some relief by many

And IIRC, AL has never been bound by his tweets or even the SAC, but I'd need an AL DM to clarify that for me.

Thomas Markov

we're up to 8 bountied questions

RevenantBacon

@ThomasMarkov He definitely is though. He absolutely has a significant hand in the SAC. I suppose the only thing you could really nitpick is that he isn't the source of errata, because he probably has a few people on his team that assist him

But he definitely is the largest contributor

Thomas Markov

12:26 PM

When I say "source" I mean "what medium do I consult to find official rulings"

And the answer is the SAC.

Because the SAC explicitly excludes the personal rulings of JC published anywhere besides the SAC, it means that the SAC, not JC, is the source of official errata and rulings.

RevenantBacon

Right, but JC is the one who makes the SAC

KorvinStarmast

@ThomasMarkov Yep. Tweets are useful insight, but until things get vetted a bit and published, I'd treat them with caution.

RevenantBacon

No, you guys are confused

I'm not saying that his tweets are official

KorvinStarmast

@RevenantBacon Not in the least.

Thomas Markov

@RevenantBacon There is still a meaningful distinction between saying that JC is the source and the SAC is the source.

Because the SAC explicitly excludes JC as a source in all media except itself.

KorvinStarmast

12:28 PM

@RevenantBacon Neither am I. but they were treated as 'word of dev' for a couple of years, that's for sure

RevenantBacon

@KorvinStarmast That's because, for a couple years, they were. His tweets aren't anymore, but he's still the one who produces the SAC

It's the watchamacallit principle. A is parent to B, B is parent to C, therefore, A is parent to C

Thomas Markov

And only in the context of the SAC is he a source of official rulings. Claiming that JC is the source of official rulings without explaining that it is only in the context of the SAC is obfuscatory, even if it is true.

RevenantBacon

@ThomasMarkov Just because the answer hasn't been updated with the change in stance they made upon releasing the SAC doesn't mean the answer was wrong at time of posting

Thomas Markov

The answer claimed that JC's tweets were the source of errata, which is simply false. The errata are found in a published document.

RevenantBacon

No

It claimed that JC is the source of errata and rulings

It did not state that tweets were errata

Thomas Markov

12:33 PM

It literally cited a tweet of JC and called it errata.

KorvinStarmast

@RevenantBacon which is wrong. He was the source of rulings. I edited the answer since it was wrong.

A few of his tweets did alert people to "oops, we'll fix this" before the errata came out, but that's not errata, per se

(IIRC, the grappler feat was one such case)

Thomas Markov

Either way, Carcer's answer is complete, correct, and maintained regularly.

RevenantBacon

@KorvinStarmast when? do I need to refresh?

@KorvinStarmast Also, it's strictly not wrong

JC produces SAC, SAC is the source of official errata, therefore, JC is the source of official errata

Transient Property

I think that's what it's called

KorvinStarmast

@RevenantBacon Nope, I don't think you are using the transitive property correctly

The errata is listed, but it is published separately from Sage Advice. I do not doubt that he is involved in its collation, howeve.r

RevenantBacon

how sure are you? Because I'm pretty sure that that's correct

KorvinStarmast

12:37 PM

@RevenantBacon They are in parallel, not in series.

Thomas Markov

Either way, it is still more clear to state where the official errata are, rather than say their primary author is the "source".

KorvinStarmast

Most important point to remember, SAC is not errata, it is a source of official rulings. Errata are Different Documents than the SAC.

The fact that it lists where the most recent errata is does not make SAC an errata document.

Thomas Markov

@NautArch we can probably just remove that footnote entirely.

It doesnt seem relevant at all.

NautArch

@ThomasMarkov i'm fine with it now if they are referencing sageadvice.eu. If we're linking directly to twitter, yeah, we can remove it.

Thomas Markov

All the tweets are direct links.

Also that user hasnt logged in for the last five years, so it would be highly irregular if they got upset about their answer being edited.

I would bounty Carcer's answer if I didnt have three bounties up already.

Medix2

1:28 PM

@ThomasMarkov I laughed when I saw this ten seconds ago

NautArch

@Akixkisu Mind if i Update the sageadvice.eu line?

on your recent answer to be explicit that it's an unafilliated third party?

Thomas Markov

We should make a question "What is sageadvice.eu?"

NautArch

although you really do a great job clarifying. Maybe not necessary.

@ThomasMarkov It ain't scottish.

Medix2

Is "WotC publish" correct? Isn't it "publishes"?

NautArch

@Medix2 What's the rest of the sentence?

Medix2

1:41 PM

"WotC publish errata in individual articles but compile them in the Sage Advice Compendium" and "This compendium accumulates [things] that WotC initially publish in individual articles"

Thomas Markov

It's publishes.

If the subject was "Wizards" plural, it would be publish, but "Wizards of the Coast" is a singular entity, so the subject is singular.

Medix2

It also says "his link leads to the November 2020 version and it will not update to the newest version like the Sage Advice Compendium on dndbeyond upon a new compendium release." which is just false?

Or did WotC stop making all old links lie by sending you to the most updated form?

Someone_Evil

AFAIK they just change the last link to point to the new one, which means the link for two versions ago will link to the old

Medix2

Ah, I was wrong, the 2016 articles still link to 2019 Sage Advice XD

And the 2019 links to... 2019 ???

WotC please

Akixkisu

1:54 PM

@NautArch sure

NautArch

@Akixkisu I'm not sure it's needed. YOu're really explicit :)

Akixkisu

@NautArch is that grammar edit that you did correct?

English can be so weird.

NautArch

@Akixkisu which edit? I just added the full url to the sageadvice.

Akixkisu

@NautArch wotc publish/publishes

Which seems to be correct, but to a non-native speaker that seems unituitive.

NautArch

@Akixkisu Ah, that one wasn't me...but scroll up :)

Akixkisu

2:04 PM

@NautArch It seems weird because it is a conglomerate instead of an entity except viewing from a business law perspective.

RevenantBacon

@NautArch I mean, it could be argued that while Wizards of the Coast is a single entity, it is an entity comprised of many individual wizards, and is therefore plural :p

Medix2

The same way NASA makes spaceships

Someone_Evil

@Akixkisu English distinguishes continuous present (if I remember the name of it correctly), german (nor norwegian for that matter) doesn't, which may be why it sounds odd

Remember your negatives everyone, they impact the meaning a fair bit

Medix2

English makes it more clear in that we can say "The WotC company publishes..."

Akixkisu

That seems less clear and imprecise to a degree, but it is what it is.

Someone_Evil

2:10 PM

Who or what is publishing doesn't matter here does it? It would still be "Richard publishes..."

Akixkisu

If it was Richard who publishes.

But ut is Richard et al. who publish.

Not that it matters ¯_(ツ)_/¯